Theli

The definition of free will is that you can and will actually change your mind. And I'm not talking about god converting from good to evil. Every single measilly thought or decision should be considered a change (a change from nonaction to action). Even if god's mind was made up since forever. The point when he initiate something (like the universe's creation) or he's influence on earth wich is descibed in a bible is considered an action and therefore a change from nonaction to action. And the only way he can be eternal is if he's completely unchangable, and incapable of acting. Not a single changing of particals or energy is aloud (physical or non-physical). Therefore he's not the cause of creation, he's a part of it. And thus not "GOD".And therefore he's equal to viod in that sense. And void is lack of existance.


Alot of "and" in this text... sorry!

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Theli

"If there was a FIRST CAUSE to account for the existence of THIS UNIVERSE and this universe displays specific attributes, not the least of which is time, then we must allow that all of these attributes existed in general form prior to FIRST CAUSE whose EFFECT was to begin the process of combining them into the SPECIFICS of this UNIVERSE. Hence we have our most cogent definition of FIRST in this argument as it is attributed to this UNIVERSE"

It could also be so that the specifics of the universe is random. There might have been an (almost) infinite numbers of "big bangs" and thus an (almost) infinite numbers of universes. All with random specifications wich came to pass in their initial creation. Many of them would be incapable of hosting life, but given enough creations there's bound to be some with the specifications to host life.

"What we call FIRST CAUSE was not the ENERGY or the SOURCE but ACCESS to the ENERGY that will eventually reveal the SOURCE."

So, if I understand this correctly... the void before the universe's creation was made of unchangable positive or negative energy.
If any energy were to be added or applied to trigger Big Bang then ofcourse it makes sense that the energy applied will be the only energy left when the universe dies.

The best answer I can come up with is random eruptions of matter and antimatter (with a total energy of zero) to be triggered constantly in the multiverse. All with random specifics. And when a universe dies, the negative and the positive energy cancel each other out. And the product as well as the sourse of a universe is nothing... void...

But of course then there's this neverending question... what triggered the first change?

Albert Cipriani

You Disappoint Me Code Mason,
An argument consists of, well, arguing. That is, deducing or inducing inferences, not simply repeating your un-argued assertions I've already addressed. How boring. So once again we have your same thought in almost the same threadbare word clothing:


If you say so. You win. I lose. If only I had repeated myself I might have had a chance with you. But since I didn't, I concede to your superior repetitive powers.

You assert:


That is not Aristotle. That is not St. Thomas. That is Code Mason asserting. All hail Code Mason! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> Never mind that eternity, by definition, is NOT TIME.

You assert that I assert when I only relay what the Catholic Church asserts:


It is eternally being brought into being. Not only is that not strange, any other formula, like your eternal maintenance, is logically impossible.

You redundantly repeat:


No He's not!

Wow, that was easy. Why didn't I think of it before? The flat contradiction. It trumps repetition any day. With this new apologetic technique under my belt, I'm gonna be able to write ten times as many posts per day. Insincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Theli

This is what I think would happen if you venture further and further back into history of the universe/multiverse and how it all came to pass.
You would probably find a single mathematic formula wich is a constant of our threedimensional reality, wich all other formulas, values or constants (such as amount of energy, the velocity of light) are all products of. And this constant would be similar to the fact that time requires events to exist.
It might be changeable if it used it's previous result when being recalculated.
Very much like a fractal.

Is there anything wich could never ever be explained through mathematic formulas?

CodeMason

Albert, I expected more of you myself. Someone as obviously intelligent as you being reduced to petty flaming, unprovoked. Tisk tisk.
Your masterful use of ad hominem notwithstanding, I fail to see any actual objection to my point.
Once again, brilliant use of ad hominem, oh, and argument from authority. You complain because I apparently asserted without argument, then you go on to do the same thing. Also note that an eternity, by actual definition, is an infinite measure of time. I'm sorry but your opinions do not change the definitions of words.
Being brought into being necessitates that there was a prior moment in which the entity in question did not exist. Someone cannot make a clay pot, then decide to make that pot again! Continuous creation is self-contradictory.
And you accuse me of making baseless assertions?
A brilliant arguing technique, as I'm sure most toddlers would agree.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: CodeMason ]</p>

Theophage

Quotes from rainbow walking are in bold:
Rw: Hi Theophage,
I’m not sure your argument makes it to the second stage. Concerning (P1) I think that (P1) is your weakest link.

I agree with that, rainbow, but I will do my best to defend it.

(P1) assumes that the cause must reflect the attributes of the effect (the universe), especially in relation to time.

Here we disagree. I never said nor implied anything about causes needing to reflect attributes of the effect (how would that work anyway?), I simply said that the relationship which we call "cause and effect" is necessarily a temporal relationship. Specifically a temporal relationship where the cause must be prior to the effect. If there is no way for something to have a prior cause (as in the case of the universe) then it simply cannot have a cause, period.

If you are going to postulate a FIRST Cause then the concept of FIRST cannot allow a precedent else it loses its distinction as FIRST.

Um, rainbow I think you should read my argument again since you seem to have a completely incorrect impression of what it says. I am not postulating a first cause. Indeed the exact opposite, I am saying that the universe cannot have a cause first or otherwise.

Since the remainder of your post is based on this misconception, I will dismiss it and request that you read my original argument again; a little more closely this time.

Thank you for your interest, though...

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

rainbow walking

rw: Oops, I can see where you might have misinterpreted what I meant. Sorry Daniel. For clarity just read these postulates as though I am making the case for a FIRST CAUSE in rebuttal to your case against. I understood your position I just inadvertanly presented mine in the third person which came off sounding exactly as you interpreted. My bad.

Theophage

Quoted material from Datheron is in bold:

Hey, I've made that argument before, and various variations of it. One, as a matter of fact, is still in discussion <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000026" target="_blank">here</a>...well...kinda in discussion.

Cool, I'll check it out.

Anyway, the crux of the matter is showing what causality entails and where it is in effect.

Yes. As rainbow walking and I have already agreed (though for different reasons) P1 is definitely the weakest link in my argument. But as weakas it is, I still think that I can defend it well enough to make the argument sound.

You here outrightly deny the existence of causality outside a temporal context, whereas my argument merely throws an uncertainty into the otherwise-unchallenged-assumption that causality must exist everywhere, including outside the Universe.

That is true, and was done that way on purpose. I wanted to propose a strong argument against the existance of any creator God, and the claim I make in P1 is therefore stronger than what you have put forth. Stronger claims are, of course, harder to defend, but in this case I think it is worth it.

From my point of view, however, any argument that hinges on an unknown probability (whether causality actually exists in a realm where no observation is possible) is not an argument at all, but an appeal to ignorance.

Except that I don't consider it an argument about an unknown probability. My defense of P1 is more of an ontological defense: I say that causal relationships must be temporal in nature by defintion.

My reasoning for this is as follows:

Let us consider a case where X is said to cause Y. Also note that there are two states of Y involved: ~Y is the state where Y doesn't exist, and Y is, of course, the state of Y's existance which X brings about.

The defintion of cause and effect means that X somehow brings about Y from ~Y. In every example known, X is always temporally prior to Y. Why? (heh...) Because if X changed ~Y into Y without temporal succession, you would have ~Y and Y both true at the same time. Since this is a contradiction, cause and effect cannot be simultaneous/without temporal separation.

Now, would you still consider this an appeal to ignorance?

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

Theophage

Misunderstandings upon misunderstandings! Lets try again, shall we? I will examine your postulates below as a rebuttal to my argument.

Quoted material by rainbow walking will be in bold:

(G1)If there was a FIRST CAUSE to account for the existence of THIS UNIVERSE and this universe displays specific attributes, not the least of which is time, then we must allow that all of these attributes existed in general form prior to FIRST CAUSE whose EFFECT was to begin the process of combining them into the SPECIFICS of this UNIVERSE.

I would agree that if there was a first cause, that the first cause would contain whatever necessary to bring about the attributes of the universe. It would have to by defintion. But I would disagree with the idea that the first cause would have those universal attributes itself, which is what you seem to be saying here. If this isn't what you're saying, please ignore.

Second, you refer to those attributes as "prior to FIRST CAUSE", but this is clearly a bad choice of words. The first cause by defintion would have nothing prior to it which is exactly why it would not need a cause itself. Try wording it better next time.

(G2) In allowing a FIRST CAUSE we are declaring that all the general and specific, known and un-known attributes that comprise this universe came into existence at a specific point prior to which no such UNIVERSE, along with its general and specific, known and un-known attributes existed.

You mention of the "attributes" seem to be leading off into an irrelevant tangent. the focus here should be on the fact that there was no prior point in time when the universe, it's attributes, or your hypothetical first cause existed. There can be no prior because the phrase "before time" is meaningless. It's like "north of the North Pole".

(G3) In as much as none of the before mentioned general and specific, known and un-known attributes of this universe could have existed in the SPECIFIC combination that has resulted in this UNIVERSE prior to the FIRST CAUSE we have no rational grounds to invoke a regulation of FIRST CAUSE by any single or conglomeration of these general or specific, known or un-known ATTRIBUTES of this UNIVERSE...


I'm sorry Rainbow, but I cannot go on with this. Is there a refutation of my argument in there somewhere? I certainly don't see any.

Please try to be more concise and clear next time. I want to hear criticism of my argument, but it has to be criticism that I can make heads or tails of.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

Theophage

To Albert Cipriani, CodeMason, and Theli:

While I appreciate your presence here in this thread (especially yours, Mason), I would politely ask that you would at least adress the argument which was the reason this thread was created.

I know I'm sounding like an ass, but I posted the Anti-Cosmological Argument here to get some constructive criticism for it. I'm afraid that this thread will turn to 8 pages before I even get a worthwhile amount!

Thank you in advance...

Daniel "Theophage" Clark