God and the supernatural have no objective existence...

[Dicky Underpants]

Unevidenced assertion.

Ah but, Prof, Tertullian first formulated the idea, which was elaborated and finalised at the Council of Nicea* . Therefore it must be true.
btw, Tertullian was later considered a heretic.
*I do of course mean the reconciliation of the idea that God is 'composed' of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, yet has no 'parts'

[ProfessorDavey]

Ah but, Prof, Tertullian first formulated the idea, which was elaborated and finalised at the Council of Nicea* . Therefore it must be true.
btw, Tertullian was later considered a heretic.
*I do of course mean the reconciliation of the idea that God is 'composed' of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, yet has no 'parts'

Just because an idea has been posited a long time ago doesn't mean it is evidenced, let alone that it is objectively demonstrated to be true.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Just because an idea has been posited a long time ago doesn't mean it is evidenced, let alone that it is objectively demonstrated to be true.

I think Dicky was being sarcastic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If reality is infinite, what would you be looking for as a 'reason' or cause?

I am told there are different infinities Outrider, so the question would then be, why this infinity rather than that infinity.
If the universe is infinite? why is it that it’s components occupy time and space finitely?
Now if you suggest that something persists infinitely, you would be making the same argument as me but it cannot be a finite thing obviously

You could I suppose put energy as a candidate. The problem here though is if the universe is infinite then it would be possible at one particular time for the universe to be in a state where all energy is potential energy and that in effect would be the equivalent of non existence since there would be no possibility of energy transfer.

[/quote]

[Steve H]

Even if, which is debateable, there has to be a necessary entity, and it can't be the universe, why does it have to be anything like the Christian God, or indeed any god? Why must it be conscious, let alone omniscient? Why can't it be a purposeless scientific principle?

[Dicky Underpants]

Just because an idea has been posited a long time ago doesn't mean it is evidenced, let alone that it is objectively demonstrated to be true.

Surely a literary bloke like you understands sarcasm?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

Even if, which is debateable, there has to be a necessary entity, and it can't be the universe, why does it have to be anything like the Christian God, or indeed any god? Why must it be conscious, let alone omniscient? Why can't it be a purposeless scientific principle?

Quite. One of the several failings of the cosmological argument is that it need not lead to the Christian god, to any god, to just one "creator" of any sort, to something other than super advanced aliens, to... etc etc.

Sadly as Vlad seems to be uninterested in establishing first even that universe cannot be its own explanation though, this is all second order, angels on the head of a pin stuff in any case.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Even if, which is debateable, there has to be a necessary entity, and it can't be the universe, why does it have to be anything like the Christian God, or indeed any god? Why must it be conscious, let alone omniscient? Why can't it be a purposeless scientific principle?

If it were unconscious why would it create anything?
Ditto purposeless.
We can't appeal to randomness since there is nothing outside it, no arena as it were for random things to happen.

If you are proposing, purposeless, unconsciousness, etc, is there any reason to do so?
I think you have a burden there Steve because,having declared things are debatable, you need to debate them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If it were unconscious why would it create anything?

Why wouldn’t it? Unconscious things create stuff all the time - think of the bodily functions that carry on regardless when we’re asleep.
 

Ditto purposeless.

No. A supposed creator might not care at all what it creates.

We can't appeal to randomness since there is nothing outside it, no arena as it were for random things to happen.

Gibberish.

If you are proposing, purposeless, unconsciousness, etc, is there any reason to do so?

He wasn’t. He was just asking how you’d eliminate them in order to arrive at your choice of god. 

I think you have a burden there Steve because,having declared things are debatable, you need to debate them.

No, the burden remains with you to justify the various assertions you make and then blithely reify into facts. I suggest you start with justifying your assertion that the universe cannot be its own cause.   

[Steve H]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Identifying_the_first_cause

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof,

I think Dicky was being sarcastic.

I know, but I don't think Vlad really gets sarcasm and he is in thrall to the notion of appeal to tradition, so he could easily construe DU's comment as giving credence to his unevidenced assertions. So best to nip that one in the bud by my reply to DU.

[ProfessorDavey]

Surely a literary bloke like you understands sarcasm?

See my reply to BHS.

I may very well be attuned enough to pick up a sarcastic remark ... but I have no confidence that Vlad would do so. So best not to allow him to misconstrue sarcasm as support.

[Nearly Sane]

See my reply to BHS.

I may very well be attuned enough to pick up a sarcastic remark ... but I have no confidence that Vlad would do so. So best not to allow him to misconstrue sarcasm as support.

Then it would, had that be your aim, beem easy  enough to add 'I know you are being sarcastic but...'

[ProfessorDavey]

Then it would, had that be your aim, beem easy  enough to add 'I know you are being sarcastic but...'

Or an exclamation mark - sure. But I didn't - so what!

[Nearly Sane]

Or an exclamation mark - sure. But I didn't - so what!

Well you could have saved anyone mistaking your meaning.

[ProfessorDavey]

If it were unconscious why would it create anything?
Ditto purposeless.
We can't appeal to randomness since there is nothing outside it, no arena as it were for random things to happen.

If you are proposing, purposeless, unconsciousness, etc, is there any reason to do so?
I think you have a burden there Steve because,having declared things are debatable, you need to debate them.

You really cannot get beyond your anthropocentricness can you.

You seem unable to even comprehend that 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' etc etc are largely features of higher neurological processes rather than fundamental physics which may have driving mechanisms (e.g. energetics) but have no 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' in the manner you seem obsessed that everything must have.

As I've also said many times, you also don't seem to be able to see beyond the notion that time is constant and unilinear - in other words that from a fundamental perspective before/after, recent/long ago etc are are objective, rather than being a subjective perception of time from a particular observational standpoint. So we might (as humans) perceive that time runs in one direction only at a constant rate, but that doesn't mean that it actually does.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well you could have saved anyone mistaking your meaning.

True - which is why I have clarified my meaning when people seem to have misconstrued it. DU is hardly an unknown entity as a poster, and nor am I. So I think it would be pretty unlikely to anyone who has been around as long as we both have to think that DU would actually be supporting Vlad's comments by reference to Tertullian. 

[Steve H]

Tertullian was later considered a heretic.

No,he wasn't. His association with Montanism may be why he was never canonised, but neither was he condemned as a heretic. From that fount of all wisdom and knowledge, Wikipedia:

[Nearly Sane]

True - which is why I have clarified my meaning when people seem to have misconstrued it. DU is hardly an unknown entity as a poster, and nor am I. So I think it would be pretty unlikely to anyone who has been around as long as we both have to think that DU would actually be supporting Vlad's comments by reference to Tertullian.

So it was all DU and Bhs's fault for misconstruing you then

[ProfessorDavey]

So it was all DU and Bhs's fault for misconstuing you then

Nope - people misconstrue other posters posts all the time. But if that has happened the best thing to do is to clarify what you actually meant.

Not really sure what the purpose of this exchange is NS. DU said something, I said something which appears to have been misconstrued (my bad, should have added and exclamation mark). I clarified what I meant. That should be an end to it.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope - people misconstrue other posters posts all the time. But if that has happened the best thing to do is to clarify what you actually meant.

Not really sure what the purpose of this exchange is NS. DU said something, I said something which appears to have been misconstrued (my bad, should have added and exclamation mark). I clarified what I meant. That should be an end to it.

Yes, oh great monitor of what 'should' happen.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, oh great monitor of what 'should' happen.

Yawn - why exactly is this important to you NS?

[Steve H]

It's always dangerous being sarcastic, poetical or metaphorical with evangelical Christians.

[Dicky Underpants]

It's always dangerous being sarcastic, poetical or metaphorical with evangelical Christians.

My turn to apologize for misreading. I actually thought the person who didn't notice my sarcasm was you! Senility.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's always dangerous being sarcastic, poetical or metaphorical with evangelical Christians.

Exactly the reason for my original post. I've made sarcastic posts in the past which Vlad has then thrown back at me on the basis that I actually meant what I said rather than being sarcastic.