CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is there anything that can justify god being the first cause?
Thomas Aquinas whom attempted to come up with 5 ways to prove god, this will be concerning the second way. The cosmological argument, most people know this argument as "everything needs to go back to a beginning cause, therefore god is that cause" where the typical counter-argument is "where did god come from?". However Thomas Aquinas, and other philosophers argue that because we have only observed sensible things, and our logic as to all things needing a cause has only been observed in sensible (sensible meaning to be able to touch, taste, see, hear, and smell) objects, thus this logic doesn't apply to the insensible, ergo if god is insensible, then god doesn't need a first cause. Another argument I have heard is "god exists outside of our universe where logic and reason doesn't apply to god. If you have any other "justifications" for god being a first cause (whether you agree with them or not) post it as either supporting your argument, or post it and refute it.
I see God as a potential being outside of space-time. If he is outside of space-time then he is not bound by any laws or space, or by any laws of time. He cannot have a beginning since that follows laws regarding time, and he cannot have an end since that also follows laws regarding. He can only be there eternally existing at any, and all time, and that itself is still too complex since that notion itself needs time to explain the lack of time. He also cannot end since there is nothing to cause him to decay or run out of energy since those both follow laws regarding space.
I see God as a potential being outside of space-time. If he is outside of space-time then he is not bound by any laws or space, or by any laws of time. e cannot have a beginning since that follows laws regarding time, and he cannot have an end since that also follows laws regarding. He can only be there eternally existing at any, and all time, and that itself is still too complex since that notion itself needs time to explain the lack of time. He also cannot end since there is nothing to cause him to decay or run out of energy since those both follow laws regarding space.
Under what reasoning does god have to be a being? or conscious? or intelligent? If something outside of space-time is not bound by laws, then why can't this first cause be anything? Why can't the first cause simply be the outside of space-time?
If the notion is that he is the cause of Creation and we are intelligent we can infer that only intelligence can create intelligence. So God would have to be some sort of being. Possibly beyond conception since being involves space.
If something outside of space-time is not bound by laws, then why can't this first cause be anything?
It probably could be "anything", but as far as I know only intelligence can create intelligence and below.
Why can't the first cause simply be the outside of space-time?
If the notion is that he is the cause of Creation and we are intelligent we can infer that only intelligence can create intelligence. So God would have to be some sort of being. Possibly beyond conception since being involves space. It probably could be "anything", but as far as I know only intelligence can create intelligence and below.
How do we know that applies to the outside of space-time? Even if it god is intelligent what is behind god's intelligence?
What is the outside of space-time? Describe it.
The outside of our space-time. the not being in space-time, or the being beyond space-time.
How do we know that applies to the outside of space-time? Even if it god is intelligent what is behind god's intelligence?
We can't grasp the notion of something intelligent that has always existed, just like a blind person can't grasp the idea of color. Our observations are what lead us to the conclusion as to what is and isn't possible. We also have to realize that if there is a god, its form is probably unlike anything we have ever seen. Human and animal bodies age and die, plants age and die, but God may be pure energy. Energy doesn't die.
Instead of God? Well, people have been trying to give IT a name for thousands of years. When you get to the core, most religions are saying the same thing. Even science is saying it. Everything is energy, everything is the same thing.
Yeah, the word energy already exists, why do we need to call it anything else?
Well, people have been trying to give IT a name for thousands of years.
What? energy? Well I suppose it would, energy is a hard concept for humanity, it requires technology to have a good understanding of it.
When you get to the core, most religions are saying the same thing. Even science is saying it.
If you chose to interpret it that way I suppose.
Everything is energy, everything is the same thing.
I might agree with you, but I don't think their is anything spiritual about it, I also have to disagree with your video about me being energy. I am sentience, I am my thoughts, feelings, consciousness. Energy =/= consciousness, my energy may live on forever, but my sentience will fade into non-existence. I saw your video, and it is a touchy feely video, but it's nothing more than taking something very real, and then taking some vague superstition, and making the real thing out as the vague superstition all along. It transfers our feelings about a god over to energy, but for no real reason. The same way people transfer the feelings about an afterlife over to energy, or our atoms. I don't care if my energy exists forever, that means nothing to me, my conscious thoughts will still not exist anymore as far as I can tell. If by afterlife it was meant "my energy will exist forever all along" I agree, but I suspect that isn't what an afterlife really meant all along. I already know energy can't be created nor destroy, and in a way energy is responsible for everything. I see no reason to call that god, energy isn't a being, nor intelligent.
Yeah, the word energy already exists, why do we need to call it anything else?
People don't imagine energy having intelligence.
If you chose to interpret it that way I suppose.
There is a message within religions. Their founders didn't say, "okay, I'm going to say some stuff and you interpret it however you want." Not all religions are saying that we are everything... Just most of them.
I might agree with you, but I don't think their is anything spiritual about it, I also have to disagree with your video about me being energy.
You disagree with that... Of all things? lol
Within our body are cells, within those cells are atoms, within those atoms is energy. You are energy.
I saw your video, and it is a touchy feely video, but it's nothing more than taking something very real, and then taking some vague superstition, and making the real thing out as the vague superstition all along.
If you interpreted it as touchy feel, then you must have had some sort of emotional reaction to it lol.
It is really just common sense. I didn't really share the video to see if you agree with it. I shared it to point out the obvious. You may not interpret the message as being god exists, but us being one Self shouldn't be that difficult to grasp. This isn't a new argument. Einstein came to this conclusion. Modern science is proving this.
It transfers our feelings about a god over to energy, but for no real reason. The same way people transfer the feelings about an afterlife over to energy, or our atoms.
People who have died and come back have said that they realized that God is our higher Self, and that everything is one... And that God is energy. The ancients didn't have that term. Energy was often referred to as spirit. The Great Spirit for example. Now we have science putting it in terms of energy. I don't know what you believe regarding NDE's, but it is interesting that the majority of them would come back with the same realization, especially one that has some scientific backing.
I don't care if my energy exists forever, that means nothing to me, my conscious thoughts will still not exist anymore as far as I can tell.
Isn't it interesting that consciousness, something that exists within us, is one of our greatest unsolved mysteries?
I already know energy can't be created nor destroy, and in a way energy is responsible for everything. I see no reason to call that god, energy isn't a being, nor intelligent.
Within that Big Bang, or blast of energy, was the building blocks for intelligence. Just like an oak is implied within an acorn, intelligence was implied within the Big Bang.
Because energy doesn't have intelligence, at least not that I am aware of.
There is a message within religions. Their founders didn't say, "okay, I'm going to say some stuff and you interpret it however you want." Not all religions are saying that we are everything... Just most of them.
But how do you know that religions are trying to communicate the same thing exactly? Their are a lot of things common among most religions. How do you know they are all talking about the exact same thing?
You disagree with that... Of all things? lol
Within our body are cells, within those cells are atoms, within those atoms is energy. You are energy.
I am not my body though, nor am I my cells, nor am I atoms. Atoms make me up, but I am not the atoms itself, a body is what I operate, but I am not the body, I will even say I am not necessarily the brain, more specifically I am a fucntion of the brain. If my brain were to stop functioning, then I cease to exist. I am the sentience, the consciousness, the thoughts and feelings that my brain produces.
If you interpreted it as touchy feel, then you must have had some sort of emotional reaction to it lol.
Well yeah, that was what it was tempting to do.
If you interpreted it as touchy feel, then you must have had some sort of emotional reaction to it lol.
It is really just common sense. I didn't really share the video to see if you agree with it. I shared it to point out the obvious. You may not interpret the message as being god exists, but us being one Self shouldn't be that difficult to grasp. This isn't a new argument. Einstein came to this conclusion. Modern science is proving this.
elaborate on what you mean with us being one self. Do you mean we are all one?
*People who have died and come back have said that they realized that God is our higher Self, and that everything is one... And that God is energy. The ancients didn't have that term. Energy was often referred to as spirit. The Great Spirit for example. Now we have science putting it in terms of energy. I don't know what you believe regarding NDE's, but it is interesting that the majority of them would come back with the same realization, especially one that has some scientific backing.
Not everyone whom was brought back though necessarily thinks it had anything to do with energy, I had a friend who had a similar experience, died for a few minutes from a drug overdose, he became really christian for a while, through interacting with me, he became a pagan. Now he thinks the devil is everywhere, stopped going to his MMA because he thought it was of the devil. I think it is more likely that the mind has a mini freakout right before death, and is interpreted as a spiritual experience. If a certain part of the brain shuts down, it creates really strange experiences that are interpreted by the individual as "spiritual", or being connected to a higher power. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120419091223.htm
Isn't it interesting that consciousness, something that exists within us, is one of our greatest unsolved mysteries?
Indeed, it's because we are, our consciousness, and we can only observe our own consciousness. I actually can't be 100% certain anyone around me is conscious though I can be fairly certain. If you are interested in more elaboration on that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjfaoe847qQ
Within that Big Bang, or blast of energy, was the building blocks for intelligence. Just like an oak is implied within an acorn, intelligence was implied within the Big Bang.
Are you making an argument that the big bang is in a sense intelligent, or it acts intelligently? Are you making the teleological argument here?
I need to ask you a favor. Do not go into this argument ready to dispute. Read what I have to say, then make up your mind if you disagree. I would really appreciate that.
But how do you know that religions are trying to communicate the same thing exactly?
Religion was my favorite subject in college. I've studied a lot of them.
Their are a lot of things common among most religions. How do you know they are all talking about the exact same thing?
The terms are obviously different, due to cultural differences, but the message is clear.
I am not my body though, nor am I my cells, nor am I atoms.
Yes you are. Take an acorn for example. It grows up to be an oak. They are not different, they are just the before and after of each other. From that oak, grows leaves, twigs, and more acorns. The acorns that are attached to the tree are part of the tree itself. Eventually the acorns fall off and some grow into oaks themselves. Now imagine if I were to bring out a bottle of water and pour me a cup and you a cup. Two separate cups, the same water. What is in our cups is the water that is also in the bottle. The same thing happens with the acorns that become oaks. They are still that tree from which they fell. We get the illusion of different trees. So let's apply this to humans. You are a combination of your father's sperm and your mother's egg. You are those things, you just grew. By the time you were born, you came out of your mother and then the doctor did something very much like what I explained regarding the acorn and the oak. He cut the umbilical cord that connected you to your mother. That which made you and your mom one... But you are also your father's sperm. That sperm (sorry for the sperm talk lol) grew from within him. That sperm was him... And you are it. You are your parents. They were their parents and so are you. So that keeps going on until the beginning of us being on earth. We grew from the earth. The earth grows organisms, that's how it is. We ARE the earth. But the earth had it's starting point too... The Big Bang. The ultimate seed of our creation. The acorn from which the entire universe grew... And we're it.
Well yeah, that was what it was tempting to do.
It is part of a long lecture. I gave you the summarized version. The music does add some emotion to it, but it is the message that you should be focusing on.
elaborate on what you mean with us being one self. Do you mean we are all one?
I explained up above.
If a certain part of the brain shuts down, it creates really strange experiences that are interpreted by the individual as "spiritual", or being connected to a higher power.
That is how people who haven't died explain it. They don't know. You don't know. I don't know. But many people have been significantly changed because of it. It needs to be studied more.
Religion was my favorite subject in college. I've studied a lot of them. The terms are obviously different, due to cultural differences, but the message is clear.
What is the message?
Yes you are.
In a sense, maybe. If you were to be able to take my brain out of my body, and put it into a machine, would I be in the machine, or would I be the body? The point is, I am my sentient form more than anything else, everything else is a part of me in a sense, and something I possess, but if we want to be real specific I am not. I am my body, and etc in the sense that if someone asks "who's hunter?" you are going to point at me and my body. All in all though, I am my sentience, at my core. Same with you, and everyone else. It is sort of similar to how spiritual people say we are the soul, and not the body. I actually think similar in that way, except it is not the soul, but the function of the brain. An acorn/tree is different because it isn't sentient, at least not like us. There isn't a personality to refer to. In the end I rather think it makes more sense to say I am my personality. A bit hard to articulate, perhaps, but if I die, you might still point at the body and say "that is me" but you may also say at the same time "I am gone". This is a bit self contradictory, but we all do it, we all understand, that who we truly are, at our core, is our sentience. We are two different things, depending on the sense of who I am that you are referring to. In one sense, yes your paragraph is completely correct, in another sense though, no it is not. If we were able to create an artificial consciousness, that had the capacity to feel, think, possess intentions, and live like we do, as a computer program, and we were able to transfer this computer program from different computers, we would probably think of it as the program and not the computer, and the second sense of who we are would be completely ignored because of how easily it could be transfered, or it might not at all if it had a mechanic body that it usually used. You see there are two different senses of the self, our whole physical manifestation including our consciousness, and simply our consciousness, the thing in our whole that has the capacity to make decisions, and have intentions, our sentience.
That is how people who haven't died explain it. They don't know. You don't know. I don't know. But many people have been significantly changed because of it. It needs to be studied more.
I agree, I just don't think it is enough for me anyway to conclude there is an afterlife. I don't know, I don't claim to know, I claim to know very little, and I think their definitely should be a lot of study. I just am not convinced it is evidence for an afterlife.
Christianity: "I am the light that shines over all things. I am everything. From me all came forth, and to me all return. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift a stone, and you will find me there."
Luke 17:21 "nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”
Islam: "To know God is to know his oneness."
Buddhism: "He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings,and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye."
Hinduism: "Brahman is everything, and all we see are His different energies — material or spiritual"
Taoism: "The things that have acquired unity are these:
Heaven by unity has become clear;
Earth by unity has become steady;
The Spirit by unity has become spiritual;
The Valley by unity has become full;
All things by unity have come into existence"
Sikhism: "One With Everything".
"A person experiences life as something separated from the rest -a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. Our task must be to free ourselves from this self-imposed prison, and through compassion, to find the reality of Oneness."
-Albert Einstein
"The essence of all religions is One.
Surrender is the main duty of everyone.
Surrender means the feeling of oneness,
I and God are One. Why?
The reason is that the One who is present in you is present in me."
- Sri Sathya Sai Baba
"Can anyone doubt to-day that all the millions of individuals and all the innumerable types and characters constitute an entity, a unit? Though free to think and act, we are held together, like the stars in the firmament, with ties inseparable"
-Nikola Tesla
In one sense, yes your paragraph is completely correct, in another sense though, no it is not.
You don't have to agree with me, but claiming that I am incorrect is kind of silly. I think you are looking at all of this through a very narrow lens.
Thing is, I can find another commonality amongst most religions myself, and I can declare that the message. For example, most religions also claim there is an afterlife? maybe that is the message rather? How do you know? Or maybe it is the golden rule? I'm sure most religions have that. I'm sure it is easy to make science and religion compliment each other if you try to rationalize it that way. However they don't, they contradict each other by their very nature.
You don't have to agree with me, but claiming that I am incorrect is kind of silly.
How so?
I think you are looking at all of this through a very narrow lens.
If anyone is looking through narrow lens, it is not me. If you read my paragraph you would understand that I actually agreed with you, that in a sense you are correct, and I introduce another sense of self that we have, that you don't want to acknowledge. I agree with you, everything in the universe is made of the same stuff, we are all made of atoms, electrons, neutrons, protons. I agree, however I think who I am at my core, the significance of my being that separates me from the inanimate, is my sentience. Again, when I die, and people ask where I am, people will feel inclined to point at my body, while simulataneously say "I am gone". When our sentience isn't around anymore, we consider that person to be gone, because that person IS that sentience. Yes, they were human, yes they were atoms, yes they were everything you said, I agree, but at their core, in if we are talking about who they truly are, they are their sentience, which to me is simply a function of the brain, they were their mind. Who's lens is narrower, mine? When I accept your point of view and more, or yours?
Thing is, I can find another commonality amongst most religions myself, and I can declare that the message.
You could. For example, all religions have the letter "A" in their sacred texts lol. But oneness in religion is more than just a message, it is a goal. To them, to achieve oneness is to know the secrets of the universe, so to speak. That is how Buddha reached enlightenment. That is how Jesus became a Christ (if you go off certain interpretation). This is a major part of these religions. Religious figure heads can say that not everything is connected, as modern-day Christians often interpret their texts, but that seems to be a misinterpretation. The goal was once to remove the sense of individuality, now people focus on themselves. They try to behave out of fear of hell. They are worried about themselves, even though the message was to focus on the Self. The whole that is everything.
What makes the message so much more interesting is that most modern-day followers don't even realize it is there.
For example, most religions also claim there is an afterlife? maybe that is the message rather?
Wouldn't it make more sense that the message would be regarding this life, not what comes after it? Plus, the afterlife isn't entirely agreed upon by the world's religions. Hinduism teaches reincarnation, Buddhism teaches rebirth, Christianity teaches about Heaven (although the gnostic gospels teach reincarnation).
I'm sure most religions have that. I'm sure it is easy to make science and religion compliment each other if you try to rationalize it that way.
Everything being one is a strange connection between science and religion. That is really the only thing that they can agree on.
How so?
Because we're arguing beliefs here. It's like someone saying, "I believe in God," and the other person responding, "No, you're wrong. I don't believe in God." Uhh... What?
If you read my paragraph you would understand that I actually agreed with you, that in a sense you are correct, and I introduce another sense of self that we have, that you don't want to acknowledge.
I don't need to acknowledge it. It basically fits right in with what I am saying. However, without your five senses, you would not have any experience of the world. Is your sight not because of your eyes? Your smell not because of your nose?
I agree, but at their core, in if we are talking about who they truly are, they are their sentience, which to me is simply a function of the brain, they were their mind.
To say that you are just your brain (sentience), is to say that you could exist as just your brain. Without your eyes you could not see, but you could still think. You are your experiences, that is true, but your experiences are as a result of both your body and your mind. At the core, the true you, may be your consciousness... Which would be agreeing with what I am saying, but in order to experience your current life in the way that you currently are, you need eyes, nose, ears, mouth, arms, legs... Well, your entire body actually!
Who's lens is narrower, mine? When I accept your point of view and more, or yours?
You didn't say, "I agree, and here's another thing you can add to that!". You said that I am correct, but I am also incorrect... And then you continued with your sentience argument. Someone who looks through a narrow lens would say, "I see a stem, I see some seeds, and I see the color red." Someone who sees the big picture would simply call it an "apple." That is what the phrase "looking at it through a narrow lens" means (at least to me), you are unnecessarily separating parts from the whole.
Everything being one is a strange connection between science and religion. That is really the only thing that they can agree on.
I am sure that has taken place in philosophy as well, philosophy and religion are strongly intertwined.
Because we're arguing beliefs here. It's like someone saying, "I believe in God," and the other person responding, "No, you're wrong. I don't believe in God." Uhh... What?
No it is more like "I believe in god", "why do you believe in god?" "(insert reasoning here)" "I don't find that convincing personally" you also have to understand that a lot of people's belief in god leads them astray to how they conduct themselves in reality.
o say that you are just your brain (sentience), is to say that you could exist as just your brain. Without your eyes you could not see, but you could still think. You are your experiences, that is true, but your experiences are as a result of both your body and your mind. At the core, the true you, may be your consciousness... Which would be agreeing with what I am saying, but in order to experience your current life in the way that you currently are, you need eyes, nose, ears, mouth, arms, legs... Well, your entire body actually!
I never said I was JUST my brain, I actually said I was my mind, there is a differentiation there, which is a product of my brain, and I never said I was JUST my mind either. You are right that, those other things need to be, and I don't nor did I ever deny that, however, who I am is a product of all those ingredients being put together in a specific way, I am simply that, I am the pattern of how my atoms are put together, change the pattern, and that isn't really me anymore, the pattern is gone, thus I am gone.
You didn't say, "I agree, and here's another thing you can add to that!". You said that I am correct, but I am also incorrect... And then you continued with your sentience argument. Someone who looks through a narrow lens would say, "I see a stem, I see some seeds, and I see the color red." Someone who sees the big picture would simply call it an "apple." That is what the phrase "looking at it through a narrow lens" means (at least to me), you are unnecessarily separating parts from the whole.
The point of me doing that was to point out, that again I am a pattern, a specific means to how my atoms are put together, again you take those atoms apart and put them together differently, and I am not me anymore. Thus once I die, I will be gone, forever. Everything that made me up, all my ingredients, will still exist, and everything that makes me up, all my parts are essentially different ways atoms are put together. Everything is one, everything is made out of the same stuff, but once my brain dies, me (the function of that brain) ceases to exist. All the ingredients that made me, will still exist, and go back into the universe, but I will not.
I am sure that has taken place in philosophy as well, philosophy and religion are strongly intertwined.
Yes. Philosophy, religion and science have come to an agreement.
No it is more like "I believe in god", "why do you believe in god?" "(insert reasoning here)" "I don't find that convincing personally"
That is an analogy of the argument which didn't take place, I assume. You said I was wrong. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me though.
you also have to understand that a lot of people's belief in god leads them astray to how they conduct themselves in reality.
Right, I'm not religious. But I was using the "I believe in God" analogy as an example. I didn't think you would take it literally.
I never said I was JUST my brain, I actually said I was my mind, there is a differentiation there
But you don't look at them as separate, do you? That is like saying that a wave is separate from the ocean.
"Yes, they were human, yes they were atoms, yes they were everything you said, I agree, but at their core, in if we are talking about who they truly are, they are their sentience, which to me is simply a function of the brain, they were their mind."
You can come to the conclusion that the mind is separate from the brain, which would mean that you believe that consciousness could exist outside of the brain, or you can say it is a function of the brain, which is saying that you are your brain.
The point of me doing that was to point out, that again I am a pattern, a specific means to how my atoms are put together, again you take those atoms apart and put them together differently, and I am not me anymore.
You would be different. We all share atoms, that's one of the things people learn in science. The atoms you have may have been in Caesar or whoever. Those atoms that were him, are now you. This brings us back to the water analogy. If you pour the water into separate cups, it is still the same water. If you mix it with sugar, it is still the same water... It just has sugar in it. If you were to be rearranged, added to, split, whatever... It would still be you. If you were to die, yes, your personality would be gone, at least from a materialistic perspective, but is a television that is turned off still a television? Yes (the shows continue unseen though lol). You are a body, you are a consciousness, you are everything. Without others, you would not have a sense of self... But what if that sense of self is merely just another function of one great energy/power/God? What if we are different frequencies on one great radio? Different channels on one TV. This is figuratively speaking of course, but we do know that the world consists of waves, frequencies and vibrations. Those are actually the three things that Nikola Tesla said are the keys to understanding the universe. Einstein said that everything in life is just vibration. Material is vibration slowed down enough to be perceptible to sight and touch. You can point out the different parts of the one thing that you are. Those differences are perceptible, but they are an illusion, and as Einstein said, "a very persistent one."
But you don't look at them as separate, do you? That is like saying that a wave is separate from the ocean. You can come to the conclusion that the mind is separate from the brain, which would mean that you believe that consciousness could exist outside of the brain, or you can say it is a function of the brain, which is saying that you are your brain.
yeah, that is true. I don't generally see it as separate, especially in day to day life, but in order to make a point I did point out the distinction.
You would be different. We all share atoms, that's one of the things people learn in science. The atoms you have may have been in Caesar or whoever. Those atoms that were him, are now you. This brings us back to the water analogy. If you pour the water into separate cups, it is still the same water. If you mix it with sugar, it is still the same water... It just has sugar in it. If you were to be rearranged, added to, split, whatever... It would still be you. If you were to die, yes, your personality would be gone, at least from a materialistic perspective, but is a television that is turned off still a television?
We however never say a T.V. is gone, or I guess to make the analogy work, I would be a human, and my channel would be me. Anyways you said earlier that I was separating things unnecessarily, I had just pointed out, that there was a purpose in doing so. I don't generally talk about myself as separate from my body in day-to-day life, no, I did it to point out something.
But what if that sense of self is merely just another function of one great energy/power/God? What if we are different frequencies on one great radio? Different channels on one TV. This is figuratively speaking of course, but we do know that the world consists of waves, frequencies and vibrations. Those are actually the three things that Nikola Tesla said are the keys to understanding the universe. Einstein said that everything in life is just vibration. Material is vibration slowed down enough to be perceptible to sight and touch. You can point out the different parts of the one thing that you are. Those differences are perceptible, but they are an illusion, and as Einstein said, "a very persistent one."
What if indeed... my old consumers math teacher (who had a profound effect on my ambitions) would really like you a lot. He had the exact same sort of beliefs and was a spiritualist, and tried to share his perspective in my class, at the time I thought it was pretty cool, though I kind of question a lot of things he thought nowadays, and some things he said didn't quite follow in my honest opinion. Anyways, that would be amazing indeed, and I have been introduced to that possibility.
We however never say a T.V. is gone, or I guess to make the analogy work, I would be a human, and my channel would be me.
That goes right along with my multi-frequency argument. However, when you turn the TV off, the channel is still there... It's just unseen. Maybe consciousness is the same way.
Anyways you said earlier that I was separating things unnecessarily, I had just pointed out, that there was a purpose in doing so. I don't generally talk about myself as separate from my body in day-to-day life, no, I did it to point out something.
What was the point though? That you consider your personality/conscience to be what really defines you? Well, yeah. That doesn't go against anything I am saying though.
He had the exact same sort of beliefs and was a spiritualist, and tried to share his perspective in my class
Sounds like a cool dude. This hasn't always been my perspective though. It actually became like this fairly recently. I was an agnostic leaning more towards atheism, then my entire outlook shifted in a single moment. Kind of like an epiphany, but I prefer to call it a spiritual awakening lol. Later on I discovered a few people who had the same realization that I did, and they even described it almost exactly as how I experienced it. It seems kind of whacky to outsiders, but something that can shift someone's entire outlook like that is pretty incredible, especially when a realization like that occurs when you are just walking around outside like I was.
Maybe consciousness is the same way.I would need evidence or reasoning to support that being more than a possibility.Sounds like a cool dude. This hasn't always been my perspective though. It actually became like this fairly recently. I was an agnostic leaning more towards atheism, then my entire outlook shifted in a single moment. Kind of like an epiphany, but I prefer to call it a spiritual awakening lol. Later on I discovered a few people who had the same realization that I did, and they even described it almost exactly as how I experienced it. It seems kind of whacky to outsiders, but something that can shift someone's entire outlook like that is pretty incredible, especially when a realization like that occurs when you are just walking around outside like I was.He was an awesome dude, he was a little out there for a lot of people, but without him I wouldn't have the academic ambition that I have right now. While it is a fascinating, and rather scientifically literate form of spirituality (at least in contrast), I don't find it all too convincing, but I am just going to leave it at that for now. Nice exchange we had here.
I would need evidence or reasoning to support that being more than a possibility.
Well, duh! You can still think of it as a possibility though. I'm not the type to discount possibilities because I don't have the evidence to support it. Maybe that's just because I have a strong imagination, who knows?
He was an awesome dude, he was a little out there for a lot of people, but without him I wouldn't have the academic ambition that I have right now.
I think it is the other people who are a little out there lol. He would probably agree.
While it is a fascinating, and rather scientifically literate form of spirituality (at least in contrast), I don't find it all too convincing, but I am just going to leave it at that for now.
I found that the people who don't find it convincing are the people who go into it with their mind already set. If you play with the idea long enough, you'll figure it out ;)
How do we know that applies to the outside of space-time? Even if it god is intelligent what is behind god's intelligence?
Gosh stop asking to hard questions smartypants. Lol jk. Anyways, like I would imagine that God would know everything, but I hwve no clue as to how he gains that knowledge.
The outside of our space-time. the not being in space-time, or the being beyond space-time.
See? You can't really describe it as anything else but that. Its a known unknown. It totes too hard for me. Saying why can't the outside of spacetime do it is not illogical, but unattainable as of now. Pefectly valid question, but we don't know the outside nature.
See? You can't really describe it as anything else but that.
Which is why we can't apply any logic to it. Not only does that mean it is not bound by laws of space and time, but we have no idea how the outside of space-time operates, it could be outside our comprehension, it probably is. However to place something outside of space-time, in order to justify it not needing a cause, is as efficient as me simply saying that the outside of space-time doesn't need a cause, and that would be the simpler explanation if we really want to rationalize things that way.
Well its not like Christians purposefully place God outside of space-time. They do so by following biblical logic. If anything bound by space or time has an origin then God won't have one.
I understand what you are saying, christians extract the belief from the bible, not simply from the cosmological argument. You got to understand that I am arguing that if one was to extract their belief in god from the cosmologicol argument, they have to justify god, without that justification not being able to be used for something simpler or less assuming. I am also making these debates to prepare myself when I make a paper about the existence of god in my philosophy class. The outside of space and time being the cause of space time, is simpler than god being outside of space-time and causing space-time, the latter makes more assumptions, then the former, but they both equally solve the dilemma.
Well...I mean, you could justify it, just not conclusively until G comes down and gives us a blood test or something...The biggest problem with the first cause argument is that it defeats itself until it breaks its own rules.
"Everything has an origin"
"Okay.."
"Therefore God!"
"But...if everything has an origin...what is God's origin?"
"He doesn't have one. He is eternal. That's how how he created everything"
"So...not everything has an origin then?"
"No. Everything except God has an origin"
"So....not EVERYTHING has an origin then?"
"Except for God, yes..."
"So...not EVERYTHING? I mean, you believe God is real, so he is something. You believe that this something is eternal, and does not need to be created. So, if I understand you correctly, the only way that something can exist is if something that has no origin starts the whole process...but...that something is not subject to those same rules? The only way the original premise is correct is....if it is false...."
If we justify anything to be the first cause, there also needs to be reason to call this first cause god, not just justify a first cause.
If we justify god by making god insensible, then we can't apply any logic to the insensible if we can't apply the logic of cause-and-effect on it, because we haven't observed the "insensible". What reason is there to think that the insensible is conscious? A being at all? Why does it have to be god? If the insensible isn't excluded from needing a cause then the insensible doesn't need to be intelligent to create intelligent things, nor can we say that cause-and-effect in its entirety needs a cause-and-effect, if the insensible can possibly not need a cause from not being observed, then cause-and-effect doesn't need a cause if the entirety of cause-and-effect hasn't been observed. If it is not because the insensible hasn't been observed that we conclude it doesn't necessarily need a cause, then the we still have to tie the insensible not needing a cause by connecting cause-and-effect to only the sensible. Same with god being outside of the universe, if god is justified as the first cause by being outside our universe and thus not having logic applicable to it, then what logic can we use to conclude whatever is outside of the universe, needing to be conscious, or a being? If logic doesn't apply outside our universe, then why couldn't this "outside of our universe" not have created the universe?
I understand all of this. Its not exactly new, now is it?
What I'm saying is that the original premise cannot be reconciled without invalidating itself. And if the premise isn't valid, the specific need for God isn't.
Yes, the first cause is God, no matter if you are athiest, thiest what ever, however God is not what you religous people think, God is the point is which exsistance happen
Yes and that cause and the cause before that on and so on, to me God is just a title in which all things came to be, God is not what thiest made him to be, if that makes any sense.
Something had to cause the elements to cause the big bang and all that came before the big bang, what ever that cause is our creator, we can call it what we like but that does not change the fact that we were created by something, so to simplify thing I give the creation of all exsistance the title of God just as how we give the creation of our universe the Big Bang.
Something had to cause the elements to cause the big bang and all that came before the big bang, what ever that cause is is our creator
That is an argument from ignorance, just because you don't know, doesn't mean it is god.
we can call it what we like but that does not change the fact that we wereno created by something
The point of the term "first cause" is that if you attribute everything to something, it is thus the FIRST cause, because to attribute everything to that cause, means it itself can't be caused by anything else, because it created everything else.
so to simplify thing I give the creation of all exsistance the title of God
That doesn't make sense, if you give the creation of all existence to the title of god, then that also means you are giving the creation of gods existence to... god. so god created itself? Or you ARE arguing god is the first cause?
I'm trying to make sense of things its hard, let me try Putin it in a different way.
Ok the universe and everything that existed before hand is our creator, even if we came from nothing that nothing came from something for nothing to even exist, so for simplicity I call it God, however this in no way means I think of God as a theist would, I think thats bull crap, however our creation is fact and what ever or how ever that happen to me God seems to be the only word that would fit that title, so do I believe in God, No not in any theistic way but do I believe that all existence was created, proof is we exist, so what would one call that point in which everything was created, even before the big bang, the term God seems to fit that term.
The word God got hijacked by theist to mean a being that rules over all and sends us to heaven hell ,that is bull IMO, God is just the point of origin not a being.
To make things clear I am athiest when it comes to a thiestic god, i am agnostic when it comes to if there is a all seeing being of a god.
However the title i give to how we all came to be is god , i know it sound like a major contradiction and it kind of of is if you think of the word God as a all seeing being.
Ok the universe and everything that existed before hand is our creator, even if we came from nothing that nothing came from something for nothing to even exist, so for simplicity I call it God, however this in no way means I think of God as a theist would, I think thats bull crap, however our creation is fact and what ever or how ever that happen to me God seems to be the only word that would fit that title, so do I believe in God, No not in any theistic way but do I believe that all existence was created, yes proof if we exist, so what would one all that point in which everything was created, even before the big bang, the term God seems to fit that term.
The thing with this debate is, it is asking you to either do the first cause argument justice, or to oppose it, in the first cause being god. The first cause is the cause to all things that it, itself doesn't require a cause. If you posit something as the origin to everything else, you have to justify that thing in not needing a cause itself, otherwise that thing only contributes to "where everything came from?" as much as the big bang does. The big bang is the cause of the entire universe, but it, itself needs a cause thus we don't call it god, and also because it isn't intelligent. theism is any sort of belief in god, so you would technically be a theist, just not a typical theist. Occam's Razor basically states that our solution to any mystery should be the simplest, by simplest it means less assuming. For example, let's say the ground is shaking, the most likely answer to why it is shaking, is that their is an earthquake, however you would be breaking Occam's Razor to say "it is because of an earthquake caused by highly advanced extra-terrestrials from a galaxy called zorgnog001." The last part their is not necessary to solve why the ground is shaking, and is an assumption. So by positing a creator, without justifying this creator with not needing a cause, you are essentially just assuming, because that creator doesn't really solve anything (because the creator exists, we still have to answer to the creator's existence/creation, thus the creator doesn't solve the mystery of where all existence/creation came from, thus it is a superfluous assumption. It is as effective of a solution as the big bang itself, they equally contribute to solving the mystery except one is proven and the other is not. Do you understand?
The word God got hijacked by theist to mean a being that rules over all and sends us to heaven hell ,that is bull IMO, God is just the point of origin not a being.
However, for god to be the origin of everything, his origin must somehow be excluded from needing an explanation, otherwise, you are not explaining the origin of all things anymore. Think of it this way, without the cosmological argument, cause and effect seems to go on forever, infinitely one direction, and infinitely the opposite, so we have X Y and Z, the part of cause and effect we know of X being the big bang, Y being the universe, and Z being the universe after expansion, then you would have variables after Z go on for infinity, and variables before Y ALSO go on for infinity, so whatever variable you posit before X, that causes X, which causes Y which causes Z, also needs a variable before it, that causes it, and so on and so forth infinitely, to posit this variable for no other reason that "we need to explain X, Y, and Z, and so forth" well now you need to explain "W, X, Y and Z, and so forth" and then now you need to explain "V, W, X, Y, and Z" and so on, you haven't gotten any closer to the destination, or ultimate origin so to speak, as far as we can still tell everything before X goes on forever, and everything after Z goes on forever, so those that believe that "X, Y, and Z" have happened are just as close to explaining existence as those who believe "W, X, Y, and Z" have happened, but one is making an assumption. Do you follow?
Im going to have to get back at you later on with this debate, im not home yet but i like this debate, this one is going to take alot of explaining because i know i got you thinking wtf lol and i understand because i would too....
I look forward to it :). indeed I simply thought maybe you didn't understand the subject at hand, but I think you just haven't articulated what you are saying to my satisfaction XD
Everything in our universe is material and bound by time and space. Our universe since the beginning has been these as well. Asking for a cause "before" a given timeline is tricky because there is no "before" without time. Even if you have another physical cause, you are simply adding another event to the timeline. So the cause must be outside time. The reason this cause must be outside time IS SO IT DOESN'T"T NEED A CAUSE. Our observation of "cause and effect" has only been observed with material things and not immaterial things. Even immaterial things like emotions are caused by materiel chemicals. However we have never observed a purely immaterial substance because we our material beings. So we have no reason to conclude a immaterial being needs a cause or not. So the claim "God needs no cause because he is eternal and immaterial" IS substantiated.
Thomas Aquinas's argument is more along the lines of
"Everything SENSIBLE has an origin"
"therefore anything insensible doesn't necessarily have an origin"
"therefore the first cause is insensibility, and that is god"
I think the insensibility justification is bullshit as it is simply a means to allow god to bypass logic. Not only that, but if the only criteria for something not needing a cause is not being able to be sensed, then this would apply to the whole chain of cause-and-effect, since we can't sense the whole chain of cause-and-effect in it's entirety. We can at the most only sense all the way back to the big bang, then we can't sense anything before that, we can't detect anything before that, so everything before that wouldn't be sensible right?
Nothing you are saying is wrong, however you missed my point, although you high lighted it, presumably by accident.
Like you said, The reason this cause must be outside time IS SO IT DOESN'T"T NEED A CAUSE.
The whole concept is paradoxical. One way to step outside of the paradox (not the only one but the most obvious one) is to establish an item that is not to subject to the premise. But the instant you did that you invalidated the whole premise in the first place. You started with "everything needs a cause" and then promptly established an exception, so the opening premise is false.
The best we can do is establish a placeholder variable. Something outside of spacetime. You have not established any other properties however. Since the rule has to be broken at least once to avoid paradox, you have no way of knowing that it wasn't broken a billion other times. You certainly have no way of knowing that it is conscious or possessed of any other attributes associated with God. So yeah, God could be the variable, but for all we know a piece of timeless cosmic lint could be the variable. A black hole could be. Hell, I could be and just forgot because it was soooo long ago and I smoked to much pot in the 90s.
Meanwhile, we have a candidate that is also timeless and was around in abundance during the big bang...energy.
I did not say everything needs a cause. I said material things need a cause which God is not.
Energy while it is "timeless" in a sense, it is still subject to time. I mean think about it. You have potential energy, which is bound by time because it is the energy stored in a system at a precise moment in time. Kinetic energy is the amount of energy being used by a system at a specific moment in time. Other concepts that are related to energy are also related to time. For example power is work divided by time, or in simple terms, how much work can be done in a specific amount of TIME. Momentum is mass multiplied by velocity. What is velocity? The length a particle or object travels in relation to TIME. See all energy is, is an ability to do something, and in that action, time is needed no matter how small amount of time it is, it is still time.
How can a cause exist outside of space-time, if there is no space or time for it to exist within? If there is no "before", then how can there be anything before time, to cause time?
So the claim "God needs no cause because he is eternal and immaterial" IS substantiated.
But why does this immaterial first cause need to be god? If the immaterial doesn't need a cause because we haven't observed the immaterial, then the immaterial can't have any other logic applied to it either, because we haven't observed any other logic to apply to the immaterial, basically ridding any reason to think this immaterial first cause needs to be a being.
Well...I mean, you could justify it, just not conclusively until G comes down and gives us a blood test or something...The biggest problem with the first cause argument is that it defeats itself until it breaks its own rules.
"Everything has an origin"
"Okay.."
"Therefore God!"
"But...if everything has an origin...what is God's origin?"
"He doesn't have one. He is eternal. That's how how he created everything"
"So...not everything has an origin then?"
"No. Everything except God has an origin"
"So....not EVERYTHING has an origin then?"
"Except for God, yes..."
"So...not EVERYTHING? I mean, you believe God is real, so he is something. You believe that this something is eternal, and does not need to be created. So, if I understand you correctly, the only way that something can exist is if something that has no origin starts the whole process...but...that something is not subject to those same rules? The only way the original premise is correct is....if it is false...."
Thomas Aquinas's argument is more along the lines of
"Everything SENSIBLE has an origin"
"therefore anything insensible doesn't necessarily have an origin"
"therefore the first cause is insensibility, and that is god"
I think the insensibility justification is bullshit as it is simply a means to allow god to bypass logic. Not only that, but if the only criteria for something not needing a cause is not being able to be sensed, then this would apply to the whole chain of cause-and-effect, since we can't sense the whole chain of cause-and-effect in it's entirety. We can at the most only sense all the way back to the big bang, then we can't sense anything before that, we can't detect anything before that, so everything before that wouldn't be sensible right?
if the only criteria for something not needing a cause is not being able to be sensed, then this would apply to the whole chain of cause-and-effect, since we can't sense the whole chain of cause-and-effect in it's entirety.
I love the way you think :)
And sensibility, regardless if we are talking empirically or conceptually, is probably not anything we should be using as criteria for such conversations since it is automatically limited by our perceptive or cognitive abilities, which are certainly not infinite. Besides, energy is sensible, and we do not currently believe that it has an origin in the normal sense.
I see God as a potential being outside of space-time. If he is outside of space-time then he is not bound by any laws or space, or by any laws of time. He cannot have a beginning since that follows laws regarding time, and he cannot have an end since that also follows laws regarding. He can only be there eternally existing at any, and all time, and that itself is still too complex since that notion itself needs time to explain the lack of time. He also cannot end since there is nothing to cause him to decay or run out of energy since those both follow laws regarding space.
I understand all of this. Its not exactly new, now is it?
What I'm saying is that the original premise cannot be reconciled without invalidating itself. And if the premise isn't valid, the specific need for God isn't.
Everything in our universe is material and bound by time and space. Our universe since the beginning has been these as well. Asking for a cause "before" a given timeline is tricky because there is no "before" without time. Even if you have another physical cause, you are simply adding another event to the timeline. So the cause must be outside time. The reason this cause must be outside time IS SO IT DOESN'T"T NEED A CAUSE. Our observation of "cause and effect" has only been observed with material things and not immaterial things. Even immaterial things like emotions are caused by materiel chemicals. However we have never observed a purely immaterial substance because we our material beings. So we have no reason to conclude a immaterial being needs a cause or not. So the claim "God needs no cause because he is eternal and immaterial" IS substantiated.
Nothing you are saying is wrong, however you missed my point, although you high lighted it, presumably by accident.
Like you said, The reason this cause must be outside time IS SO IT DOESN'T"T NEED A CAUSE.
The whole concept is paradoxical. One way to step outside of the paradox (not the only one but the most obvious one) is to establish an item that is not to subject to the premise. But the instant you did that you invalidated the whole premise in the first place. You started with "everything needs a cause" and then promptly established an exception, so the opening premise is false.
The best we can do is establish a placeholder variable. Something outside of spacetime. You have not established any other properties however. Since the rule has to be broken at least once to avoid paradox, you have no way of knowing that it wasn't broken a billion other times. You certainly have no way of knowing that it is conscious or possessed of any other attributes associated with God. So yeah, God could be the variable, but for all we know a piece of timeless cosmic lint could be the variable. A black hole could be. Hell, I could be and just forgot because it was soooo long ago and I smoked to much pot in the 90s.
Meanwhile, we have a candidate that is also timeless and was around in abundance during the big bang...energy.
I did not say everything needs a cause. I said material things need a cause which God is not.
Energy while it is "timeless" in a sense, it is still subject to time. I mean think about it. You have potential energy, which is bound by time because it is the energy stored in a system at a precise moment in time. Kinetic energy is the amount of energy being used by a system at a specific moment in time. Other concepts that are related to energy are also related to time. For example power is work divided by time, or in simple terms, how much work can be done in a specific amount of TIME. Momentum is mass multiplied by velocity. What is velocity? The length a particle or object travels in relation to TIME. See all energy is, is an ability to do something, and in that action, time is needed no matter how small amount of time it is, it is still time.
If we justify anything to be the first cause, there also needs to be reason to call this first cause god, not just justify a first cause.
If we justify god by making god insensible, then we can't apply any logic to the insensible if we can't apply the logic of cause-and-effect on it, because we haven't observed the "insensible". What reason is there to think that the insensible is conscious? A being at all? Why does it have to be god? If the insensible isn't excluded from needing a cause then the insensible doesn't need to be intelligent to create intelligent things, nor can we say that cause-and-effect in its entirety needs a cause-and-effect, if the insensible can possibly not need a cause from not being observed, then cause-and-effect doesn't need a cause if the entirety of cause-and-effect hasn't been observed. If it is not because the insensible hasn't been observed that we conclude it doesn't necessarily need a cause, then the we still have to tie the insensible not needing a cause by connecting cause-and-effect to only the sensible. Same with god being outside of the universe, if god is justified as the first cause by being outside our universe and thus not having logic applicable to it, then what logic can we use to conclude whatever is outside of the universe, needing to be conscious, or a being? If logic doesn't apply outside our universe, then why couldn't this "outside of our universe" not have created the universe?
I totes give this a thumbs up! But I think logic can touch on certain areas of God. God's existence as a "first cause" is only a possibility. I would imagine that anything that is created outside of space-time will be eternal, so maybe the universe is eternal, but the contents inside can decay or maybe they just changed. Maybe time doesn't even exist. I like have no clue, but these are just somethings I think about.
Who said anything about logic not applying outside of the universe? Is logic not itself insensible? If the universe were to disappear, would logic still be present? Of course it would be! Moreover, if the first cause had to be outside of the universe, then you can only be 2 things: an abstract object, like numbers and concepts, or a type of mind that is outside of space and time. It cannot be the former, since those things don't cause, they only simply are, which means the latter follows. And if this being is existent, then it had to create the universe, which tells me that it is at least extremely powerful.
Who said anything about logic not applying outside of the universe?
Well the specific argument you are responding to, if I am not mistaken, is not about the outside of the universe but the insensible. Insensible =/= outside of the universe necessarily, though I suppose everything outside the universe would be insensible. Here is the thing though, with this argument it is made that all sensible things observed, they all need a cause, however insensible things don't. I do not understand how the conclusion of such is made. This only makes logical sense, if cause-and-effect was somehow tied to the sensible, and only the sensible, by that I mean, it is BECAUSE things are sensible that they need a cause. Unless there is a reason that sensible things need causes but not insensible things, then I can only speculate that the reasoning behind this conclusion is based on the lack of observance of the insensible. We have only been able to observe the sensible, not the insensible, thus we can conclude that sensible things need a cause, because all sensible things we've observed had needed a cause, however we can't conclude that about insensible things, because we can't observe insensible things. If that is the thought process behind sensible things needing a cause, but not the insensible, then we can't apply any other logic or laws to the insensible, thus all logic and reason go out the window. If that is the case, we can't conclude that insensible objects need to be intelligent to create intelligence, or have things act "intelligently". If using the insensible justification for god being the first cause, then the entirety of cause and effect could be justified this way since it too is insensible.
Is logic not itself insensible? If the universe were to disappear, would logic still be present? Of course it would be!
Well, while I don't think you are necessarily defending the "insensible" argument I am talking about (which was presented to me in philosophy, although the more research I try to do on it, the more I find that nobody else has been holding this argument or justification.) For the sensible/insensible justification, this would do it injustice, as then logic could be the first cause, it being insensible doesn't need a cause.
Moreover, if the first cause had to be outside of the universe, then you can only be 2 things: an abstract object, like numbers and concepts, or a type of mind that is outside of space and time. It cannot be the former, since those things don't cause, they only simply are, which means the latter follows.
Wouldn't logic be an abstract concept, as it is merely the means of making sense of something, it is conceptual in nature. I do not see how any of this follows, if the first cause is outside of space time, then how does that make everything else only two things, abstract or a type of mind outside of the universe?
And if this being is existent, then it had to create the universe, which tells me that it is at least extremely powerful.
I would agree with that, it would have to have some degree of potency.
Everything in our universe is material and bound by time and space. Our universe since the beginning has been these as well. Asking for a cause "before" a given timeline is tricky because there is no "before" without time. Even if you have another physical cause, you are simply adding another event to the timeline. So the cause must be outside time. The reason this cause must be outside time IS SO IT DOESN'T"T NEED A CAUSE. Our observation of "cause and effect" has only been observed with material things and not immaterial things. Even immaterial things like emotions are caused by materiel chemicals. However we have never observed a purely immaterial substance because we our material beings. So we have no reason to conclude a immaterial being needs a cause or not. So the claim "God needs no cause because he is eternal and immaterial" IS substantiated.
