37
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 61:
Line 61: + + +
Talk:Arguments for the existence of God (view source)
Revision as of 07:47, July 7, 2008
, 07:47, July 7, 2008→Aristotle: reply, reply, reply... maybe someday I'll be done
::: If I don't hear from you in the next couple of days, I'll assume you've moved on to other discussions and go back to work here. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 21:32, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
::: If I don't hear from you in the next couple of days, I'll assume you've moved on to other discussions and go back to work here. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 21:32, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
:::: "''...science says that entropy increases over time in a closed system''": Which the universe is.
:::: "''...science says that entropy increases over time in a closed system''": Which the universe is.
::::: Unless God exists. Or unless the Universe is cyclical (a proposition which is not ruled out by any current science) [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 03:47, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
:::: "''But this still does not rule out an infinite chain of events: even in a closed system, it's just the case that eventually, any events which happen will be pretty boring, since they'll just be the static almost-but-not-quite-absolute-zero distribution of matter through space''": First, an infinite chain of events sounds pretty much like a perpetual motion machine, which is one of the very things that the laws of thermodynamics ''does'' rule out. Second, we are not talking about almost-nothing events, but enormous, universe-creating events.
:::: "''But this still does not rule out an infinite chain of events: even in a closed system, it's just the case that eventually, any events which happen will be pretty boring, since they'll just be the static almost-but-not-quite-absolute-zero distribution of matter through space''": First, an infinite chain of events sounds pretty much like a perpetual motion machine, which is one of the very things that the laws of thermodynamics ''does'' rule out. Second, we are not talking about almost-nothing events, but enormous, universe-creating events.
:::::No, we are talking about events ''simpliciter''. Nothing in science anywhere rules out an infinite sequence of events. These are meant to be arguments which do not depends on the facts of observation; if they were, they would be vastly weaker in every sense. I am sure you are aware of the difficulties here. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 03:47, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
:::: "''...the Kalam formulation of the Cosmological Argument says that anything which begins to exist must have a cause. The Big Bang is an event, not an object.''": Regardless of what a particular formulation of an argument says, events need causes also.
:::: "''...the Kalam formulation of the Cosmological Argument says that anything which begins to exist must have a cause. The Big Bang is an event, not an object.''": Regardless of what a particular formulation of an argument says, events need causes also.
:::::Hmm... Really? Because according to our best science, individual atomic decay events lack causes. That is to say: Consider, say, an individual atom of U-235. There is a 50% chance that ''that very atom'' will decay within some millions of years (2.06 times 10 to the 6, if I recall correctly). When that atom decays, if its decay was not caused by neutron capture in a nuclear reactor (or other device), there is quite literally ''no reason'' whatever for its decay at that moment. This is good reason to believe that not all events have causes. If you want to expand on the classical Principle of Sufficient Reason to admit events, you are stuck with things like, "God caused Atom #147 to decay at 12:35 PM CST on 8 July 2008". If you're forced to say that God causes ''all'' events, you're a Malebranchian -- not that this is a bad thing, but it's something you'll have to deal with. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 03:47, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
:::: There is a fallacy in your argument about knowledge of the future. What your argument amounts to is the following:
:::: There is a fallacy in your argument about knowledge of the future. What your argument amounts to is the following:
::::* If any subject S '''knows''' some proposition ''p'', then ''p'' is true.
::::* If any subject S '''knows''' some proposition ''p'', then ''p'' is true.