A Challenge

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Epistemologist Yes, that's one way to look at it. There are flaws in the cosmological arguments.

That's the thing about hypotheses formed on nothing but inuition and not on preexisting data- all one needs to do is make further hypotheses and the original purpose for which the first one was even made is often null and void or self-defeating.

P.S. Thanks for pointing out the misspellings, they've been edited and corrected.

The New Year's party I went to today seems to have taken a toll on me in the form of my spelling and grammar. Oh well.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Zinkovich That's the thing about hypotheses formed on nothing but inuition and not on preexisting data- all one needs to do is make further hypotheses and the original purpose for which the first one was even made is often null and void or self-defeating.

Yes, when we're dealing with scientific hypotheses.

Quote by: Zinkovich P.S. Thanks for pointing out the misspellings, they've been edited and corrected. Seems the New Year's party I went to today seems to have taken a toll on me in the form of my spelling and grammar. Oh well.

No problem. Fortunately, I didn't get drunk.

[Paleface2500]

wow where the heck did this come from?

[Gods_Mercenary]

You can't expect us to stay completely on topic after 11 pages.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Paleface2500 wow where the heck did this come from?

Paleface, my inebriation aside- why do you think the "Prime Mover" your theory suggests would still possess omnipotence, or even have omnipotence at all? Why would we assume "he"(assuming it has a personality) can break anything more than the laws of motion in whatever form it took before the Big Bang?

[Paleface2500]

You know I’m going to go out on a limb here and be honest. I have No idea what you are talking about. I could fire off a rebuttal but I would be shooting in the dark.
I am going to have to sit down and dissect this. My vocabulary is sufficient and that's about it sufficient.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Paleface2500 You know I’m going to go out on a limb here and be honest. I have No idea what you are talking about. I could fire off a rebuttal but I would be shooting in the dark. I am going to have to sit down and dissect this. My vocabulary is sufficient and that's about it sufficient.

Alright, I'll break it down for you- your argument for God is based off the Newton's Law's confliction with the expansion after the Big Bang, am I not correct?

Well, this force suggested by the confliction, this one you say is implied as being a part with the initial expansion of the universe does not necessarily require the attributes you attach to it(.i.e. the attributes of God, such as creation or omnipotence). Also, as a force it does not necessarily require invincibility to be feasible, because it could have been a kind of force that only manifests itself in situations analogous to the Big Bang, and then cancels itself during the initial inception of cosmos such as our own(assuming there are other cosmos).

Even simpler summary: your argument for god attaches many attributes that do not necessarily need to be attaced to the construct you are hypothesizing. All it needs is to be the sort of force that creates motion/energy, but is not seperate or "higher" than it. It certainly does not require intelligence or any of the other "godlike" attributes.

Another, even MORE simplistic summary: It seems you are attaching certain attributes to your hypothesized force due to your own vested cultural interest in the topic of the creation of our universe.

[Paleface2500]

Quote by: Zinkovich Paleface, my inebriation aside- why do you think the "Prime Mover" your theory suggests would still possess omnipotence, or even have omnipotence at all? Why would we assume "he"(assuming it has a personality) can break anything more than the laws of motion in whatever form it took before the Big Bang?

At the risk of being ridiculed I am going to attempt to answer this.

I don’t pretend or mean to pretend that I know every thing there is to know about omnipotence or the universe for that matter. I just have a simple question that I like to think about from time to time.

We grow up being told that certain laws are concrete, Newton’s law, Bernoulli’s principle and the venture effect. So given this I have to ask myself “what started this chain reaction”. I believe in god so the answer for me is easy.

Yeah I can sit hear and play the what if game all day long with my self but I always come back to the same question. Humans are always trying to supply an answer to that of which they do not understand. My self being human supplied that answer, for myself. It is the only logical credible (according to my beliefs) explanation that I could come up with. Given the lack of a more credible explanation I am inclined to stick with mine.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Zinkovich Even simpler summary: your argument for god attaches many attributes that do not necessarily need to be attaced [sic] to the construct you are hypothesizing. All it needs is to be the sort of force that creates motion/energy, but is not seperate [sic] or "higher" than it. It certainly does not require intelligence or any of the other "godlike" attributes.

Here's an interesting and somewhat relevant question: Is it possible for God to be a Prime Mover according to pantheism, where He is indistinct from the universe? In other words, can God move Himself?

And as for your statement, yeah, I reiterate that the cosmological argument don't prove all the other aspects of the God I believe in.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Paleface2500 It is the only logical credible (according to my beliefs) explanation that I could come up with. Given the lack of a more credible explanation I am inclined to stick with mine.

Since you brought up credibility, what is the source of the beliefs that further defined your explanation? If it's the Bible, I think representing it as somehow "credible" in any sense but the historical one is a bit misleading.

Quote by: Epistemologist And as for your statement, yeah, I reiterate that the cosmological argument don't prove all the other aspects of the God I believe in.

I didn't know you were a theist. I take it you believe in the deistic God, as per classical deism? I used to fall in the same camp as well for a while, until I realized what little effect it had on me on the ideological level and how "God" wasn't really what my deistic beliefs were adequately describing.

[Kamehameha34]

"what set the universe in motion?" I believe the answer you’re looking for is God.

Yes! God! Along with the strenuous efforts of my legions of turtles!

[Jack]

My self being human supplied that answer, for myself. It is the only logical credible (according to my beliefs) explanation that I could come up with. Given the lack of a more credible explanation I am inclined to stick with mine.

And you know, there's nothing at all wrong with that. We are all limited by our comprehension. That's why I insist on reading so much. It expands my comprehension, it forces me to think outside my own little box. But we still cannot live by any belief that doesn't make sense to us.

[Paleface2500]

Quote by: Isherwood And you know, there's nothing at all wrong with that. We are all limited by our comprehension. That's why I insist on reading so much. It expands my comprehension, it forces me to think outside my own little box. But we still cannot live by any belief that doesn't make sense to us.

Yes and i agree with you. Go be you and believe what you believe. I debate not to win but to further my knowledge and to increase my ammunition for future debates.

[Paleface2500]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Yes! God! Along with the strenuous efforts of my legions of turtles!

Sarcasm proves nothing, only the infinitely small space your brain occupies

[Paleface2500]

[quote=Zinkovich;321775]Since you brought up credibility, what is the source of the beliefs that further defined your explanation? If it's the Bible, I think representing it as somehow "credible" in any sense but the historical one is a bit misleading.[quote]


We’re not here to debate the credibility of the bible that is a separate issue.


The source of my beliefs comes from a mixture of faith, science, life experience and good old common sense.

[Paleface2500]

Quote by: Zinkovich Since you brought up credibility, what is the source of the beliefs that further defined your explanation? If it's the Bible, I think representing it as somehow "credible" in any sense but the historical one is a bit misleading. I didn't know you were a theist. I take it you believe in the deistic God, as per classical deism? I used to fall in the same camp as well for a while, until I realized what little effect it had on me on the ideological level and how "God" wasn't really what my deistic beliefs were adequately describing.

We’re not here to debate the credibility of the bible that is a separate issue.


The source of my beliefs comes from a mixture of faith, science, life experience and good old common sense.

[Zinkovich]

The source of my beliefs comes from a mixture of faith, science, life experience and good old common sense.

Common sense, unfortunately, is culturally defined. I can give you some examples of "common sense" things that differs from culture to culture once I feel a bit more up to it, if you like.

That said, this issue of a "prime mover" is an interesting one. If it's a force that creates further force out of nothing, what if we were to discover it or learn to further control/create it with technology? What if the "God" of our universe was something we might someday learn to control? A scary thought, to be sure.

Edit: If anyone has an issue with my derailing this thread, I'll gladly stop. It just seems the previous discussion was going in circles, and I wanted to breathe some more life into this thread's discussion so I'm trying to take as many directions I see as possible.

[Paleface2500]

No by all means breath life, it is refreshing.


On a side note I think you are nit picking on culture.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Zinkovich I didn't know you were a theist. I take it you believe in the deistic God, as per classical deism? I used to fall in the same camp as well for a while, until I realized what little effect it had on me on the ideological level and how "God" wasn't really what my deistic beliefs were adequately describing.

Actually, no, I'm not a pure deist. I'm an agnostic theist (n.b in the epistemological context of the word "agnostic"). I believe in God's existence through faith alone; I don't think it can proven through evidence and proofs. I also think the same thing about God's non-existence. So, I attack quasi-proofs on both sides.

Quote by: Zinkovich Common sense, unfortunately, is culturally defined. I can give you some examples of "common sense" things that differs from culture to culture once I feel a bit more up to it, if you like.

Yeah, "common sense" depends on culture; this concept corresponds to that of intersubjectivity.

[littlebear]

Epistemologist said Actually, no, I'm not a pure deist. I'm an agnostic theist (n.b in the epistemological context of the word "agnostic"). I believe in God's existence through faith alone; I don't think it can proven through evidence and proofs. I also think the same thing about God's non-existence. So, I attack quasi-proofs on both sides.

I also don't think anyone can prove the existance or non existance of God by logic or any other means. I do think, however, many of the things we see in the universe support the notion of an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omni loving God. Would I think argument or proof as I see it can persuade someone or prove to someone what I believe about God is true? Not hardly. The theory of the prime mover is certainly not going to change the mind of an atheist, but it is interesting and often relevent to discussions. If the theory of the prime mover were to be disproven would it affect my belief in God? Not hardly. Why then do I refer to it? Because it is interesting, logically sound, and unrefutable. It makes people think and that is one of the greatest blessings of life.