Rockinghorse Winner (rockinghorse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
) writes:
> In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, klunk had the audacity to say
that:
>
>>
>> "Rockinghorse Winner" <rockinghorse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:slrng24dj6.kd6.rockinghorse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, klunk had the audacity to
say
>>> that:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> No, no BS at all. Everything in the natural world has to have a
cause
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> than itself. Otherwise, it's existence is implied in it's
definition.
>>>>>>> IOW,
>>>>>>> it's existence is necessary. But, nothing in the natural world has
an
>>>>>>> essence that includes existence: all things are dependent on
causes
>>>>>>> outside
>>>>>>> themselves for their being -- this is the basis for science. Well,
>>>>>>> then,
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> have a *chain* of cause-effect relation****ps that doesn't end,
>>>>>>> stretching
>>>>>>> into infinity into the past. But that means, that nothing is a
first
>>>>>>> cause,
>>>>>>> nothing started the chain, but that is also inconceivable. There
has
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> a first cause that started the chain of cause-effects, and that
thing
>>>>>>> *has*
>>>>>>> to be self-caused. It *has* to be supernatural, since natural
objects
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> allow of self-causation -- they are all contingent beings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *R* *H*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that logic is the equivalent of travelling in the cargo hold of a
plane
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> because you can't see the whole plane but you know it's flying that
you
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> being held suspended in a box...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the effect of one thing does not presuppose a cause which holds any
>>>>>> equivocating relation****p to it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> iow... an exploding star can become dust or solid matter... and
science
>>>>>> tells us that everything is contingent on the big bang only because
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> the physical limit of what we are able to discern... we don't and
will
>>>>>> likely never know what may or may not have preceded that initial
event
>>>>>> simply because it would require a point of observation outside of
>>>>>> existence... and such speculation is the slippery slope from
wishful
>>>>>> thinking to fanciful delusion...
>>>>>
>>>>> All well and good, but there has to be something that caused the big
>>>>> bang,
>>>>> on this we are agreed.
>>>>
>>>> ROTFLMAO.... such was the only fuel that led to the idiotic argument
of
>>>> intelligent design as an alternative to evolution... no... we do not
>>>> agree
>>>> on this because there is no evidence one way or another that anything
>>>> caused
>>>> the big bang... you are indulging in speculation and wishful
thinking.
>>>> period... i haven't a clue what the genesis of the big bang was and
i'm
>>>> quite comfortable living without answers to questions because they
prompt
>>>> my
>>>> curiosity and my personal growth which is the antithesis of your
approach
>>>> toward summing up and addressing that which is beyond your
understanding
>>>> with simplistic answers...
>>>>
>>>> ...and which is simply evidence of the dangers of such
self-destructive
>>>> adherence to fantasies... it's time for you and the rest of the world
to
>>>> grow up and accept that the tooth fairy, santa claus, the easter
bunny
>>>> and
>>>> god are merely tools to sooth children's minds... such
>>>> antropomorphizations
>>>> belong in the realm of cartoons and stuffed animals and do not belong
in
>>>> the
>>>> world of adults...
>>>
>>> Well, it seems to me you have two choices, either the Big Bang caused
>>> itself
>>> or something caused it.
>>
>> nope... such polarity is the cause of much misery in this world and
fails to
>> account for a third choice... which is to avoid making fallacious
>> conclusions...
>>
>>
>>> The former violates the scientific axiom that all effects have one or
more
>>> causes.
>>
>> lol... if something doesn't fit your paradigm, it is a violation of
it...
>> yup... that's typical of religious irrationality... perhaps if you
could
>> realize that through a simple adjustment to your paradigm, you may find
>> yourself more capable of understanding other things which you currently
>> don't understand....
>>
>> just like in science where evidence which contradicts a theory is
grounds
>> for rexamination of the theory and not for the dismissal of the
evidence...
>>
>>
>>> So, *something* caused the Big Bang. If it was a natural entity,
then, it
>>> too had a cause. And that cause would have had a cause, which would
have a
>>> cause, and so on and so on.
>>
>> nope... your conclusions are built upon premises which demonstrate
>> themselves by your attempts at reconciliation to be flawed at best...
>>
>>
>>> There is no end to this thought experiment, which makes it a logical
>>> absurdity, for it means there is no ultimate cause of anything.
>>
>> lol... your conclusion is based upon a premise which you truly can't
prove
>> is immutable and therein lies the true source of absurdity...
>>
>>
>>> There *has* to be a self-caused, existentially necessary entity at the
>>> beginning of the train, an entity which needs no cause because it's
>>> essence
>>> includes existence. That is the definition of God, which you deny
exists.
>>
>> nope... there does not *have* to be a causality... such a conclusion is
>> nothing more than a constraint imposed by the limits of our
understanding of
>> the mechanics of the universe... and just like theories of light
competed
>> within two general camps were both absorbed into a singular view of
physics
>> which spawned an entirely new era of technological advancement, such
>> constraints are useless when taken out of context...
>
> But we are not talking about competing theories, we are talking about
the
> very basis of making scientific judgments in the first place, which is
that
> every effect has a cause. That cannot be in dispute without postulating
> that some effects have no causes! In other words, without postulating
> *creatio ex nihilo*, creation out of nothing, which science cannot
fathom.
> I'm sorry, but you have not refuted my case, nor can you.
>
> Atheism is inherently illogical. Which accounts for it's relative
scarcity
> among human beings. It is a thoroughly discredited theory. It's not
your
> fault, but atheism will always bump up against this logical fallacy.
> Objective science can simply not comment about ultimate causes. It can
only
> infer causes from effects, and this chain is non-ending.
>
> Science can only see the things in the world, but not the surrounding
> *nothingness* in which things make their Being known. This
*no-thing-ness* is
> the boundary which science cannot cross. This uncanny fact that things
*are*
> at all, this amazing phenomena of *Being*, this science misses
completely.
> And yet, without Being, there are no things for science to study. IOW,
> science must turn it's back to Being to study beings.
>
> The sheer audacity that there is *something*, and not *nothing* -- this
> is not in science's charter or mandate. For comment, we must turn to
> religion and poetry and song.
>
> *R* *H*
>
> --
> "For me, prayer is a surge of the heart; it is a simple look turned
toward
> heaven, it is a cry of recognition and of love, embracing both trial and
> joy." - Saint Therese of Lisieux
|
