Let's Get Metaphysical Baby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Why do you find it more acceptable to not question where a god would come from than to not question where existence itself came from?

---

Because an eternal God explains where existence came from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Because an eternal God explains where existence came from.

---

But why is the idea of an eternal God more credible than an eternal existence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

But why is the idea of an eternal God more credible than an eternal existence?

---

What do you mean credible? The two ideas aren't competing. God is what exists...

So let me get this straight, you think it is easier to believe

(a) in a deity that CONVENIENTLY has been portrayed by someone that you don't know to (1) exist in an unquantifiable/unmeasurable/unperceptable form, (2) that is not constrained by the observed rules of physics, and (3) whose consciousness is not constrained by the rules of logic, and this deity performed some ACT of creation to produce all that exists

than

(b) the recognition that existence exists without the need of a creator.

And if so, please explain why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

So let me get this straight, you think it is easier to believe

(a) in a deity that CONVENIENTLY has been portrayed by someone that you don't know to (1) exist in an unquantifiable/unmeasurable/unperceptable form, (2) that is not constrained by the observed rules of physics, and (3) whose consciousness is not constrained by the rules of logic, and this deity performed some ACT of creation to produce all that exists

than

(b) the recognition that existence exists without the need of a creator.

And if so, please explain why.

---

I'm fairly certain that I've never claimed that it's "easier". It's far easier to live life with no ultimate accountability or responsibility beyond cultural and social convention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

I'm fairly certain that I've never claimed that it's "easier". It's far easier to live life with no ultimate accountability or responsibility beyond cultural and social convention.

---

I guess this means you are now abandoning the "logical" proofs of Aquinas and others? They are clearly wrong, so I guess that's not surprising.

Drumlogic, are you going to address the problems with the Aquinas proofs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

But why is the idea of an eternal God more credible than an eternal existence?

---

They would both be the same. By definition, existence starts with the Big Bang. An eternal existence doesn't make any sense without a supernatural element.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

I guess this means you are now abandoning the "logical" proofs of Aquinas and others?

---

How do you figure that? I'm in the middle of mid-terms, so I don't have time to study his reasons enough to give a good answer. However, I'm not satisfied with your dismissal of the prime-mover. Your argument that things have always been in motion isn't nearly as "solid" as many of the other things you've posted.

Regardless, I'd like to understand why you believe the "easiest" belief must be right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

How do you figure that? I'm in the middle of mid-terms, so I don't have time to study his reasons enough to give a good answer. However, I'm not satisfied with your dismissal of the prime-mover. Your argument that things have always been in motion isn't nearly as "solid" as many of the other things you've posted.

Regardless, I'd like to understand why you believe the "easiest" belief must be right.

---

Maybe I shouldn't have said "easier." I meant, which is more "believable" which I associate with which "when taking everything account, appears more probable."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

An eternal existence doesn't make any sense without a supernatural element.

---

Yes it does. I have shown how it is possible with the space-time graph (which takes into account Big Bang/gravitational singularity event and the increasing speed of expansion of space). But that is not exactly what I meant anyway - what I should have said is that "existence has always existed."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Your argument that things have always been in motion isn't nearly as "solid" as many of the other things you've posted.

---

How do you figure that? It is certainly beyond possible. And as long as "objects of existence" have existed, we know that they would exert forces on each other. Remember, gravity itself requires two objects and no outside action is needed to cause the "action" of gravity. Thus as long as two objects have existed there would be gravitational forces pulling them together.

Why do you have so much faith/confidence that Aquinas knew what he was talking about anyway (I know you are busy with midterms but your comments have suggested that you are somewhat unfamiliar with what he said)?

They could've been in motion already sounds to me about as valid as they could've been at rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

They could've been in motion already sounds to me about as valid as they could've been at rest.

---

Possibly, but I explained why it didn't matter whether they were in motion or in rest.

If in motion (there's no reason why "rest" is the ground state), then molecular collisions are expected.

If at rest, there are several fields (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc.) that could "act" on one object from another object, thus inducing motion.

I guess you're just glossing over all of that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

I guess you're just glossing over all of that...

---

Not glossing over, just acknowledging that it's only a possibility as no one was there to observe it. And, as I've said before, the forces you've pointed out have never been observed in the absence of all other motion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

They could've been in motion already sounds to me about as valid as they could've been at rest.

---

The point is that no prime mover is necessary, i.e. there is no need for a first cause. Two objects standing alone possess the ability to "cause" each other without something else needed to start the process.