Thread: Religion
View Single Post
Old January 2nd, 2015, 03:59 PM  
Globalist Shill
Vlerchan's Forum Picture
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 21
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Religion

Originally Posted by Arkansasguy
If the universe were necessary, you would be able to show why it would exist, without using how things actually are as a premise.
Please read Bleid's argument that I linked to.

It demonstrates that whilst we don't know what the reason is we just know that one exists.


Thinking further the universe rising spontaneously from nothing is still possible. This is the subject matter of the book 'The Grand Design'.

I'll openly admit to not understand physics or string theory well enough to argue this point though. I'm just putting it out as a possibility.

Originally Posted by Arkansasguy
Nature is as it is because the laws of the universe are as they are. Thus nature cannot be responsible for forming the laws of the universe.
Backwards-causality is technically possible so the above statement is incorrect.


Reading back it seems you also misunderstood my statement which is why I was confused by the response. I meant could the laws of the universe not have just arose as a necessary part of the universe. Considering that the laws of nature a result of various interactions of the found fundamental forces of the universe that have existed since its conception this is certainly true.

God defining the laws of the universe need not happen - the laws of the universe are just expressions of the found fundamental forces of the universe. Of course it's still possible that god created the laws of the universe through understanding the impact of the four fundamental forces of the universe (note: this is a presumption: he does not have to) - but since all the laws are derived from these constants and not just gods arbitrary will this means that it is impossible to change them.

Though I was starting to question whether it was possible to change the laws regardless. That pre-supposes omni-sentience - so that a god would know when it was time to intervene with his creation - but omni-sentience as explained in your earlier posts presupposes omni-potence - which presupposes omni-sentience as purposed earlier - and so on. You can't have omni-potence without omni-sentience - You can't have omni-sentience without omni-potence - so you can't have either.


I am now starting to wish I paid an ounce of attention in those Leaving Cert physics classes.

Originally Posted by Arkansasguy
Which specific part of the argument do you object to?
That it's necessary that god be a universal maxim with reference to a construction of language.

It also seems contradictory in ways. If we accept this that god is (good, better, and) best; can it also be said he is (bad, worse, and) worst? Same logic.

Originally Posted by Arkansasguy
Universals are those things which are universally true, or which are universal concepts.
Please name a "universal concept" so I have a better idea of what we are talking about.

Originally Posted by Arkansasguy
You accepted this earlier.
No. I accepted that god could change the laws of the universe. edit: Now I don't.


edit: New question just occurred to me. There's four fundamental forces in the universe:

What's to say we don't have four different gods acting as a cause for each of them as opposed to one god setting them all off?

".... the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth, and truth be defamed as lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world - and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed ... [H.A.]"

Last edited by Vlerchan; January 3rd, 2015 at 09:07 AM.
Vlerchan is offline   Reply With Quote