I don’t understand how this could occur, but it is the only logical explanation that fits infinity.

OldEnglish on April 10, 2009 at 8:52 PM

“Occur” is operative word. Stuff cannot just occur without intelligence cause (dare I say an “Intelligent Designer”?). That’s the main problem (in my mind) about Darwian Evolution.

An expanding universe in a infinite “something” still has to have a beginning. And where did the “idea of infinity” come from? If you are refering to a spatial infinity, it, too, must have had a beginning, but then it would not be infinite.

Your comments contain the seeds of pantheism or panentheism.

As I stated earlier, the only “thing” that must exist is being. And then looking at that which has come into being (and anything with a time dimension has to have a beginning) and looking at what that Being has created (if I may be allowed that leap) one can infer certain attributes of that Being, which attributes point to the God of the Bible.

I have made a lot of jumps in my argument, so you can pick apart pieces of what I’ve said. But I assure you, the existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is logically supported.

Because the few wish to destroy what the framers had in mind with the “establishment clause” including the phrase “AND FREE EXERCISE THEROF” there WAS no seperation of church and state, only what the ACLU lawyers wish it to be, a country without Christianity. May the ACLU rot in hell.

One more thing, in the end God wins and so do the Christians!!!

Here’s some Bible errors.

MadisonConservative on April 9, 2009 at 12:35 AM

These would be laughable “contradictions” if it wasnt so sad that these are denoted as wisdom by small minds.
Too much ignorance in that posting (and that whole site) to even start dismantling it. I seek intelligent debate from those seeking guidance, not the folly of the self-righteous

Anything other than an infinite series of cycles is illogical.

That is total nonsense.

davidk on April 10, 2009 at 6:37 PM

When you’re in the mood, give yourself a headache or two (as i have done) and contemplate the idea of infinity containing one, expanding universe, all without a beginning. It will drive you nuts, and cause you to realize that a sine wave – which governs the motion of all components, applies to the universe itself.

I don’t understand how this could occur, but it is the only logical explanation that fits infinity.

CynicalOptimist on April 10, 2009 at 7:44 PM

I guess you didn’t know – Anthony Flew has become a believer in God. Or at least in the existence of God. I heard it from his own mouth.

Craig did a number on Anthony Flew too….
Flew seemed to respond in a way that he never knew what hit him….

Rock on Craig….

OldEnglish on April 10, 2009 at 9:29 AM

Indeed, there cannot be nothing. “Nothing” cannot exist.

Something must exist.

Being cannot not exist or it would not be being.

Therefore, the “something that must exist” is being.

It must be timeless, having its existence within itself.

Anything other than an infinite series of cycles is illogical.

That is total nonsense.

Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander the Great, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon; without science and learning, he shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of school, he spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a single line, he set more pens in motion, and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art, and songs of praise than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times. ~ Philip Schaff

I like Hitch. He defends what he thinks is just. I have no reason to think of him as dishonorable.

If Christianity is dead or dying I think it’s because sacred doctrine stultifies more than inspires.

If a holocaust were to bring us to our knees and we had to begin again, Hitchens drivel would be laughable to those re-builders so full of energy and hope and Wisdom.

Materialists can tell you everything about a tulip, but in the end they haven’t really explained anything. Without imagination. No interest in why. No civilization could rebuild on such arid ground.

It didn’t take the Soviets but a few years to realize that the eradication of man’s interest, love and need for the supernatural, was an impossiblity. Science will never change that. As Lewis wrote, we seek God for the same reason we seek food.

One last thought on this Good Friday, if liberty is to be preserved, people of good will will have to stand together. As Queen Elizabeth said, we shouldn’t need or want a window into another man’s thoughts.

From and older but still relevant piece, Tom Wolfe Tom Wolfe covers a thing or two:

Recently I happened to be talking to a prominent California geologist, and she told me: “When I first went into geology, we all thought that in science you create a solid layer of findings, through experiment and careful investigation, and then you add a second layer, like a second layer of bricks, all very carefully, and so on. Occasionally some adventurous scientist stacks the bricks up in towers, and these towers turn out to be insubstantial and they get torn down, and you proceed again with the careful layers. But we now realize that the very first layers aren’t even resting on solid ground. They are balanced on bubbles, on concepts that are full of air, and those bubbles are being burst today, one after the other.”

I suddenly had a picture of the entire astonishing edifice collapsing and modern man plunging headlong back into the primordial ooze. He’s floundering, sloshing about, gulping for air, frantically treading ooze, when he feels something huge and smooth swim beneath him and boost him up, like some almighty dolphin. He can’t see it, but he’s much impressed. He names it God.

davidk on April 10, 2009 at 7:25 AM

Anything other than an infinite series of cycles is illogical. There would have to have been an infinite period of nothing, prior to the universe, and that is contradictory.

If the universe can expand, it can contract. The number of cycles is immaterial.

Metaphysics is a cop-out for someone trying to understand that which is beyond us all, and, as an answer, touting the notion that there is an “other world” solution to difficult questions about cause and effect. It is usually applied when someone is trying to con others into believing that which is not real.

As for logic, I see it as cause and effect.

The theist sees the awesome complexity of the universe and

concludes nothing that awesome and complex could happen

except by design– i.e., it could not possible be an un-

caused effect.

Not so for this theist. I looked at both scientific evidence and logic.

I don’thave time to elaborate–gotta go to work.

By definition, the supernatural defies logic, because it would have to exist outside of an infinite universe.

OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 11:11 PM

Quite the contrary. “In the beginning was the logos.” The metaphysical logic was prior to the universe. (And, no, “metaphysical logic” is not an oxymoron.)

You know the universe is infinite? How do you know that?

Again infinite regress is illogical i.e., absurd.

(I further find it curious that you somehow think that logic is material.)

Jim Wrenn on April 10, 2009 at 12:50 AM

Great post, Jim W.

The logic of going beyond the beyond has given me many a headache, which is why I finally came to the conclusion that there is no beyond, but that I do not understand what is. The question of who created the creator also settled me into thinking that there is none.

Others are content to see the universe as being more than Mother Nature, and I have no proof that they are wrong, merely my own conviction. Logic, to me, says the universe is entirely natural in its existence and composition, but I must allow that others may see things differently.

OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Every “discussion” over the existence of God really boils down to two firmly held but contradictory beliefs.

The atheist looks at the heavens and the world and in its great beauty, wonder and order sees a happy yet random coincidence that brought everything into being.

The person who believes in God (and those that believe in gods) looks at the heavens and the world and in its great beauty, wonder and order sees the handiwork of a greater being (God).

These two views are entirely opposite of each other and completely ridiculous to the other person.

The best we can do at that point is to shake hands and agree to disagree.

Religious_Zealot on April 9, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Religious_Zealot on April 9, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Spot on! Agreed.

OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Comment to “OldEnglish” and “Religious_Zealot”

The problem with most atheists is their self-delusion of

being wholly logical and “scientific.” I’m a non-theist–

i.e., an atheist subscribing to an ecumenical form of

“atheism” under the acronym “NAAAAH.” What does that

mean? It stands for “Not All Atheists Are Asininely

Hubristic,” which, in the vernacular, means “Not All

Atheists Are Ass-Holes.” Thus, I’m not an “AHA” atheist

(AHA = Asininely Hubristic Atheist)

OldEnglish and Religious_Zealot apparently agree with this

statement:

“The atheist looks at the heavens and the world and in its

great beauty, wonder and order sees a happy yet random

coincidence that brought everything into being.

The person who believes in God (and those that believe in

gods) looks at the heavens and the world and in its great

beauty, wonder and order sees the handiwork of a greater

being (God).”

A problem common among atheists is that they arrogantly

think their reasoning is immune from leaps of faith. A

problem common among practitioners of particular religions

is that they embraced a particular religion (most commonly

the one taught them by their parents) without first having

asked and answered the deity/no-deity question in the

abstract. Thus, when they finally get around to asking

and answering the question, their reasoning tends to be

the same as a lawyer who’s already committed to a

particular client and thus is obliged to view all the

evidence in the light most favorable to the client.

Let’s examine what OldEnglish and Religious agree to be

generally correct descriptions of the contrasting views of

atheists and theists.

The theist sees the awesome complexity of the universe and

concludes nothing that awesome and complex could happen

except by design– i.e., it could not possible be an un-

caused effect.

The AHA atheist sees the awesome complexity of the

universe and not only accepts it as an un-caused effect

but also asserts it to be illogical and/or unscientific

and/or unintelligent to hypothesize the universe as an

effect of a greater, vastly more complex un-caused effect.

The NAAAH non-theist sees the awesome complexity of the

universe and at first wonders how such awesome complexity

could have occurred spontaneously without cause. But

then, in reasoning backward that nothing so awesome and

complex could exist without a cause (a designer) realizes

that the assertion that there must be a deity is a

conclusion swallowed by its premise since surely such

deity would have to be vastly, vastly, vastly (on to

infinity) more awesome and complex than the universe, and,

hence could not exist without there having been a “cause”

(i.e., a super-diety who created the deity). Knowing that

LOGIC would take one to infinity on what is a logically

pointless trip, the NAAAH simply says, “I don’t believe

the existence of the universe is proof of a ceator any

more than I would believe the existence of a creater to be

proof of a super-creator.”

BUT, the NAAAH non-theist also recognizes that it is

likewise illogical for an atheist to assert that the

universe is the only un-caused effect and that it could

not be the effect of an antecedent cause. Thus, no one

seriously claiming to be “logical” or “scientific” could

dogmatically assert there to be no “deity.”

What ought to be the “bottom line” for theists and non-

theists is how humans ought to relate to each other, to

themselves and to the universe. Non-theists respect

theisms most harmonious with the broadly accepted moral

codes advocated by most religions but reject those which

haven’t (or can’t) stand the test of time.

Most non-theists readily concede the great value in non-

fanatical religions. They inspire many, many people to

engage in the kinds of behaviors that are best for

ourselves, the free-choice nature of our being, and our

posterity (and avoid the kinds of behaviors least

conducive to such goals). Most non-theists recognize that

the Golden Rule is perfect as an aspirational foundation

for morality and that common-sense is all that is needed

to derive corrolaries to it (i.e., even if I were to be an

attempted murderer who would not want anyone to stop me, I

can’t common-sensibly expect non-murderers to stand idly

by because they want to treat me the way I want to be

treated rather than killing me to prevent the murder of

another.)

What’s needed between theists and non-theists is the final

sentiment on which “OldEnglish” and “Religious_Zealot”

also agreed: “The best we can do at that point is to

shake hands and agree to disagree” and neither of us engage in the arrogant presumption that the other is an idiot as long as “the other” is not a fanatic.

q2600 on April 9, 2009 at 11:31 PM

Some matter would escape to – where? If Gravity is, indeed, limitless, it would still capture it – eventually. If so, the laws of thermodynamics would remain intact.

Metaphysics is, in my opinion, a cop-out. A long-winded way of saying “I don’t know, but it must be something.” It is the art of pondering the imponderable, while avoiding the natural laws that govern the universe.

Sorry for my apparent insistence upon referring to a “person”, in regard to the supernatural. I don’t know how else to describe the subject. I fully agree that it not a person – it isn’t anything, for it cannot exist.

A vampire, for instance, would be a supernatural creature–but would exists right here on Earth.

Quite so, which is why vampires don’t exist.

brilliant stuff

OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 9:37 PM

Sorry for three consecutive posts…
Why do you insist on referring to Supreme Being as a person? While the Abrahamic traditions use personification in reference to Supreme Being–since the concept was arrived at through discussion of tribal deities–most religions don’t. The Dao certainly isn’t an “entity,” nor is Nirvana nor Brahman. Supreme Being is a metaphysical principle–the formal cause (to reference my previous post) of existence.

OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 11:11 PM

Actually, “supernatural” refers to something which operates outside the physical laws of the universe, not its boundaries. A vampire, for instance, would be a supernatural creature–but would exists right here on Earth.

Nor do I, as I mentioned at the beginning. I can see how this would put you at odds with mythology, but how does it put you at odds with “all religions?” Buddhism, for instance–how is the idea that by letting go of attachment mankind can forgo suffering supernatural?

I suppose that it boils down to the origin of the universe – I don’t think that it ever had one. Big Bangs being merely an infinite cycle.

OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 9:37 PM

How do you square that with thermodynamics? Even assuming that a “Big Crunch” would give rise to a new “Big Bang,” the Crunch couldn’t possibly account for all matter/energy every time. Some would escape at every iteration, as the system became more disordered, and eventually the cycle would end.
And that’s without even considering the question formal cause.

Are you responsible for your own existence?

davidk on April 9, 2009 at 9:40 PM

No – the natural cycle is.

Infinite cycle = infinite regress which is absurd.

davidk on April 9, 2009 at 9:43 PM

Gravity might have something to say about that. Pity that we won’t be around to find out.

Supernatural, and logic, cannot coexist, logically. By definition, the supernatural defies logic, because it would have to exist outside of an infinite universe.

I simply do not accept the idea of anything supernatural. I suppose that it boils down to the origin of the universe – I don’t think that it ever had one. Big Bangs being merely an infinite cycle.

OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 9:37 PM

The rejection of the supernatural is a presupposition based on no proof.

The acceptance of the supernatural is logically supported.

Infinite cycle = infinite regress which is absurd.

I simply am.

OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Are you responsible for your own existence?

q2600 on April 9, 2009 at 9:18 PM

“Their supreme being” was used, not to differentiate between religions, but to state that I don’t believe in such an entity, at all.

I guess that this is where I am at odds with all religions, I simply do not accept the idea of anything supernatural. I suppose that it boils down to the origin of the universe – I don’t think that it ever had one. Big Bangs being merely an infinite cycle.