The Void of nothing

Originally posted by twhitehead
To demonstrate the flaw in your logic:
Would you agree that everything you know of in reality has a beginning?
Do you therefore conclude that everything in reality has a beginning?
You believe that God exists.
Therefore God has a beginning and was caused.
So what caused God?

Would you agree that everything you know of in reality has a beginning?

No.

Do you therefore conclude that everything in reality has a beginning?

No.

You believe that God exists.

Yes.

Therefore God has a beginning and was caused.

No.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Would you agree that everything you know of in reality has a beginning?

No.

Do you therefore conclude that everything in reality has a beginning?

No.

You believe that God exists.

Yes.

Therefore God has a beginning and was caused.

No.[/b]

So now by your logic you have to give me an example of something without a beginning.

In fact I require two examples as "God" is not a sufficient answer.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So now by your logic you have to give me an example of something without a beginning.

In fact I require two examples as "God" is not a sufficient answer.

I asked for an example of something with a beginning which is not caused.

God by definition is the uncaused first cause of the universe.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I asked for an example of something with a beginning which is not caused.

God by definition is the uncaused first cause of the universe.

Well then I am giving the universe of an example of something with a beginning which is not caused.

But if we start to call it God it might confuse a lot of theists.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then I am giving the universe of an example of something with a beginning which is not caused.

But if we start to call it God it might confuse a lot of theists.

Well then I am giving the universe of an example of something with a beginning which is not caused.

Would you care to explain the logic behind that?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Well then I am giving the universe of an example of something with a beginning which is not caused.

Would you care to explain the logic behind that?[/b]

No logic required. You asked for an example I gave one.

The point I am making however is that you are happy with God as being the only thing in reality without a beginning or cause but are not happy with the universe having the same properties. There is no problem with this if it is a matter of belief but you cannot logically prove that the universe must have a cause unless you also accept it for God.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No logic required. You asked for an example I gave one.

The point I am making however is that you are happy with God as being the only thing in reality without a beginning or cause but are not happy with the universe having the same properties. There is no problem with this if it is a matter of belief but you cannot logically prove that the universe must have a cause unless you also accept it for God.

The obvious difference that you continue to ignore is that God has no beginning and thus logically requires no cause.

But on the other hand the universe has a beginning and thus logically requires a cause.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The obvious difference that you continue to ignore is that God has no beginning and thus logically requires no cause.

But on the other hand the universe has a beginning and thus logically requires a cause.

I have not ignored it. I have been very careful with my wording.

The requirement for a cause to everything that has a beginning in your logic was based on a claim that all things that have a beginning have a cause. You requested an example of something that violates that principle and I have provided the Universe.
If you reject the universe as a valid example then I can similarly reject God as a valid example of an entity without a beginning, which would leave you with the task of providing another example of an entity without a beginning failure to which I can use your logic to claim that everything must have a beginning and thus God cannot exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have not ignored it. I have been very careful with my wording.

The requirement for a cause to everything that has a beginning in your logic was based on a claim that all things that have a beginning have a cause. You requested an example of something that violates that principle and I have provided the Universe.
If you reject the universe as a valid ...[text shortened]... h I can use your logic to claim that everything must have a beginning and thus God cannot exist.

Sigh. Do I really have to spell it out to you?

I define God as being ETERNAL and thus having NO BEGINNING AND NO END, and thus NO CAUSE. The NO CAUSE part follows logically from the ETERNAL definition attibuted to God.

You on the other hand define the universe as HAVING A BEGINNING, but NO CAUSE. The NO CAUSE part does NOT logically follow since something with a BEGINNING is CAUSED by definition of the word.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Sigh. Do I really have to spell it out to you?

I define God as being ETERNAL and thus having NO BEGINNING AND NO END, and thus NO CAUSE. The NO CAUSE part follows logically from the ETERNAL definition attributed to God.

So God is a definition not an actual entity in this context. Fine. However as he is merely a definition he cannot be used as an example of something that is in reality.
You have still not yet defined eternal.

You on the other hand define the universe as HAVING A BEGINNING, but NO CAUSE. The NO CAUSE part does NOT logically follow since something with a BEGINNING is CAUSED by definition of the word.
Caused does not occur in the definition of the word beginning, nor is it implied. In fact, whether or not it is necessary is what we are discussing.
I never said that the no cause part was a logical result of the universe having a beginning. I merely stated it as fact. I do not need to prove it as you did not prove your example of God having no beginning. If you repeat your claim that God has no beginning by definition then you are not talking about a real entity thus it is an invalid example.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, I'm saying that time has existed as long as the universe has. The universe, and time, had a beginning.

[edit; think about it like this. Imagine measuring a piece of wood. You can measure up to the end, but not any wood beyond the end, since none exists.]

That is a poor example, since I can take a tape measure to a piece of wood that goes beyond the wood itself. I don't see time as dependent on the universe either if that is all you have as a argument either, since an inch is an inch when looking at wood or not, and a moment of time is a moment of time, if you are measuring an event or not.
Kelly

Originally posted by dj2becker
When did I say that God has a begining?

1. Everything that can be demonstrated to have beginning has a cause.
2. The universe can be demonstrated to have a begnning.

Therefore the universe has a cause.

God on the other hand by definition is eternal. Therefore God has no beginning and no end, thus God needs no cause.

Why are your arguments allowed to flaunt the laws of logic, yet when we provide a logically consistent (albeit difficult concept such as a universe springing into existence with no precursor, although this isn't a problem, since there was no time for a precursor to exist in) you reject it out of hand, using a very strange brand of logic based, as far as I can see it, solely on opinion, rather than any body of physics or knowledge?

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is a poor example, since I can take a tape measure to a piece of wood that goes beyond the wood itself. I don't see time as dependent on the universe either if that is all you have as a argument either, since an inch is an inch when looking at wood or not, and a moment of time is a moment of time, if you are measuring an event or not.
Kelly

I'm afraid there are no good examples.

In my example you can measure beyond the end of the wood, but you aren't measuring wood anymore. This is analogous to the fact that you can talk about 20 billion years ago, but it doesn't make any sense in terms of the universe. You can measure 6 inches of wood which isn't there - but it doesn't make that non-wood real.

You don't see time as dependant on the universe? Well, feel free to re-write relativity.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm afraid there are no good examples.

In my example you can measure beyond the end of the wood, but you aren't measuring wood anymore. This is analogous to the fact that you can talk about 20 billion years ago, but it doesn't make any sense in terms of the universe. You can measure 6 inches of wood which isn't there - but it doesn't make ...[text shortened]...
You don't see time as dependant on the universe? Well, feel free to re-write relativity.

To measure anything standards are required, be they moments, distance, weights or whatever. The distance of an inch will remain an inch if there is a piece of wood or not, If there is nothing to measure against does not mean that measurements would not or could not be consistent only that there is nothing there to measure. You can say that time did not exist or is dependent on the universe being real, but as soon as you start talking about a beginning there is then a before, during, and after. You without a doubt lose things like up or down, left or right since they are dependent upon a point of reference inside nothing, but an inch does not depend on a something to measure it is a distance to itself, just as a second is.

The before the universe started may not have time reference, but the reality of what was there before the universe started either had something in it, or it didn’t. If it didn’t than there is no logical reason for anything to have started, you cannot get something from nothing!
Kelly

Originally posted by knightmeister
For those of you who believe the universe came from nothing I have a few questions....

Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form. 😉