"I have observed that our naturalist friends are tied into a religion of humanism"
which isn't a religion in the way christianity or deism is a relgion.
but hey, lets not tell em that...
"worshipping the earth and making a beast of themselves,"
ehm. whorshipping the earth?
oh and you ARE an animal 9tails, just like you are alive.
"as they hope to free themselves from damnation and justify self indulgence."
you went all out of your way to prove deism, and then you act as if you proved christianity...funny.
"They exhault blind motion, impulse, destruction and death."
very funny....
oh and again, like i said threads ago.
providentialism is entirely the wrong word for the cosmological argument.
and so there we have it. stale, old, long debunked crap, written in way to many words by our no1 apologetics copier 9tails.
gj, you've wasted another A4 of text which you could have saved yourself from writing by simply looking up the rebuttals to the cosmological argument online.
nps
4 Comments - 426 Views
Submitted By 9tails on 09/10/13
FreeHovind, 9tails, Creation and Evolution
The first thing that must be done in order to understand is to clear your mind of everything you think, everything you have been told, everything you have experienced and everything you think you know.
Now, look at the universe, with an open, clear mind. What do we see? Existence, simple existence. Matter, energy, life.
What is the first thing we know about the universe? It exists. That is a fair, logical deduction.
Now, we must ask 2 questions that engage the existence of the universe.
How? and Why? how does it exist? and why does it exist?
First with the how; When considering the origin of the universe, you come to 2 possible causes; Either the universe was created in / of itself (autopoiesis)
or
The universe was created by an outside source (allopoiesis)
The cause of the universe is either -Natural- or -Providential-
And the why?
If the source of the universe was Natural (created of itself, without extra-natural intercession), then the why is Accidental. Chance. Random occurrence. Unintended. Without reason or purpose or meaning.
If the source of the universe was Providential (created by an outside source, an extra-natural factor), then the why is Intentional. Meant. Purposeful. Planned.
Now that we have outlined the 2 possibilities -Naturalism- and -Providentialism- we must look at the necessary qualities of the 2 separate mechanisms that may have caused the universe into existence.
Looking first at the laws of the physical world and that of thermodynamics, we know that everything with a beginning has an ending. All things that once began, comes to an inevitable close. We therefore understand that everything in the physical realm is subject to the same principle. We then understand that everything has a cause, nothing is without a premotioned mechanism and source. Everything has a source that vindicated the existence of that subject. Everything then, has a reason, As everything has a source. Finally, everything has a drive. All matter and energy is propagated from a source and driven to conducive existence. It would be a fair and logical deduction to know that all things 1) Begin, 2) have a cause, 3)are driven to exist, and 4) End.
This is called -The principle of physical order-
Once we understand the order of the physical realm, we can apply these precepts to better understand the source of the universe. there are 4 things that we can know about the source of the universe, whether natural or providential.
1) The source had to have had the resources to create the universe (the fuel)
2) The source had to be able to create the universe (to design the functions and the laws)
3) The source had to be driven to create the universe (will or motion)
4) The source is not bound by time constraints (mechanism set before time expansion)
applying these qualities to a possible naturalistic source find;
The resources drawn for the universe would've derived from nowhere, concluding the same origin for the universe itself. Or that matter and energy are eternal bodies, granting infinite capability and capacity to the universe itself.
The laws of the universe and its cooperative functions formed from nothing. Or that functionality and laws are eternal mechanisms that infinitely operate inside the physical realm.
The drive given the universe of existential properties are vindicated from nothing. Or that the drive to exist is eternal.
The eternal mechanism for the universe would have to be both eternal and infinite, to transform and manipulate raw energy into complex intelligent life and more without boundary. To exist outside of time before and after the universe.
In conclusion with the naturalistic approach, Either the universe itself is eternal and infinite, except the universe, in it's entirety, is limited and is bound, by time and by creation. or that it has been derived from nothing. Nothing always produces nothing, presumably never more. An observable consistent, physical control.
as to say; 0 + 0 = 0 / 0 + 0 = 1 ?
applying these qualities to a providentialistic source find;
The resources drawn from the universe would've derived from somewhere extra-natural, the providential source as.
The laws and functions in the universe would've been designed to serve the operation that they perform perpetually, suggesting a sentient, likely intelligent providence.
The drive given the universe would've derived from that providence, being driven to create the universe, again suggesting sentience and intelligence.
That providential source would be, in essence, eternal, being outside the beginning and ending of the universe. That providential source as much, would be without boundary being capable of producing physical matter, energy, life, intelligent life and metaphysical constructs, like morality and natural boundaries.
In conclusion with the providential approach, Either the universe was constructed and designed by something eternal and infinite, shaping subjective progressive existence or something eternal, infinite and intelligent, shaping objective designed existence.
Though the physical world holds testament to boundaries and limitations in its construct, we can know that whether natural or providential, the source of the universe is eternal and infinite.
Now, look at the universe, with an open, clear mind. What do we see? Existence, simple existence. Matter, energy, life.
What is the first thing we know about the universe? It exists. That is a fair, logical deduction.
Now, we must ask 2 questions that engage the existence of the universe.
How? and Why? how does it exist? and why does it exist?
First with the how; When considering the origin of the universe, you come to 2 possible causes; Either the universe was created in / of itself (autopoiesis)
or
The universe was created by an outside source (allopoiesis)
The cause of the universe is either -Natural- or -Providential-
And the why?
If the source of the universe was Natural (created of itself, without extra-natural intercession), then the why is Accidental. Chance. Random occurrence. Unintended. Without reason or purpose or meaning.
If the source of the universe was Providential (created by an outside source, an extra-natural factor), then the why is Intentional. Meant. Purposeful. Planned.
Now that we have outlined the 2 possibilities -Naturalism- and -Providentialism- we must look at the necessary qualities of the 2 separate mechanisms that may have caused the universe into existence.
Looking first at the laws of the physical world and that of thermodynamics, we know that everything with a beginning has an ending. All things that once began, comes to an inevitable close. We therefore understand that everything in the physical realm is subject to the same principle. We then understand that everything has a cause, nothing is without a premotioned mechanism and source. Everything has a source that vindicated the existence of that subject. Everything then, has a reason, As everything has a source. Finally, everything has a drive. All matter and energy is propagated from a source and driven to conducive existence. It would be a fair and logical deduction to know that all things 1) Begin, 2) have a cause, 3)are driven to exist, and 4) End.
This is called -The principle of physical order-
Once we understand the order of the physical realm, we can apply these precepts to better understand the source of the universe. there are 4 things that we can know about the source of the universe, whether natural or providential.
1) The source had to have had the resources to create the universe (the fuel)
2) The source had to be able to create the universe (to design the functions and the laws)
3) The source had to be driven to create the universe (will or motion)
4) The source is not bound by time constraints (mechanism set before time expansion)
applying these qualities to a possible naturalistic source find;
The resources drawn for the universe would've derived from nowhere, concluding the same origin for the universe itself. Or that matter and energy are eternal bodies, granting infinite capability and capacity to the universe itself.
The laws of the universe and its cooperative functions formed from nothing. Or that functionality and laws are eternal mechanisms that infinitely operate inside the physical realm.
The drive given the universe of existential properties are vindicated from nothing. Or that the drive to exist is eternal.
The eternal mechanism for the universe would have to be both eternal and infinite, to transform and manipulate raw energy into complex intelligent life and more without boundary. To exist outside of time before and after the universe.
In conclusion with the naturalistic approach, Either the universe itself is eternal and infinite, except the universe, in it's entirety, is limited and is bound, by time and by creation. or that it has been derived from nothing. Nothing always produces nothing, presumably never more. An observable consistent, physical control.
as to say; 0 + 0 = 0 / 0 + 0 = 1 ?
applying these qualities to a providentialistic source find;
The resources drawn from the universe would've derived from somewhere extra-natural, the providential source as.
The laws and functions in the universe would've been designed to serve the operation that they perform perpetually, suggesting a sentient, likely intelligent providence.
The drive given the universe would've derived from that providence, being driven to create the universe, again suggesting sentience and intelligence.
That providential source would be, in essence, eternal, being outside the beginning and ending of the universe. That providential source as much, would be without boundary being capable of producing physical matter, energy, life, intelligent life and metaphysical constructs, like morality and natural boundaries.
In conclusion with the providential approach, Either the universe was constructed and designed by something eternal and infinite, shaping subjective progressive existence or something eternal, infinite and intelligent, shaping objective designed existence.
Though the physical world holds testament to boundaries and limitations in its construct, we can know that whether natural or providential, the source of the universe is eternal and infinite.
So, you see, everyone has a god. Something that is tied into eternity and infinity. I have observed that our naturalist friends are tied into a religion of humanism, worshipping the earth and making a beast of themselves, as they hope to free themselves from damnation and justify self indulgence. They exhault blind motion, impulse, destruction and death.
» Reply to CommentRe: nps
» Reply to CommentRe: nps
"The first thing that must be done in order to understand is to clear
your mind of everything you think, everything you have been told,
everything you have experienced and everything you think you know."
- Meaning throw out all knowledge you have and submit to wacky ideas? Am i right?
"Now, we must ask 2 questions that engage the existence of the universe.
How? and Why? how does it exist? and why does it exist?"
- No we don't since they are completely impossible to answer it's just 2 worthless questions in the eyes of scientists. We can never know how it started or even if it started. We just know that this and this happened if we go back far enough.
Your assumption that it is created and haven't alwasy been there makes all your arguments fallacious. Or in some sense useless to even ask. It's like asking you who created god? Same exact question, but we can test and show that there actually is a universe. Saying that everything came out of nothing is completely useless in science and wouldn't explain anything or even make sense.
The theory of big bang just explains the evidence best and tries to explain why our universe looks like it does. How that form of universe came to be.
"Looking first at the laws of the physical world and that of thermodynamics, we know that everything with a beginning has an ending."
- Funny you should say that since you haven't actually supplied what laws you are talking about and deduct your reasoning to why they support your claim. It's like saying i don't belive in god because of religion. I failed to give a good answer to why. And so did you.
"as to say; 0 + 0 = 0 / 0 + 0 = 1 ?"
- Oh math! but? why haven't you used any astrophysical calculations to prove your point? :(
"I have observed that our naturalist friends are tied into a religion of humanism, worshipping the earth and making a beast of themselves, as they hope to free themselves from damnation and justify self indulgence."
- And you failed to see the reason why we consider us humanists. Or even understand it for that matter. Or it's purpose. Come back when you do.
"They exhault blind motion, impulse, destruction and death."
- And christianity doesn't? Gods infanticide, genocide, floods killing every living thing on earth, the crusades, follow this rules or you will live with eternal agony and pain, do this do that, dont' do that etc.
"god made me kill that man!" It's all the same...
I honestly don't see the point in debunking the rest as your assumptions make the majority of the nullified.
- Meaning throw out all knowledge you have and submit to wacky ideas? Am i right?
"Now, we must ask 2 questions that engage the existence of the universe.
How? and Why? how does it exist? and why does it exist?"
- No we don't since they are completely impossible to answer it's just 2 worthless questions in the eyes of scientists. We can never know how it started or even if it started. We just know that this and this happened if we go back far enough.
Your assumption that it is created and haven't alwasy been there makes all your arguments fallacious. Or in some sense useless to even ask. It's like asking you who created god? Same exact question, but we can test and show that there actually is a universe. Saying that everything came out of nothing is completely useless in science and wouldn't explain anything or even make sense.
The theory of big bang just explains the evidence best and tries to explain why our universe looks like it does. How that form of universe came to be.
"Looking first at the laws of the physical world and that of thermodynamics, we know that everything with a beginning has an ending."
- Funny you should say that since you haven't actually supplied what laws you are talking about and deduct your reasoning to why they support your claim. It's like saying i don't belive in god because of religion. I failed to give a good answer to why. And so did you.
"as to say; 0 + 0 = 0 / 0 + 0 = 1 ?"
- Oh math! but? why haven't you used any astrophysical calculations to prove your point? :(
"I have observed that our naturalist friends are tied into a religion of humanism, worshipping the earth and making a beast of themselves, as they hope to free themselves from damnation and justify self indulgence."
- And you failed to see the reason why we consider us humanists. Or even understand it for that matter. Or it's purpose. Come back when you do.
"They exhault blind motion, impulse, destruction and death."
- And christianity doesn't? Gods infanticide, genocide, floods killing every living thing on earth, the crusades, follow this rules or you will live with eternal agony and pain, do this do that, dont' do that etc.
"god made me kill that man!" It's all the same...
I honestly don't see the point in debunking the rest as your assumptions make the majority of the nullified.
» Reply to CommentRe: nps
Now, we must ask 2 questions that engage the existence of the universe.
How? and Why? how does it exist? and why does it exist?
How? and Why? how does it exist? and why does it exist?
You've attempted this argument before, but anyway... In this context I assume that when you say "why," you are referring to the (philosophical/metaphysical) purpose or intent of the universe's existence - rather than the raw mechanics of how it came into existence?
If so, my counter-question is: why presuppose that there IS an intent/deeper purpose to the universe's existence? What evidence is there to support that position?
Looking first at the laws of the physical world and that of
thermodynamics, we know that everything with a beginning has an ending.
[...] All matter and energy is propagated from a source and driven to
conducive existence. It would be a fair and logical deduction to know
that all things 1) Begin, 2) have a cause, 3)are driven to exist, and
4) End.
This is called -The principle of physical order-
This is called -The principle of physical order-
It's also known as the Cosmological Argument or the First Cause Argument - in a nutshell, "everything was created by something, meaning that something must have created the universe, so it must have been God." The obvious problem with it comes when it's applied to God it/himself - what caused God? Follow the reasoning through to its conclusion, and you come to two choices: either something must have created God, or God must not exist (wasn't created == can't exist, after all).
The resources drawn for the universe would've derived from nowhere,
concluding the same origin for the universe itself. Or that matter and
energy are eternal bodies, granting infinite capability and capacity to
the universe itself.
Those questions have already been widely speculated-upon, there's even an entire scientific discipline called "Cosmology" which is essentially devoted to that study. Several of the ideas are detailed on this page: "Where did the Universe come from?" Admitedly, fully-understanding many of those theories/hypotheses require a much greater knowledge of quantum physics than I possess - but it's still clear that there's active research and debate among scientists on that topic.
Though the physical world holds testament to boundaries and limitations in its construct, we can know that whether natural or providential, the source of the universe is eternal and infinite.
There are several theories to the contrary, as detailed in the link above.
So, you see, everyone has a god. Something that is tied into
eternity and infinity.
A non sequitur if I've ever seen one. And a false one, I hope: I really wouldn't want to attend a church of quantum tunnelling, I'm sure the sermons would be deadly dull.
I have observed that our naturalist friends are
tied into a religion of humanism, worshipping the earth and making a
beast of themselves, as they hope to free themselves from damnation and
justify self indulgence.
This started off as a relatively-sane post, by your standards - but I see you just couldn't resist the urge to indulge in some bizarre, hyperbolic characterizations.
They exhault blind motion, impulse,
destruction and death.
And the thorazine wears off completely.
Legal: none of this site's content is copyrighted unless it specifically says otherwise.
" Why? how does it exist? and why does it exist?"
why is irrelivent in thsi matter. since you already concluded that it exists.
why also presumes a purpose given to it by a mind. which isn't the case per se.
"Matter, energy, life." life IS MATTER "First with the how; When considering the origin of the universe, you come to 2 possible causes; Either the universe was created in / of itself (autopoiesis)
or
The universe was created by an outside source (allopoiesis)
The cause of the universe is either -Natural- or -Providential-"
noo, that question is "HOW DID THE ENERGY COME TO BE?"
and not, "how does it exist?"
"how does it exist?" is answered by physics.
"And the why?"
presupposes mind to give purpose.
"then the why is Accidental. Chance. Random occurrence. Unintended. Without reason or purpose or meaning."
existance IS.
think of it this way, if it wasn't this setup, it would be another.
"Looking first at the laws of the physical world and that of thermodynamics, we know that everything with a beginning has an ending."
no, and this proves you do not know the laws of thermodynamics.
first law "ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED".
ergo, all we can reasonably assume is that the energy was already here. not that it was created.
"All things that once began, comes to an inevitable close"
nope, by the very principle of action, reaction. they will go on indefinately.
(and no, don't try ot "first cause" me, if you don't understand why that is useless, you haven't studied the the rebuttal to the cosmological arguement at all)
"We then understand that everything has a cause, nothing is without a premotioned mechanism and source."
not, when you have not space and matter to decide time that is.
"Everything has a source that vindicated the existence of that subject."
vindicated is the exact wrong word for this. you're inserting your conclusion in here.
"Everything then, has a reason,"
see
"All matter and energy is propagated from a source and driven to conducive existence. "
noo, all we can safely assume is that there was energy, the rest is speculation.
" It would be a fair and logical deduction to know that all things 1) Begin, 2) have a cause, 3)are driven to exist, and 4) End."
and that would be flawed since cause and effect will go on indefenatly, since every action causes a reaction.
way to autoflame, not know thermodynamics, not know newton, and not try to keep logical consistancy.
"This is called -The principle of physical order-"
and as demonstrate above, it's inherently flawed.
"1) The source had to have had the resources to create the universe (the fuel)"
w8...are you sayign the energy was already there? .....mmmmm.
"The source had to be able to create the universe (to design the functions and the laws)"
no, the laws are simply a statement of the observed properties. nothing more.
"The source had to be driven to create the universe (will or motion)"
noooooooo, this presupposes the entire purpose thing again.
"4) The source is not bound by time constraints (mechanism set before time expansion)"
way to do some "special pleading"
"The resources drawn for the universe would've derived from nowhere, "
or all the energy was already here.
"granting infinite capability and capacity to the universe itself."
first law.
"he laws of the universe and its cooperative functions formed from nothing. "
or they are the inherent properties of the interactions between energy
"Or that functionality and laws are eternal mechanisms that infinitely operate inside the physical realm."
not eternal. inherent. oh and the fact that they are what they are, proves nothing. they might have just aswel been somehtign else, but then we migth not have been there to observe them.
"Either the universe itself is eternal and infinite, except the universe, in it's entirety, is limited and is bound, by time and by creation."
"insertign conclusion".
"or that it has been derived from nothing."
failure to understand current scientific model.
"The resources drawn from the universe would've derived from somewhere extra-natural, the providential source as."
translation, "MAGIC".
"The laws and functions in the universe would've been designed to serve the operation that they perform perpetually, suggesting a sentient, likely intelligent providence."
arguemtn from apparent design.
aka we are here to observe them, so therefore they where created for us.
debunked by simple human psychology.
"The drive given the universe would've derived from that providence, being driven to create the universe, again suggesting sentience and intelligence."
or boredom.
"That providential source would be, in essence, eternal, being outside the beginning and ending of the universe. That providential source as much, would be without boundary being capable of producing physical matter, energy, life, intelligent life and metaphysical constructs, like morality and natural boundaries."
special pleading.
"the source of the universe is eternal and infinite."
or it's eternal and finite. like energy.
"So, you see, everyone has a god. Something that is tied into eternity and infinity."
congratulations! you've proved.....DEISM! and nothing more.
that is, IF the argument wasn't flawed from the get go.