It looks like a guy getting on his bicycle and delivering the package. Or in general, some form of transition period.
I'm going to ask a question to you. If an eternal condition can only cause one thing to occur, then how could an atom possibly decay? Wouldn't the condition that kept it in check, have to continue eternally and would only ever keep it in good form? Does the atom suddenly achieve the condition of decaying, when it did not have it before?
What I honestly think is happening here is a philosophical necessity on Tac's part. He's far too invested in the idea of God behind it all. As such, he must reconcile what we do know with what he believes. And I know as well as any that we can reconcile all sorts of semi-logical, reasonable, or ridiculous things based on needs outside of the strictures of logic itself.
As such, I find this somewhat fascinating, because I actually think it's a case of the mind being so conditioned to a certain approach that it literally can't fathom an explanation outside of that approach. And it might actually be happening on both sides of the argument, to shunt some of the scrutiny away from just Tac.
Obviously I'm in agreement with Kandy here, and none of Tac's arguments have swayed me and some haven't even made sense imo. But I'm at the point where I'm seeing the futility of continuing to hammer home a point that isn't going to be accepted. it's much more an anecdotal sociological observation at this point....which seems too abstract to me when I write it, but hopefully makes some sense.
....What? You really aren't making any sense here. You're saying the conditions are not eternal, because... the law of the universe doesn't make eternal things?
First, prove that.
Second, eternal things aren't created anyway. So no worries there. Eternal means no beginning and no end.
And the conditions MUST BE ETERNAL. Because time came into being at the Big Bang. So whatever caused the Big Bang MUST BE OUTSIDE OF TIME.
I never intended to sway either of you. The first thing you learn in debates is that you will rarely ever convince the other side of your stance.
That being said, I do not accept that I am forcing God into the equation. I think this is a logically sound argument for the existence of a God which has yet to be refuted. Points have been challenged, but not refuted.
But, like I said, you're right. No one is changing their religious viewpoint here and I never thought they would.
I've also become somewhat fascinated by Model-Dependent Realism recently (an offshoot of astrophysics as it applies to unified field theories), and am viewing all this through that prism. The idea that you can somehow reliably prove or even provide evidence for an incomprehensible cosmic being who is literally beyond the universe is laughable to begin with, and more so when you consider any kind of input or thought we have about the universe is approximate, at best, and based on all kinds of biological and cultural influences that are ingrained within us.
Aspects of religion are, provably so, hardwired into us for evolutionary purposes. People will believe in a creator, and human manipulations will give that creator all sorts of preposterous qualities. To pretend that you have some philosophical proof for God is spitting in the face of reason, especially when in most interpretations of God blind faith is the highest form of belief...a direct contradiction with evidence.
I'm also still quite stupified that you can't accept that A. there was nothing. Nothing in the truest sense of it. And then came something, according to physical models we have directly observed. Nothing else is needed for existence. We've directly seen this, observed it. I realize you don't accept that, but it boggles my min why you can't.
I disagree with just about everything in this post.
I do not think that blind faith is ever required for religion. indeed, the Bible even says you should be able to defend your faith.
I also deny that we cannot provide ration, logical reasons for belief in a higher power based off of observations and what we know of the universe and the way it works. Even if we cannot know EVERYTHING about said being. Furthermore, I believe this argument is a good example of just that.
Lastly, you yourself agreed that everything that begins to exist needs a cause. I fully accept that the universe came into being from nothing. But not BY nothing. There is a BIG difference there.
And the universe did have a cause, inside of time. The moment there was a "cause", there was also time, because time is a sequencing of events. Unless an event occurs, time is meaningless.
I disagree. I think you are creating distinctions that do not exist. If something is "initiated", that means time exists because an event has occured. There were no events, until an event occurs. that event defines time, so we choose to count time from there.
like i said, cause and effect make no sense "outside" of time. Time is a sequencing of events, so if there was a "Cause" event and a "effect" event, then time already exists.
KMC Community Forums
May 14th, 2011 12:00 AM
