Simple question?

Quote: FrGamble

Rather than get into another discussion

Again you miss the point of the article.

'..the Big Bang did not start with a singularity..'

No falling dominoes, no first push, no
god, no creator. The BB was just the
natural outcome of a universe that
has always been here. Evolution on
a grand scale. Hindism teaches this
has happened an infinite number of
times.

Quote: Nareed

1) you make it sound like a 5-year old with an imaginary friend.

It is more like the quality of long term friend who knows you very well and who you have been through a lot with. You know the kind of friend that you just rest in his or her presence and be at peace?

Quote:

2) Then Paul didn't have a religious experience when Jesus allegedly appeared to him, and neither did Constantine when Jesus allegedly went Pagan and promised a quid-pro-quo. Good to know.

Don't be silly. Sometimes God does communicate to us in such intense ways, it is just not that way all the time.

Quote:

That old bromide is starting to get stale, you know. What makes you think nature needs a cause? Oh, I do know. What makes you think the one true god Amun does not require a cause? I do know that too. So now we dispense with rhetorical tricks and get to the point: what proof do you have that you're right?

But I do know that as well. Shoot.

You are really asking what proof I have that material contingent things need a cause or creator?!? What proof do you require that something cannot be and not be in the same way and at the same time? What proof do you require that there are not triangles whose angles don't equal 180 degrees? What proof do you need that there are no married bachelors?

Quote:

Theology definitely does. Science and philosophy deal with real things.

So does Theology, in fact the very nature, cause, and sustainer of all real things. I am glad to hear you admit that philosophy deals with real things though because that is all we need to get you to see that philosophy can show you the necessity for a non-contingent being, a first cause, and an unmoved mover and can even give you many of the attributes reason, logic, and philosophy would require of such an being or force.

Quote: Evenbob

Again you miss the point of the article.

'..the Big Bang did not start with a singularity..'

No falling dominoes, no first push, no
god, no creator. The BB was just the
natural outcome of a universe that
has always been here. Evolution on
a grand scale. Hindism teaches this
has happened an infinite number of
times.

I'm not talking about a singularity either. I am talking about if the universe has always existed than what wound up the clock, what started the electrons moving, what knocked over the first domino - not in the sense of creating - but in the sense of causing the movement and activity we observe inside an eternal universe that has no beginning? We know that objects at rest will stay at rest until something acts upon them. What acted upon these eternally existing objects to cause them to move?

Quote: FrGamble

I am talking about if the universe has always existed than what wound up the clock, what started the electrons moving, what knocked over the first domino

Why is it you can conceive of god having no
beginning, but not the universe. Think about it.

Quote: Evenbob

Why is it you can conceive of god having no
beginning, but not the universe. Think about it.

Because God is the necessary non-contingent being. He alone has the cause and reason for His existence in Himself. If you think of God as outside of time and space you can better try to see that God is the only being that truly has no beginning. What is more, you can also see that God must be the only being that is truly eternal for anything else to exist.

Again, it might be easier to begin with thinking about the unmoved mover in your idea of an eternal universe.

Quote: FrGamble

B He alone has the cause and reason for His existence in Himself. .

And Superman gets all his powers because
he's from Krypton. You should write god
comic books, they would be about as
believable the average superhero comic.

Bro, we are not talking about a superhero. Superman needed parents, who needed parents, who needed .... I think you get the picture? In God we are talking about one who has no needs, who is the foundation from which all matter, energy, space, time, everything comes from. The necessary first cause. You need God, in more ways than one, but in the sense that we are talking here - you need God to avoid an infinite regress.

Again I recommend the easier approach to God is the one you have presented. Think in terms of motion rather than causality.

Quote: FrGamble

It is more like the quality of long term friend who knows you very well and who you have been through a lot with. You know the kind of friend that you just rest in his or her presence and be at peace?

And who is imaginary. I get it.

Quote:

Don't be silly. Sometimes God does communicate to us in such intense ways, it is just not that way all the time.

"It is what I say it is. And when it's not what I say it is, it's still what I say it is."

Quote:

You are really asking what proof I have that material contingent things need a cause or creator?!?

No, I'm asking for proof that Bigfoot and Nessie aren't behind the conspiracy to use Clinton to discredit the GOP by pushing Trump to run for president.

Quote:

What proof do you require that there are not triangles whose angles don't equal 180 degrees?

Have you drawn a triangle on a globe and measured its angles?

I positively suck at math and geometry, but I have an eye for oddities and exceptions (I wonder why), so I know this much.

Quote:

I am glad to hear you admit that philosophy deals with real things though because that is all we need to get you to see that philosophy can show you the necessity for a non-contingent being, a first cause, and an unmoved mover and can even give you many of the attributes reason, logic, and philosophy would require of such an being or force.

Philosophy does deal with real things, but it's not a substitute for science. You cannot simply revert to prescientific thinking every time you run into an unknown and simply make something up and then rationalize it.

Not to mention the many errors in which religion commonly engages while pretending to sue philosophy. For example, they marvel that the universe is so fine-tuned for life, when nothing could be further from the truth as far as we can tell. I would be willing to change my mind fi we found life everywhere. But right now I can assure you we will not. Science tells us life will likely be found in scattered, small pockets here and there.

Fine-tuned for life? Do you realize if we measure the Earth by volume with a radius extending from its center to the top of the atmosphere, that life can exist in only a small portion of that volume? Seen that way, our very green planet is mostly uninhabited.

Quote: FrGamble

Bro, we are not talking about a superhero.

But your god is your superhero. He
walks on water, pulls food out of
the air, raises the dead, including
himself. He flaunts the laws of
the universe at every turn. According
to your comic book the NT, that is.


What a joke..

Quote: FrGamble

Bro, we are not talking about a superhero.

A super hero wouldn't coast for 2,000+ years on a few recorded accomplishments.

Quote:

In God we are talking about one who has no needs, who is the foundation from which all matter, energy, space, time, everything comes from. The necessary first cause.

Do you?

The universe is as it is, not as you want it to be or as you can understand it to be. It's not even as we can explain it objectively through science. That is to say, we may never know when, if ever, we have a complete objective explanation of the universe.

Look, if you go back to the XIX century and ask scientists whether a few pounds of metal can produce more energy than several tons of coal, they'll say no. We know better, but only because we've hit against a wall more times than they did. The point is sophisticated physicists in the 1890s were incapable of imagining or suspecting things like nuclear energy.

Notions of the shape and structure of the universe have changed a great deal in the past few decades alone. Now we know part of what we don't know. We don't know what the major part of the universe is made of. We don't know what drives the universe to expand at an accelerating rate. And more.

Amidst all that, why do you think the musings of an ancient philosopher on causes has to be taken as a complete certainty, without even room for doubt? We're well past the point where an imaginative, coherent, logical and ingenious explanation that conforms to your biases, is sufficient to constitute science, much less good science. We are at the point where claims must come with the evidence to back them up.