all matter and energy is the universe. this consititutes existence.

"Is there any need for a first cause?

by Nathaniel Branden:

Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?
Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a causal explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created god? Was there a still earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?
It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.
This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality . There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual chains. Existence -not "god" - is the First Cause.
Just as the concept of a causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.
The man who asks: "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence.
Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask: "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking; "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists; you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go."

any comments?

So, God is a wrong concept!
If what you say is true, it proves Buddhism is true,
Buddha said there is no first cause, no God.

"If you are your experiences, then punishments or rewards are dreams"-J. Chatha

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?topic_view=threads&p=82064&t=7874&sid=1d943d523a50acdce16b598ce8a99052

First lets realize that religion is the pursuit of something, usually affiliated with happiness or enlightenment. Everybody has dreams, and according to Aristotle it is man's nature to dream. Religion is supposed to satisfy this void, its doctrines don't even have to be true, they are meant to be personal. However politicians and beaurucrats from the time of Babylon took the idea and molded it into false hysteria, institutionalize it, and created a belief out of it. As it is its no more a safe haven for us to reach or find ourselves but a series of social ceremony. Tell me is any priest going to help you when you do eventually confront God? I think you know the answer. You and I came in to life alone, we must go thropugh it alone, and carry on over the same way. I particularly feel peculiar when those so called appointed holy leaders tell people what's what. Furthermore, the latin word for religion is "to relate", meaning to find meaning or association. Notice nobody promises that anything is true.Hence, the bible need not be true, its altimately you who decides what's true and what's not. Some relate more to reality and some dream of a better afterlife. There is nothing wrong with customization when it comes to religion, most of it is up to you. The greatest gift you can give a man is freedom. You should have the freedom to decide what afterlife you are going to face.This is the inexhaustible freedom I hope is bestowed on us. I personally would just like to die and forget about everything, I don't want another set of obligations or paradise, and I certain I don't want another reality, I would just like to join the stars. If there is a God I pray he grants me this.

"In every age and time, the priest is hostile to freedom" Thomas jefferson

ah men brother! I would not want to live forever, what the hell (excuse the pun) would I do that whole time? I would like to just end it. or maybe take a quick tour around the universe then end it. perhaps I should start a religion based around this. I could call it "stoic agnosticism" or something.

sure people can dream whatever the hell they want. they can have fantasies and practice strange religions, as long as it doesnt adversely effect other peoples lives. I wish people would be more realistic and realize the supernatural doesnt exist in reality, only as a thought in your head.

Hi, alteredperception..

That's pretty funny....first you state that you know the nature of reality...

then you say you know what our thoughts are....altered perception indeed !

Maybe your chicken/egg universe conundrum turned you into a psychic !

Peace

Wow Ganesh! I bet you think you sound pretty smart, mr. sarcastic prick. I never said I know the "nature of reality." I only quoted someone who explained why existence is all the exists (sounds obvious, well most humans are confused about this). I never said I knew what "reality" is. I never claimed to know what a thought is either. I was using the word to refer to how people do this thing with their brain where they come up with ideas.

If your going to post an insult, at least try to make sense.

Universe=all matter and energy=existence

"Is there any need for a first cause?

by Nathaniel Branden:

Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?
Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a causal explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created god? Was there a still earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?
It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.
This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. [existence presupposes causality, causality does not presuppose existence] . There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual chains. Existence -not "god" - is the First Cause.
Just as the concept of a causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.
The man who asks: "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence.
Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask: "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking; "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists; you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go."

any comments?

WHAT UNIVERSE?

SINCE the word alone connotes to many meanings. uni (one) verse (word/truth/man)

Universe=all matter and energy=existence. are you blind? and whats with your post, its a jumbled incoherent mess

It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.


The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.

why is it true that there cannot be an infinite number of antecedent causes if the universe has always existed then causes have always existed. why do you say an eternal universe can exist but infinite causes cannot?

The man who asks: "Where did god come from?" or "What caused god?" is the man who has never grasped that god is the existence that exists. This is the mentality of a scientist or materialist who regards existence of god as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to physical existence.



The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree. thats infinite regress isnt it?

a question, does anything exist 'outside' or 'anterior' to your perception of existence?

Hi alteredperception,

Sorry about the insult, I'm not off to a good start with my first post.....
We should all play nicely in this sandbox....

People talk about 'thought' as if it's something seperate from reality...

but everything we think of as good 'ol solid reality has to go through the thought process first...right ?

People who have never experienced the supernatural are 'naturally' going to rationalise it as somebody else's 'thought'

In the same way, somebody who had never experienced love could put up a pretty good argument denying it's existence

None of us have the copyright on 'God, the Universe and Everything', but it's good to be able to put forward our 'thoughts'

My take on the 'big picture' may be different to others, but I like to put forward my 'wacky' theories as food for 'thought'.
Forgive me if I seem arrogant in my assumptions, but it's only based on my personal experiences and knowledge.
The role of religion in the affairs of this realm has been getting on my goat, and it's getting ridiculous....
religious groups arguing over various ancient scribblings, much of which was based on old hearsay evidence.

I'm not saying there's no truth in the Bible, but it's been fiddled with since day one to fit the agendas of the PTB...
important books, like Enoch..totally dismissed...and if you look carefully, you find even certain teachings of Jesus were omitted.
Hardly the word of God...

Just study the actual utterances and deeds of Jesus and forget about what all these other clowns said about it.
And consider this quote " Who sinned, Master, this man or his parents, that he was born blind ?"

Yes, that's right, Jesus taught about reincarnation...all references conveniently edited out
at the Conference of Nicea (they missed a few..heh)

If you spend the time scouring all the available info on the net, you can work out the big picture for yourself.....
all the Gods of the Earth's religions are extraterrestrial beings...to people in ancient times they WERE Gods

Just because Jesus had a personal relationship with one of them doesn't mean there aren't others...
his God may have been in charge of this realm but that's a small part of the big picture...

This has nothing to do with the ULTIMATE Creator..

The Ultimate Creative Force is everywhere...the force of it is in every particle in the universe...
it is the ever expanding, creative, living energy that powers the universe..it created all the souls in
the universe because that is its function..creation. Even the extraterrestrial races who helped genetically
engineer this experiment, don't know the ultimate creator...there's no personality involved here that
we need to worship...it just IS...and we're part of it...the ultimate creator could care less about good and evil...
that's just part of our game in this realm...

We're no different to these 'Gods' or ET's on the soul level...we chose to come into this experiment....
we were the lucky ones that had earnt that right to incarnate on this beautiful planet...it's just part
of the deal when animating these hominid forms, that we can't remember who we are...this is why the Annunaki
(who did one of our genetic tweaks) referred to us as 'the clouded ones'

And as far as Adam being the beginning of all this...that doesn't make sense in light of current knowledge...
this is just the last 'round' on this planet..there's been 4 or 5 previous 'rounds', and Atlantis
and Lemuria were part of the current one. 'Adam' is just a reference to a new genetic advancement at the
hands of the Annunaki...there's been many genetic DNA mods of us hominids for at least the last 10 million
years, by various ET 'scientists'...the discovery of metal tools in rock 10 million years old is evidence of that...

It wasn't just humans that the Annunaki tweaked in Ancient Sumeria either, but also the modification of animals and
plants into domesticated varieties. Lloyd Pye's articles in the NEXUS archives explain this 'intervention' rather well.....
Darwin was wrong

Most of the world's religions were formed at this time (except the Vedic texts which stretch back to the Atlantean era)
The interaction of humans with ET 'Gods' and interdimensional beings has created a plethora of belief systems and
contradictory dogmas. There is a spiritual dimension to this realm, but it has more to do with responsibility to our own
soul advancement than any sort of 'worshipping'. As our souls become more 'enriched with light' from good work,
it enables us to 'merge' with similar souls beyond this realm. This could be interpreted as getting closer to the creator.
Other souls, which have not learned lessons or done good works will be only able to stay in the 'lower level' group and
repeat the process until they 'get with the program'

The Mormon's aren't wrong in saying we become gods, but not in the way their convoluted dogma portrays it.
It's more like graduating from University after you've done the hard work. There's no reason why we can't be
intergalactic genetic engineers, just like the ones we call our 'Gods'
The possibilities are truly unlimited beyond this realm

So, I basically take the Buddhist approach on my particular spiritual path.
I know the existence of Reincarnation and Karma to be a fact, because of personal experience,
but to me they are just mechanisms of this particular realm.
I don't worship a supreme being, but respect the guides that help me on my path.

Some may find this approach simplistic, but often, the simple answer is the truth. Other religious approaches
can also achieve the same desired enlightenment of the soul, as this realm interconnects with a multitude of possibilities.
The main criteria is to not encroach on other's free-will or beliefs, and to not harm any sentient beings.

"BULLSHIT BAFFLES BRAINS.....BUT TRUTH STANDS ALONE AND UNADORNED"

Peace

I think all, at this present state of the universe, that we need to comprehend, is the fact that god entrusted us with its life.

Look in the mirror and realise that you are real, and nothing in the whole know / unknown universe represent the exact form of your being and perception.
The universe is really something we are apart of, it is our body, our nature, our wilderness and soul.
Our bodies are made from the same source as the beautiful sun, and there is a very important reason such a sun would dedicate its time, space and energy for us.

Life = you

You yourself, is the answer ti the question that human beings are looking for.

There is only one answer, but infinite questions.

I think all, at this present state of the universe, that we need to comprehend, is the fact that god entrusted us with its life.

Look in the mirror and realise that you are real, and nothing in the whole know / unknown universe represent the exact form of your being and perception.
The universe is really something we are apart of, it is our body, our nature, our wilderness and soul.
Our bodies are made from the same source as the beautiful sun, and there is a very important reason such a sun would dedicate its time, space and energy for us.

Life = you

You yourself, is the answer ti the question that human beings are looking for.

There is only one answer, but infinite questions.


Very nice and very poetic. :D

People talk about 'thought' as if it's something seperate from reality...firstly welcome to sciforums.
there is the subjective mind ( your own personal thoughts and imaginations)
and the objective mind ( the one that interact with reality) for instance if you think of your mother, this is an objective thought as she is real to you and other as well, and can be tested by the five senses.
however if you think of a god/soul/fairy etc, this is a subjective thought, as it is only real to you and can not be tested with the five senses.
all thoughts are virtual reality to the individual, until they become real by reacting with reality.
else they stay in the imagination.
we need our subjective reality else we'd all be logical zombies and nobody would have ever told/wrote a story, made a film or painted a picture.
however this does not make our imagination real only the things we've created in the real world.( modern art for instance.)
People who have never experienced the supernatural are 'naturally' going to rationalise it as somebody else's 'thought' no wrong, see above paragraph, I think most have been scared of the dark most have been indoctrinated into religion, and most would have had a supernatural experience, however most also realise that this is only their imagination.
In the same way, somebody who had never experienced love could put up a pretty good argument denying it's existence no wrong, love is a chemical reaction, and I doubt very much that anybody has not felt love, we've all had mothers, or adopted mothers, or people who care for us, or best friends, and some use there imagination to find love, and experience euphoria {IE love of jesus) your the one trying to tell us the supernatural is real ar'nt you.
So, I basically take the Buddhist approach on my particular spiritual path.
I know the existence of Reincarnation and Karma to be a fact, because of personal experience,I'm glad you stated these are you own personal theorys, so yes all these things are fact to you, in your subjective mind.
and I'm glad for you.
Some may find this approach simplistic, but often, the simple answer is the truth.yes and subjective truths are always true, to you.
The main criteria is to not encroach on other's free-will or beliefs, and to not harm any sentient beings. I totally concur.

Hi audible,

Thanks for the welcome & the reply

You've made me realise that there's probably a rational explanation
for most of this stuff that wacko's like me believe in...

Precognition, telekinesis, stigmata, ufo sightings et al, are probably
all caused by some weird chemical reaction in the brain...

Let's just wait for the scientists to confirm their results
before we bother looking into this rubbish..

After all, we're just a random assemblage of molecules here,
with no real purpose...

Well, I must run, I'm gonna hoax another UFO sighting today....

Who knows ?...I might get famous and make lots of money...

Peace to all......and don't buy into the 'Fear Matrix'

http://img106.exs.cx/img106/2311/magindi0367xx.jpg

Ganesh- interesting theory, it would make for a good sci-fi book, but in reality its just your imaginition

Gambit star-your response was vague and meaningless.

Ellion- like my first post says: nothing caused existence

Saint - my first post doesnt prove buddhism true, rather it disproves the requirement for the supernatural

audible - you speak words of wisdom

we didnt create mass, energy, gravity, or ourselves. and there are around 6 billion of us.

Ellion- like my first post says: nothing caused existence
why do you say this to me?

it has no relevance to my post.

ellion - existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all causal chains. to say "something came before existence" is an impossibility. therefore, to answer your question, nothing exists outside or anterior to existence.

god is the existence that exists.

by using this vague definition of god you are correct, if your definition of god is existence itself. my point is there is no need for belief in the supernatural. it is not only superfluous but an incoherent theory

therefore, to answer your question, nothing exists outside or anterior to existence.
this doesnt answer my question. you had already stated this fact in your original post and then in your first reply to me, but it was not what i asked you. the real question that you failed to Percieve was
a question, does anything exist 'outside' or 'anterior' to your perception of existence?

actually you answered my question indirectly by twice failing to recognize what i was really asking you. maybe Falterdperception would be a more suitable title.




by using this vague definition of god you are correct, if your definition of god is existence itself. my point is there is no need for belief in the supernatural. it is not only superfluous but an incoherent theory

my vague definition of god wasnt really a definition of god it was more a definition of existence, but i suppose how it is read depends on perspective.

a bracelet can be made of gold but gold is not a bracelet.


my point is the supernatural is superflous and incoherent to you because you fail to perceive or comprehend it.

my point is the supernatural is superflous and incoherent to you because you fail to perceive or comprehend it.how can anybody, not know of the supernatural, we all have an imagination.
I think, he percieve and comprehend the supernatural perfectly well, but does'nt let his imagination run away with him.

how can anybody, not know of the supernatural, we all have an imagination.
I think, he percieve and comprehend the supernatural perfectly well, but does'nt let his imagination run away with him.
if you are saying the supernatural is in your imagination?
then it is not the supernatural, that is your imagination.

alteredperception,
here is the other question you failed to perceive;


why is it true that there cannot be an infinite number of antecedent causes if the universe has always existed then causes have always existed. why do you say an eternal universe can exist but infinite causes cannot?

if you are saying the supernatural is in your imagination? where else would the invisible reside.
then it is not the supernatural, that is your imagination.yes the supernatural is in my imagination, I accept that, as it is in everypersons imagination.

(supernatural:
adj : not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material;")

Supernatural forces can not be shown to exist by the scientific method. Supernatural claims assert phenomena beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, which are often in direct conflict with current scientific theory.
therefore it must be of the imagination.
the imaginary, and the invisible are of the same ilk.
The supernatural is also a topic in various genres of fiction, fiction is of the imagination.

it seems to me your are letting your imagination run away with you.

Lets say you were transported back through time to the creation of the universe. Lets say you witnessed the this miracle in slow motion and were filled with awe and wonder. Lets say you saw time and space ripple from the very finger of god. Imagine if you were given a means to prove to eveyone what you saw. How would you use this new found knowledge to save the world? To end suffering? Lets say that because of you the whole world believes in God. That still would not solve how different people interpret gods motivations. That still would not prove that anyone has ever been provided with a means to communicate with god. And even if they did it would not prove god is not a liar or has good intentions. It certainly would not prove that god has any interest in humans whatsoever. My question is this: then what?

where else would the invisible reside.the invisible wouLd reside anywhere but it wouldnt be visible.


yes the supernatural is in my imagination, I accept that, as it is in everypersons imagination.to say that the supernatural is an facet of the imagination is a leap of faith based on own projected fanatasies.

Supernatural forces can not be shown to exist by the scientific method. Supernatural claims assert phenomena beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, which are often in direct conflict with current scientific theory.
therefore it must be of the imagination.what you are saying here is science fails to explain supernatural forces therefore they must be in the imagination.

this is a conclusion based on your lack of comprehension.

science failing to explain supernatural phenomenom simply means science has failed to explain. saying they must be in the imagination is your way of explaining what science cant explain.
a more reasonable conclusion would be; science does not yet have the method or equipment to set out a feasible explanation for the supernatural.


the imaginary, and the invisible are of the same ilk.
the imaginary is something created by the imagination. the invisible is something that is not visible in what ilk are they the same?


The supernatural is also a topic in various genres of fiction, fiction is of the imagination.

it seems to me your are letting your imagination run away with you.
it seems to me your intellect has run away from you.
but i see what i see, you see what you see. so it should be.




Lets say you were transported back through time to the creation of the universe. Lets say you witnessed the this miracle in slow motion and were filled with awe and wonder. Lets say you saw time and space ripple from the very finger of god. Imagine if you were given a means to prove to eveyone what you saw. How would you use this new found knowledge to save the world? To end suffering? Lets say that because of you the whole world believes in God. That still would not solve how different people interpret gods motivations. That still would not prove that anyone has ever been provided with a means to communicate with god. And even if they did it would not prove god is not a liar or has good intentions. It certainly would not prove that god has any interest in humans whatsoever. My question is this: then what?

there is a lot of questions raised here, and though i understand where your coming from it would be better if i check this out with you.
you suppose proving to people that god exists is important.
you think that the world needs saving.
you believe that suffering needs to end.
you appreciate that people interpret gods motivations differently.
you yourself would like proof that it is possible to communicate with god.
you believe god has deceived and hurt people.
you wonder if god has any interest in humans at all.
and you dont really know what would happen if any of this was different.
did i get that right?

I completely understand the irrational blind faith people have in the supernatural and their unwillingness to be rational.

Ellion - you obviosly don't grasp the concept of time. Causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality. You are a naive person, confused by your own conscious thoughts.

And you don't grasp the entire reason I posted this thread. The Universe was never created out of nothingness. Existence has always existed. Your wrong concept of time is whats confusing you. I recommend you re-read the quote in my first post and tell me what you don't understand about it.

you suppose proving to people that god exists is important.
you think that the world needs saving.
you believe that suffering needs to end.
you appreciate that people interpret gods motivations differently.
you yourself would like proof that it is possible to communicate with god.
you believe god has deceived and hurt people.
you wonder if god has any interest in humans at all.
and you dont really know what would happen if any of this was different.
did i get that right?


Actually, the point I was tryng to make was that it really does not matter if god exist or not. What does matter is how people that claim to believe in god are trying to change the world. If one uses their belief in god to try to end suffering here on Earth, then great. There should be no need to prove that god exist, just that one is trying to do good things and help because one beleives that god exist. And if one tries to end suffering out of compassion with no belief in god, fine. There should be no need to prove that god does not exist. I mean say one did prove that god did exist. That would not change anything here on earth. Say you proved that he did not exist. That would not change anything either. The existence or non-existence of god means nor changes anything here on Earth. Only people can change things here on this planet, and it would be nice to think for the better. Not in an everyone-holding-hands-singing-folk-songs-better. Just better.

You are a naive person, confused by your own conscious thoughts.Your wrong concept of time is whats confusing you.

you say the cause of a tree is the parent tree. this is causality, yes? it is also infinite regress, yes?
you are saying that the universe has existed eternally, you are also saying infinite causes (regress) cannot exist. my confusion is caused by your inconsistency.

now, i am also questioning why you are avoiding my questions.
is there something you dont want to see, or something you dont want to admit?

re-reading you first post still doesnt answer the questions it raises.

a question, does anything exist 'outside' or 'anterior' to your perception of existence?
why is it true that there cannot be an infinite number of antecedent causes if the universe has always existed then causes have always existed. why do you say an eternal universe can exist but infinite causes cannot?

this is the third time i have asked you these questions
please dont answer as you have here; to answer your question, nothing exists outside or anterior to existence.as i am not asking what exists outside or anterior to existence.


or here;
nothing caused existenceas i am not asking you what caused existence


or hereCausality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality.as i am not asking what came before existence.

answer now, for yourself, i already understand your difficulty to percieve your own contradictions

i didn't write everything in the first post. Its a quote from Nathaniel Branden.

Anyways, to answer your questions,

why is it true that there cannot be an infinite number of antecedent causes if the universe has always existed then causes have always existed.

yes its infinite regress within the realm of existence. However, there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes for existence as a whole (see my first post).

why do you say an eternal universe can exist but infinite causes cannot?

To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. (see the quote in my first post)

does anything exist 'outside' or 'anterior' to your perception of existence?

Other people's perceptions of the universe exist outside my perception of the universe

hi alteredperception,

You claim that the scenario I outlined in my (large) post stems from MY imagination...

This is not the case...it is a conclusion based on the study of various academic works by many people, not just me... research such as Zecharia Sitchen's translations of the Sumerian tablets and cylinders...Lloyd Pye's work regarding Intervention vs. Evolution...and Cole's work in 'Hidden Archeology'...

If anyone has a sci-fi 'imagination' worthy of George Lucas..then it's the Ancient Sumerians..

If you choose not to look at the literature, then you've got no basis to call people 'naive', and then avoid the issue with semantics and wordplay...

"Methinks he doth protest too much"...what are you really scared of ?

Peace to all...

what you are saying here is science fails to explain supernatural forces therefore they must be in the imagination.
science failing to explain supernatural phenomenom simply means science has failed to explain. saying they must be in the imagination is your way of explaining what science cant explain.until such time as anybody, can prove that that the supernatural resides in the realms of the natural, yes.
the imaginary is something created by the imagination. the invisible is something that is not visible in what ilk are they the same?neither can be seen with the naked eye.


could you answer a few small questions for me.
1, is the invisible, subjective or objective?.
2, is the imagination, subjective or objective?.
3, is the supernatural, subjective or objective?.

to say that the supernatural is an facet of the imagination is a leap of faith how

hi stefan,

The subjective becomes objective only when ratified by 'science', if it chooses to look at the subject...

When groups of people see something like Halley's Comet, while it may be subjective observation (as you can't touch or test the phenomena) , because science knows what the phenomena is, it is accepted...

When there are mass sightings of UFO's for example, it is considered 'subjective' or 'mass hallucination' because 'science' has no explanation.

These UFO's, of course, can't be considered 'supernatural' if they're manifesting in our 'solid reality'

As far as testing the supernatural (ghosts, entities, gods etc.) on this level (3rd level density)...well, it's a contradiction in terms, isn't it ?

It's only because of the superconducting nature of these metallic elements in our brain chemistry (iridium & rhodium) that some can access or view entities on other levels of density...

It's no big deal, just undisclosed science...

Peace to all..... and steer clear of the 'Fear Matrix'

i didn't write everything in the first post. Its a quote from Nathaniel Branden.

Anyways, to answer your questions,
why is it true that there cannot be an infinite number of antecedent causes if the universe has always existed then causes have always existed.

yes its infinite regress within the realm of existence. However, there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes for existence as a whole (see my first post).

why do you say an eternal universe can exist but infinite causes cannot?


To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. (see the quote in my first post)

does anything exist 'outside' or 'anterior' to your perception of existence?



so we will leave causality out of the equation as it is nothing more than a function of existence.
so then if god exists, there is no need for a creator of god no need for a cause of god, god just exists. there is no requirement for anything to have created or caused that divine spiritual prinicple which is absolute and manifest throughout eternity. if everything that exists has always existed the purpose of your post is what? it ammounts to the equvelant of 'there is no breath without breathing'


Other people's perceptions of the universe exist outside my perception of the universe.
this is an excellent answer and exactly what i am getting at. the way you perceive the universe is not the only way to percieve the universe. so what does not exist or have an explanation in your universe, may have existence and explanation in another perception of the universe.


________________________________

1, is the invisible, subjective or objective?.
to say THE INVISIBLE is a bit vague. the invisible what? air, gas, sound, sensation, infra red, radiation . what do you equate with THE INVISIBLE?

is cognition and emotion a facet of THE INVISIBLE?


2, is the imagination, subjective or objective?.
the imagination is a subjective creative function.

3, is the supernatural, subjective or objective?.
again this woud depend on the aspect of the supernatural you are refering to? so i will say both.



to say that the supernatural is an facet of the imagination is a leap of faith

how
you said that the supernatural is in your imagination and you can accept that. that is a fair point. the things that you precieve as being supernatural you attribute to your imagination or you recognize as being a creation of your imagination, that is fine. to say that this is how it is for everyone is speculation(a leap of faith, if you then believe it is the truth) which is only backed by yours and sciences inability to offer an explanation that you are able to accomadate into your concept of reality. and you confirm this here
Supernatural forces can not be shown to exist by the scientific method. Supernatural claims assert phenomena beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, which are often in direct conflict with current scientific theory.
therefore it must be of the imagination.
the imaginary, and the invisible are of the same ilk.
The supernatural is also a topic in various genres of fiction, fiction is of the imagination.

to say THE INVISIBLE is a bit vague. the invisible what? air, gas, sound, sensation, infra red, radiation . what do you equate with THE INVISIBLE?so as you need clarifcation, the invisible= something that cant be seen, touched, heard, tasted, or smelt.
does that help, that has always been my interpretation of invisible
is cognition and emotion a facet of THE INVISIBLE?no cogition is something we gain from reality ( example the 5 senses), and emotions are chemical reactions to stimuli9 example the 5 senses).
again this would depend on the aspect of the supernatural you are refering to? so i will say both.I would be grateful if you could help me with what you mean by different aspects of the supernatural, also whilst you explain your reasons for your believe of objective supernatural(an oxymoron), could you also post some links to verify it, thank you.

to say THE INVISIBLE is a bit vague. the invisible what? air, gas, sound, sensation, infra red, radiation . what do you equate with THE INVISIBLE?
so as you need clarifcation, the invisible= something that cant be seen, touched, heard, tasted, or smelt.
does that help, that has always been my interpretation of invisible.

well your interpretation is fucked up try using the actual defintion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=invisible
3 entries for invisible.
in·vis·i·ble adj.

1. Impossible to see; not visible: Air is invisible.
2. Not accessible to view; hidden: mountain peaks invisible in the fog.
3. Not easily noticed or detected; inconspicuous: “The poor are politically invisible” (Michael Harrington).
4. Not published in financial statements: an invisible asset.

tell me what you make of this before i continue.

there is only 1 objective reality. Mine is the most realistic. Causality doesn't apply to existence. Therefore on what grounds do you deny that existence has existed eternally?

read this quote again,
there is only 1 objective reality. Mine is the most realistic.
do you see how you contradict your self?

no, mine is the most widely accepted

your funny!

Widely accepted = Truth

Yeah, just like the Gov.'s story about 9/11....knuckleheads !!

Peace

I am referring to currently what most scientists claim to be the most accurate theory of the universe. Of course none of claim our theories to be FACT, that is a ridiculous thing to think. Currently there are 3 main competing views.

1. The universe will keep expanding, entropy.
2. The universe will undergo a "big crunch" from the gravity overwhelming the expansive force.
(my theory) 3. If you travel far enough in any direction you will reach the same point. The universe is like a globe, except it has an added dimension. The universe will undergo changes, but has a definite order regarding its design. The universe is eternal. Trying to study it as we would study a galaxy, for instance, doesn't work, because the universe is existence itself.

your interpretation is fucked up
it seems I've made a mistake on two counts one being the word invisible, after speaking with my wife it seems your view of invisible may be the correct one.
but I had found this in a Thesaurus,
1. invisible (vs. visible), unseeable, camouflaged, concealed, hidden, out of sight, infrared, lightless, ultraviolet, undetectable, unseen, nonvisual, occult, imperceptible, unperceivable, covert
usage: impossible or nearly impossible to see; imperceptible by the eye; "the invisible man"; "invisible rays"; "an invisible hinge"; "invisible mending"
2. inconspicuous (vs. conspicuous), invisible, obscure, unnoticeable
usage: not prominent or readily noticeable; "he pushed the string through an inconspicuous hole"; "the invisible man"

both the two bolded words mean "Impossible or difficult to perceive by the mind or senses."
the other count, was I made a quote I heard, wrong IE"the imaginary, and the invisible are of the same ilk." should have been the invisible and the non-existant are very similar.
I still feel my version of invisible is correct but, would like to subsitute non-existent in it's place, that has the right meaning.


again this would depend on the aspect of the supernatural you are refering to? so i will say both.
I would be grateful if you could help me with what you mean by different aspects of the supernatural, also whilst you explain your reasons for your believe of objective supernatural(an oxymoron), could you also post some links to verify it, thank you.

so is the non-existent subjective or objective?.(if you believe this to be both, could you also post some links thank you)

I would be grateful if you could help me with what you mean by different aspects of the supernatural,telepathy would be considered supernatural by a lot of people. there are aspects of telepathy which would be considered subjective and aspects which would be considered objective. telekinesis would be considered supernatural by most people, again aspects would be considered objective and aspects of it are subjective.



also whilst you explain your reasons for your believe of objective supernatural(an oxymoron), could you also post some links to verify it, thank you.what kind of links would you like?

objective supernatural is not an oxymoron.
an example to illustrate. a ghost is an acceptable example of the supernatural. if two people see a ghost it has an existence in objective reality. two people seeing a ghost is an example of the objective supernatural. would you agree?



so is is the non existent subjective or objective?
the non-existent doesnt exist? so its not both, its neither

The supernatural is non-existent. If you think otherwise, you are an uneducated, niave, fool. Supernatural is defined in such a way that it is not possible. It is existence outside the natural world. This entire concept was created by our imaginition. If you believe in God, to be consistent, you have to believe in everything else created by our imaginition that is outside the natural world equally. You have to believe in ghosts, magic, zombies, fairies, etc. You have to accept all forms of religion, like the Egyptian beliefs. They are on the same playing field.

Either accept that God is no more believable than faries and denounce his existence, or spend your life worshipping all creations of the imagination that are supernatural.

If you think otherwise, you are an uneducated, niave, fool. CARE TO ELABORATE? WITHOUT THE IMMATURITY DISPLAYED BY THE REST OF YOUR POSTS.

telepathy would be considered supernatural by a lot of people. there are aspects of telepathy which would be considered subjective and aspects which would be considered objective. telekinesis would be considered supernatural by most people, again aspects would be considered objective and aspects of it are subjective.

what kind of links would you like?

telepathy
supposed Communication through means other than the senses, as by the exercise of an occult power.
supposed communication between two persons without recourse to the senses.
purportedly communication from one mind to another without using sensory perceptions.

telekinesis, The movement of objects purportedly by the exercise of occult power.

psychokinesis, The production or control of motion, especially in inanimate and remote objects, purportedly by the exercise of psychic powers.

ellion the key words are supposed, purported both meaning to presume, assume, to be true or real without conclusive evidence.

so I'm sorry, they can not be regarded as objective.

therefore we can only come to the conclusion, that until such a time that, they can prove the supernatural, it must be regarded as imaginary.
you can post some links if you wish, but I seriously doubt they could prove the impossible.

ellion you may wish to go to this site (http://www.randi.org/) as he is offering 1 million dollars to anybody who can prove the supernatural, in any way shape or form.

no your wrong again, if your going to communicate using the english language please use the actaul definitions as opposed to your own interpretaions.
i thought we had addressed this problem earlier.

there is no supposed or purported in the definitions so the key words are your own creation. do with them what you will, but dont ask me to address your creations.


so I'm sorry, they can not be regarded as objective.
see my above post they are objective or subjective depending on what aspect of them we are talking about, the problem we have is that you are more eagre to deny there existence, than you are to have an actual discussion.

therefore we can only come to the conclusion, that until such a time that, they can prove the supernatural, it must be regarded as imaginary. we can only come to a definite conclusion when all posibilities have been explored and all avenues of investigation have been exhausted. then and only then can we come to a conclusion. to say they dont exist is not exploring all possibilities.

if you regard them as imaginary, then do so, but do not tell me they are my imagination when you have not even given enough thought to the subject to present true and undistorted definition of the meanings.


.

no your wrong again, if your going to communicate using the english language please use the actaul definitions as opposed to your own interpretaions.
i thought we had addressed this problem earlier. I sorry, but I do prefer the actual interpretations to yours so you will find the sources at the begining of each, and no we had'nt address this earlier.

dictionary.com : telepathy, Communication through means other than the senses

wikipedia: telepathy, is the supposed ability to communicate information from one mind to another,

infoplease: encyclopedia, telepathy, supposed communication between two persons without recourse to the senses.
dictionary,telepathy, communication between minds by some means other than sensory perception

dictionary.com psychokinesis, The production or control of motion, especially in inanimate and remote objects, purportedly by the exercise of psychic powers.

wikipedia, Psychokinesis (literally "mind-movement") or PK is the more commonly used term today for what in the past was known as telekinesis. There have been anecdotal reports of such apparent phenomena throughout history in various cultures. For example, poltergeist activity is typically characterized by objects being moved without apparent explanation, though some people claim that this is accounted for as unintentional PK by children going through puberty.

As with all psi phenomena, there is wide disagreement and controversy within the sciences and even within the field of parapsychology as to the very existence of psychokinesis and the validity or interpretation of PK-related experiments. To date there has never been a scientifically demonstrated instance of psychokinesis.


there is no supposed or purported in the definitions so the key words are your own creation. do with them what you will, but dont ask me to address your creations. as you can see above with the sources I seem to have bumped into some more of my aledged "own creations", perhaps I'm doing it telepathically.


see my above post they are objective or subjective depending on what aspect of them we are talking about, the problem we have is that you are more eagre to deny there existence, than you are to have an actual discussion. as I've said they cant be objective, I'm not denying there existence they have none in objective reality, only subjective reality.

we can only come to a definite conclusion when all posibilities have been explored and all avenues of investigation have been exhausted. then and only then can we come to a conclusion. to say they dont exist is not exploring all possibilities. what I said was,"that until such a time that, they can prove the supernatural, it must be regarded as imaginary." I have'nt disregarded the possiblity have I.
but you cant assert that they are real, sorry.

if you regard them as imaginary, then do so, but do not tell me they are my imagination when you have not even given enough thought to the subject to present true and undistorted definition of the meanings.
.see above, thank you.

objective supernatural is not an oxymoron.
an example to illustrate. a ghost is an acceptable example of the supernatural. if two people see a ghost it has an existence in objective reality. two people seeing a ghost is an example of the objective supernatural. would you agree?
I would have to agree that "Objective Supernatural" is an oxymoron.
As soon as a "supernatural phenomenum" is scientifically proven then it is no longer supernatural but natural (and our understanding of the natural would need revising from the current position).

Please state a current "supernatural" phenomena that is anything other than subjective.

Two people seeing the same thing and coming to the same conclusion that it is a supernatural event does not make it a supernatural event. It merely means that two people have seen the same thing and come to the same conclusion. That's all.

Noone has ever objectively seen a ghost - only subjectively
They have only ever seen things they think are ghosts (hence the subjectivity).
Hence your attempt to use it to disprove the original remark is, alas, flawed.

this thread is dead.

Widely accepted = Truth

Yeah, just like the Gov.'s story about 9/11....knuckleheads !!

Peace
It does not mean that just because the statement is widely accepted, the statement is truth. Non Sequitor

enton,

STOP!!!!

Universe=all matter and energy=existence. are you blind? and whats with your post, its a jumbled incoherent mess
I'm not blind. If I'm blind I would be like others doubting or insisting the inexistence of (our) God.

ENTON! These people aren't even HERE any more!

i am

superluminal whay are you so concerned with enton, this makes me concerned about you, and it make wonder if any one will be concerned about me.

I'm not concerned with him. I just wanted him to STOP making stupid one line comments on posts that are 6 months old, to people that aren't even here, and driving the current ones off to page two or three. That's all.

dalahar

do you think there is something outside the universe?

Why shouldn't it? 'Universe' revers to everything that exists anywhere in any state. Anything that exists is, be definition, part of the universe.

Why should the universe take up all the space?

it does not take up all the space it is all the space.

ellion is correct.

the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated
sounds like the totality of all that exists.

a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independentorganization is this wher you get the "closed" from?
this is obviously referring to a province of thought or reality. in the sense of being complete. closed does necessitate that something exists outside. something such as the universe can be closed and be complete.

unless your understanding of universe is in the cosmic sense of being a smaller system within a larger system.

missed this bit
whole

(2): milky way galaxy (3): an aggregate ofstars comparable to the Milky Way galaxy

dalahar, you need to get an updated dictionary. The milky way is just an average one of hundreds of billions of galaxies and other structures that exist in the universe.

If the universe is expanding, then what is it expanding into?
is the universe expanding or is that a postualte from the evidence we have?

Something else that takes up space. Is that not right?
this "something else" it must have principles, properties and elements, it must have charecteristics , it is some sort of environment, it it not?

If it is wrong, then what do you call the nothing that it is expanding into?if it is expanding it is expanding within itself, so you could call the nothing "the unvierse". jewish philosophy has a model called "ain soph" meaning "the limitless" this would be what you undesrtand as nothing, this nothing is then impregnated with "ain soph aur" meaning "the limitless light" this would be what you understand as matter, particles, waves, heat, light.

it seems like you understand the univesrse as a system within a system. but then what is the larger system, where is that existing?
this is the same problem as "who created the creator?"

your asking the wrong person, i am not christian and dont accept christian doctrine.

have you anything to say about what we were discussing, or is it this were you start calling me a deluded idiot who lives in afantasy world of fairies and trolls?

dalahar, did you notice this?

this is the same problem as "who created the creator?"

deist, theist, fairy believer dude? why everyone need to label me?

"ooh! thats interesting, what is it?"
"i dont know, could be some kind flopsilism"
"yeah, could be! we definitley need a box to keep him in"
"yeah, how can we possible understand him if he isnt in a box"
"wow, i dont know thats like, impossible"
"do you have box he might fit into?"
"no! but i got this badge! we could stick this badge on him"
"whats it say, whats it say?"
"it says "i ♥ god"
"i heart god"
"no you fucking dipshit, i ♥ god"
"thats what i said, i heart god"
"awwhh! fuck the badge! here use this umbrella"
"what, the fantasy one?"
"yeah the fantasy umbrella, the fantasy umbrella always helps me understand those slippery god loving bastards"

What if you got to the edge of the universe and could go no further in the flesh but could only continue if you were in the spirit?actually my motorbike will get me about as far as anglsey then i will probably have to get a boat after that. how far is the edge of your universe from mine?

I know you don't believe in the spirit, how do you know that?

but isn't it unscientific to discard the idea of a spirit or heaven because you don't yet have proof?science is the art of creating problems for an infinity of solutions.

I must not be a scientist. any more labels to rid your self of, break free of another box, etc

I heart God,do you feel gods love for you?

I was in the spirit and I overheard you tell your cousin. then you was not really in the spirit, as i have never spoke such words in maybe 6-7 years.

Everytime I think about the life and death of Christ.to me that sounds like a box of god. just open that box and have a taste of gods love, and when the box is closed god goes back to heaven.
but then this is how god is revealed to you, and i appreciate that is your path.

How do we know if there's nothing outside our universe? That sounds very much like an assumption...

How do we know if there's nothing outside our universe? That sounds very much like an assumption...
The point of it is that the definition of Universe is all that exists.
There is no "our Universe" and "other Universes".
If it exists at all, anywhere, whether it is in our neighborhood of space or not, it is part of "The Universe".
By saying it exists, you are saying it is part of the Universe, since the Universe is all that exists.
To say something exists outside of the Universe (outside of all that exists) you are saying that it does not exist.
The Universe is not a "place" it is all.

The point of it is that the definition of Universe is all that exists.
There is no "our Universe" and "other Universes".
If it exists at all, anywhere, whether it is in our neighborhood of space or not, it is part of "The Universe".
By saying it exists, you are saying it is part of the Universe, since the Universe is all that exists.
To say something exists outside of the Universe (outside of all that exists) you are saying that it does not exist.
The Universe is not a "place" it is all.
Ok. That is a different definition from which we are used to. Ever heard of Big Bang?

I hear you, and I agree it is a good definition. However, that begs the question: how big is the universe?

I hear you, and I agree it is a good definition. However, that begs the question: how big is the universe?
No it doesn't.
Because if the universe is not a place, it does not have a size.

The difference is that the article treats the Universe as "all that exists" you are thinking of the Universe as a place in space, or even all of space.
The Universe, according to how the writer is defining it, is all of space, all that is IN space, anything that exists (if anything does) outside the boudaries or space... Everything.

No it doesn't.
Because if the universe is not a place, it does not have a size.
Oh, so we don't live in a place!?
It doesn't have a size. Does that mean it is infinite?

For the moment, let's put that aside.
You said it begs the question, "How big is the Universe?"
I am not sure how it does.
How is that relevant to the point of the article?
Or are you just taking it off on a tangent?

The difference is that the article treats the Universe as "all that exists" you are thinking of the Universe as a place in space, or even all of space.
The Universe, according to how the writer is defining it, is all of space, all that is IN space, anything that exists (if anything does) outside the boudaries or space... Everything.
Such a definition is convinient and unable to define anything.
Still, it's the best atheist argument I've ever read...

Such a definition is convinient and unable to define anything.

I don't think it is backpedaling away from defining it, it is simply equating it with "existence".

Saying "the Universe and everything in it" attempts to define the Universe as some sort of container for existence, which I think is fairly meaningless and abstract.

Though I am not sure I DO agree with the definition, I certainly agree with the intention of the post -the argument against the absurd Cosmological Argument.

What is the Universe?
Is it space?
What, then, is space? Some people believe that space was generated as part of the Big Bang, which would mean that space is still being created at the outer edges of matter ejected from the Big Bang. What is beyond that? Nothingness?
If so, then what happens if you live on a planet at the outermost fringe of teh expanding Universe and take a rocket out towards the "end of space"? What happens when you hit the end?

By defining The Universe as "all that exists" these speculative arguments don't get in the way.

However, I think it may have been more accurate to stick to using "existence" rather than "The Universe"...

Hmmm.... Let me go back and read again...

For the moment, let's put that aside.
You said it begs the question, "How big is the Universe?"
I am not sure how it does.
How is that relevant to the point of the article?
Or are you just taking it off on a tangent?
If the universe is all that exists it must have a size since all that exist has a definite size. If you claim that the universe is infinite, that is an answer (and the only possible one) to the claim that the universe is all that exist. However, if the universe is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of energy in the universe, which does not make any sense according to the laws of physics which we know off.

To put the fallacy in a clear form, we can analize the argument carefully.
The first premise states that all that exist is the "universe"
The second, says there is nothing other then the universe, which is equally defined as "existance.
The obvious conclusion that we come to is that if the universe is all that exist, then there's nothing "outside" of the universe, which means that the universe is infinite. If the universe was finite, then it would have a size. Since you said it doesn't have a "size", that means it must not be finite.

The argument works fine philosophically, but when you take physics into consideration, it has its flaws...

If the universe is all that exists it must have a size since all that exist has a definite size.
This is where I am getting tripped up.
"The Universe" is what needs to be defined.
If you consider "The Universe" to be a container that encapsulates all that exists, then the immediate assumption is that it must either have a size or be infinite.
If, however, you consider "The Universe" to be all that exists, "size", then, becomes meaningless, since "The Universe" is not simply a container.
Space, then, would be the container, but what if "things" exists other than what is in the container of space?
"Things" that are not matter and do not take up space?

I suppose it is a matter of semantics, but a necessary evil.

If you claim that the universe is infinite, that is an answer (and the only possible one) to the claim that the universe is all that exist.
Again, if you consider "The Universe" to be all of existence, then size is meaningless.
It is akin to asking how big dreams are.

If you consider the Universe a container, however, I disagree with your statement.
The Universe can be of finite size and still contain everything that exists.
Why not?

However, if the universe is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of energy in the universe, which does not make any sense according to the laws of physics which we know off.
That is if:
A.) Again, you consider the Universe to be a container.
B.) Every inch of the Universe has energy in it.
C.) We are correct in our measurments of energy in the Universe (which I am not so sure of).


The first premise states that all that exist is the "universe"
The second, says there is nothing other then the universe, which is equally defined as "existance.
The obvious conclusion that we come to is that if the universe is all that exist, then there's nothing "outside" of the universe, which means that the universe is infinite.
That does not follow.


The problem is that you are mixing definitions.
If the Universe IS all that exists, then size, as I said, becomes meaningless.
If the Universe CONTAINS all that exists, why does it have to be infinite?

Bear with me. I have had a headache for hours and my powers of reason are suffering. :p

If the Universe IS all that exists, then size, as I said, becomes meaningless.
Why? Modern cosmologists speak of the universe as the extent of space, i.e. all that exists or can exist. It's extent is most likely infinite. The "size" we measure is the size of the portion of the universe that is visible to us, limited by the Hubble horizon.

If the Universe CONTAINS all that exists, why does it have to be infinite?

It dosen't. It just seem that it is likely.

I don't think it is backpedaling away from defining it, it is simply equating it with "existence".

Saying "the Universe and everything in it" attempts to define the Universe as some sort of container for existence, which I think is fairly meaningless and abstract.
Not at all. In fact, if you define the "universe" as "all existance", then you would not have anthing to compare "existance" with, which would render it meaningless.

Though I am not sure I DO agree with the definition, I certainly agree with the intention of the post -the argument against the absurd Cosmological Argument.
Oh yeah, the intention is absolutely valid. Doesn't mean it works out though.

What is the Universe?
Is it space?
What, then, is space? Some people believe that space was generated as part of the Big Bang, which would mean that space is still being created at the outer edges of matter ejected from the Big Bang. What is beyond that? Nothingness?
If so, then what happens if you live on a planet at the outermost fringe of teh expanding Universe and take a rocket out towards the "end of space"? What happens when you hit the end?
What happens when a ship reaches the horizont?

By defining The Universe as "all that exists" these speculative arguments don't get in the way.
That's an easy way out, which doesn't work logically.

Hmmm.... Let me go back and read again...
Indeed... it's good...

You guys are missing the modern understanding of the universe.

Not at all. In fact, if you define the "universe" as "all existance", then you would not have anthing to compare "existance" with, which would render it meaningless.
Explain, please.

That's an easy way out, which doesn't work logically.
I think, rather, it is avoiding confusing the issue by not bringing the irrelevant into it.
If you are having a discussion about gun control, it is silly and pointless and tends to obfuscate the issue if you get into a metaphysical argument over whether or not guns even exists in the greater sense.

Why? Modern cosmologists speak of the universe as the extent of space, i.e. all that exists or can exist. It's extent is most likely infinite. The "size" we measure is the size of the portion of the universe that is visible to us, limited by the Hubble horizon.

Like I said earlier...
How big is a dream or a thought?
Yet they exist.

Unless you want to limit the definition to all matter that exists, then size is rendered meaningless.

You guys are missing the modern understanding of the universe.
I agree.
That's the problem. :p

one raven

I just responded to a post of yours over in phys/math.

This is where I am getting tripped up.
"The Universe" is what needs to be defined.
If you consider "The Universe" to be a container that encapsulates all that exists, then the immediate assumption is that it must either have a size or be infinite.
If, however, you consider "The Universe" to be all that exists, "size", then, becomes meaningless, since "The Universe" is not simply a container.
Space, then, would be the container, but what if "things" exists other than what is in the container of space?
"Things" that are not matter and do not take up space?

I suppose it is a matter of semantics, but a necessary evil.
Indeed. Well, how would you define the universe then? If it's not a container of existance, what is it then?

Again, if you consider "The Universe" to be all of existence, then size is meaningless.
I know that. That is why it is considered infinite.

If you consider the Universe a container, however, I disagree with your statement.
The Universe can be of finite size and still contain everything that exists.
Why not?
Ahhh... please explain. If it is finite and is all that exist, what would you propose to exist outside this finite "space-time"?

That is if:
A.) Again, you consider the Universe to be a container.
B.) Every inch of the Universe has energy in it.
C.) We are correct in our measurments of energy in the Universe (which I am not so sure of).
The point that I'm making all the time is the fact that if it is not a container, then it must be infinite, which does not really make any sense.

That does not follow.
How?

The problem is that you are mixing definitions.
What about you? ;)

If the Universe IS all that exists, then size, as I said, becomes meaningless.
I know that, and in fact, I'm saying the very same thing. If there is no "size", then it must be infinite.

If the Universe CONTAINS all that exists, why does it have to be infinite?
Because if it is finite, there is SOMETHING outside it, even if it is NOTHINGNESS. And then, we are back to the beginning!!!! :D

Bear with me. I have had a headache for hours and my powers of reason are suffering.
I totally understand man. Here. Smoke some weed :m:

You guys are f***** fast! LOL! :p :D
Explain, please.
Ahhh.... that was self-explanatory...
If you only have "existance", then you cannot define what "existance" really is because you don't have "non-existance" to comapre it with.

I think, rather, it is avoiding confusing the issue by not bringing the irrelevant into it.
Everything is relevant to some degree. If you dismiss something that is relevant as "irrelevant", then you have a problem with your logic.

If you are having a discussion about gun control, it is silly and pointless and tends to obfuscate the issue if you get into a metaphysical argument over whether or not guns even exists in the greater sense.
This is not the case. All that I'm discussing is relevant to the discussion. If you think it's not, then point out exactly what it is and why.

Like I said earlier...
How big is a dream or a thought?
Yet they exist.
Ah! That's what you were saying... I just got it.
Ok. Can you really compare something as physical as the universe to something as abstract as a dream or a thought?

Indeed. Well, how would you define the universe then? If it's not a container of existance, what is it then?
I don't know.
I thought that was the point of this little exercise.


I know that. That is why it is considered infinite.
Infinite does not mean sizeless.
Thoughts are not infinite in size or weight, size and weight simply does not apply to them.
They are properties they do not have.

Ahhh... please explain. If it is finite and is all that exist, what would you propose to exist outside this finite "space-time"?
I don't.
Infinite implies that if you travel in a straight line it will never end, nor will it repeat (such as a ship over the horizon).
It means it never ends.
It could conceivably have an end, and still contain all that exists.
Why not?

How?
How DOES it follow?


What about you?
:D Me too. I'm not denying it.


I know that, and in fact, I'm saying the very same thing. If there is no "size", then it must be infinite.
Again, infinite means endless, not that it does not have a property of size.

Because if it is finite, there is SOMETHING outside it, even if it is NOTHINGNESS. And then, we are back to the beginning!!!! :D
Is there?
How can you be so sure.
Nothingness is not something it is the lack of something, no?

I totally understand man. Here. Smoke some weed
I wish!
I'm at work. :p

one raven

I just responded to a post of yours over in phys/math.
Thanks.
I replied.

Ahhh.... that was self-explanatory...
If you only have "existance", then you cannot define what "existance" really is because you don't have "non-existance" to comapre it with.
I disagree.
Why do you need something to compare it to to define it?

I don't know.
I thought that was the point of this little exercise.
If it is the point of this exercise, why is all that you answer is "I don't know"? ;)

Infinite does not mean sizeless.
Oh really? So then, what is the size of "infinite"? ;)

Thoughts are not infinite in size or weight, size and weight simply does not apply to them.
They are properties they do not have.
Indeed. Is the universe a thought? ;)

I don't.
Infinite implies that if you travel in a straight line it will never end, nor will it repeat (such as a ship over the horizon).
It means it never ends.
It could conceivably have an end, and still contain all that exists.
Why not?
That's not the issue. The point is that if it is finite, it has something outside it, even if it is nothingness.

How DOES it follow?
I don't know! That's your opinion! LOL!!

Me too. I'm not denying it.
Silly!!!

Again, infinite means endless, not that it does not have a property of size.
Again, what is the size of infinite?

Is there?
How can you be so sure.
Nothingness is not something it is the lack of something, no?
Nothingness is something. It is the abscence of existance. If the abscence of existance exists, then abscence of existance is something!

I wish!
I'm at work.
At work! WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE THEN!!!!!?!?!?!?!?

LOL!

I disagree.
Why do you need something to compare it to to define it?
How would you define something without its opposite?
How can you define "existance" without "non-existance"?

Whatever happens, I hope the path you choose leads to peace.it has, thanks, i hope you find it too.

How do we know if there's nothing outside our universe? That sounds very much like an assumption...the assumption is that the unviverse is all that exists. if this is true then the something "outside" is not "outside" it is "inside" our universe. this doesnt help much because if we say something is inside our universe we create an outside which cannot be. the universe is all that exists. in these terms the universe is existence itself.


However, that begs the question: how big is the universe?if the universe has a size then it would have an outer edge. if it had an outer edge it would have an outside and an inside. if you define a the univesre as such you are in to the system within a system concept which means the universe is all that exists inside our circumference of expereince.


Oh, so we don't live in a place!?the place we live is within the existence.

It doesn't have a size. Does that mean it is infinite?not being limited or contained would mean unlimited or uncontained.


What is the Universe?
Is it space?
What, then, is space? Some people believe that space was generated as part of the Big Bang, which would mean that space is still being created at the outer edges of matter ejected from the Big Bang. What is beyond that? Nothingness?if the circumference of "our universe" is expanding into "nothingness" then the "nothingness" is an aspect of the unversal exapnsion that "our universe" is expanding into. if this is the case this "nothingness" is part of "our existence" (our universe) if the "nothingness" is a container of "our universe" there is the possibility that "other universe" are expanding their circumference into that nothingness. this would be a system within a system. if this where the case our univesre is not all that exists, it would be all that exists with in the circumference of our experience.


However, I think it may have been more accurate to stick to using "existence" rather than "The Universe"...yeah! words get in the way.


However, if the universe is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of energy in the universe, which does not make any sense according to the laws of physics which we know off. how would this be different to a contained universe with a contained amount of energy? please, bear in mind i am not a scientist.

Not at all. In fact, if you define the "universe" as "all existance", then you would not have anthing to compare "existance" with, which would render it meaningless.we would have non-existence to compare it with. we know what non-existence is because non-existence exists. how so?

there is no door in my ceiling.
the door in my ceiling is non-existent.

the moon on my lawn does not exist because there is no moon on my lawn.


What happens when a ship reaches the horizont?if it has the potential it continues its course. this is what happens when the shuttle continues outside earths atmosphere.


If it's not a container of existance, what is it then? perhaps it is uncontained existence?

If you only have "existance", then you cannot define what "existance" really is because you don't have "non-existance" to comapre it with.but we dont only have existence we have non-existence also.

Truthseeker,
How much does the a musical note weigh?
Does it have infinite weight, or is weight simply not a property of musical notes?

How much does the a musical note weigh?

Man, you really love these sorts of questions, don't you? :m:

Man, you really love these sorts of questions, don't you? :m:
:D

How else am I expected to respond when someone says that if something does not have a property of size, that means it has infinite size?

but space exist and can be measured therefore size is a property of the universe.

OR,

How else am I expected to respond when someone says that if something does not have a property of size, that means it has infinite size?

Can't argue with that!

but space exist and can be measured therefore size is a property of the universe.
Possibly, but somehow (though I can't quite put it succinctly at the moment) that seems to be artificially limiting the Universe.
I know, it sounds like I am leaning towards the metaphysical and questioning something such as "does Heaven take up space?" but, believe me, I'm not.
It does, however, seem (on the surface, at least) that saying "all that exists" can be measured lengthwise...
If, like I said, you consider the Universe to be a container for all that exists, then that container can be measured, but if it is all that exists... something is amiss.

yes i know what you are saying!

space is not the only property of the universe and all that exists is not defined in spatial criteria, yes?

yes i know what you are saying!

space is not the only property of the universe and all that exists is not defined in spatial criteria, yes?
That sounds better than the way I was trying to say it! :D

but space exist and can be measured therefore size is a property of the universe.
Thank you! :eek: :D

Having said that, if the universe is uncontained, it necessarily mean that it is infinite, which is not possible with the physical laws that we have, therefore, the universe is finite and contained and there must be something outside of it, even if it is "nothingness"!

yes i know what you are saying!

space is not the only property of the universe and all that exists is not defined in spatial criteria, yes?
Ok. So how would you define then?


It seems to me you guys are a little bit confused.... :D

Truthseeker,
How much does the a musical note weigh?
Does it have infinite weight, or is weight simply not a property of musical notes?
As I said before, you cannot compare the universe with something abstract, because the universe is not abstract. The main intrinsic property of the universe is the fact that it is physical, so you cannot apply the properties of something abstract to something that is physical!!!!!!!!

Having said that, if the universe is uncontained, it necessarily mean that it is infinite
No, it does not.

which is not possible with the physical laws that we have
You still haven't supported that statement. Until you do, it is just an assertion. I don't buy it.

therefore, the universe is finite and contained and there must be something outside of it, even if it is "nothingness"!
1.) "Nothingness" is not something.
2.) Specifically WHY must there be something outside it?
3.) If there IS something "outside it" the "The Universe" is not ALL that exists, is it? Therefore, you are discounting the definition given. Again, you are mixing definitions. Do you mean "space" or do you mean "all that exists"?
See, if you do not mean "all that exists", which you can not if you say something must be "outside" of it, then you are not viewing "the Universe" as a container, therefore is has no size.

The main intrinsic property of the universe is the fact that it is physical
No it is not. That's the point.
I don't know if you are diagreeing, or misunderstanding me.
If you consider the Universe to be ALL THAT EXISTS, then it is NOT something physical. Thoughts EXIST, sounds EXISTS, light EXISTS, many things that exist are NOT physical. So, as I was saying, if you consider the Universe to be ALL that exists, you must also consider the abstract, the immaterial and everything else. If you consider the Universe to be a container, it can possibly contain all those things.
Do you NOT see the distinction I am trying to make?
Or do you simply disagree?

therefore, the universe is finite and contained and there must be something outside of it, even if it is "nothingness"!


How do we know if there's nothing outside our universe? That sounds very much like an assumption...the assumption is that the unviverse is all that exists. if this is true then the something "outside" is not "outside" it is "inside" our universe. this doesnt help much because if we say something is inside our universe we create an outside which cannot be. the universe is all that exists. in these terms the universe is existence itself.



However, that begs the question: how big is the universe?if the universe has a size then it would have an outer edge. if it had an outer edge it would have an outside and an inside. if you define a the univesre as such you are in to the system within a system concept which means the universe is all that exists inside our circumference of expereince.


However, if the universe is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of energy in the universe, which does not make any sense according to the laws of physics which we know off. how would this be different to a contained universe with a contained amount of energy? please, bear in mind i am not a scientist.



Having said that, if the universe is uncontained, it necessarily mean that it is infinite, which is not possible with the physical laws that we have, what physical laws restrict the universe? physical laws are a property of the the universe the universe is not a property of physical laws.

No, it does not.
Ok, prove it. If it is uncontained, then how big the universe is? Because as far as I know, the universe physically exist, and everything that physically exists has a size, since size is a property of physical existance.

You still haven't supported that statement. Until you do, it is just an assertion. I don't buy it.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

If the universe is infinite, then there must be an infinite amount of energy. Does it look like the universe has an infinite amount of energy?

1.) "Nothingness" is not something.
Yes, it is. It has the property of non-existance. It is, in other words, a perfect vacuum.

2.) Specifically WHY must there be something outside it?
Because even if there is nothingness outside it, then it has something outside it. You don't seem to understand the relationship between existance and non-existance. If something don't exist, it simply doesn't occupy the space, which exists.

3.) If there IS something "outside it" the "The Universe" is not ALL that exists, is it?
Precisely the reason why I pointed out that if the universe would be all that exist, it would be infinite.

Therefore, you are discounting the definition given. Again, you are mixing definitions. Do you mean "space" or do you mean "all that exists"?
See, if you do not mean "all that exists", which you can not if you say something must be "outside" of it, then you are not viewing "the Universe" as a container, therefore is has no size.
The universe is physical. Size is one of the main properties of something that is physical. You seem to be ignoring that.

No it is not. That's the point.
Ok. Maybe that's where we disagree. Why do you think the universe is not physical. Aren't there particles all over the universe? Aren't particles physical?

If an object contains something which is physical, then such an object must be physical itself, even if it is not defined, or a vacuum, simply because it contains what is physical.

I don't know if you are diagreeing, or misunderstanding me.
If you consider the Universe to be ALL THAT EXISTS, then it is NOT something physical.
So what exist is not physical?

Thoughts EXIST, sounds EXISTS, light EXISTS, many things that exist are NOT physical.
I know that. Actually, sound is physical, and it is described as waves of sound. Light is the same. It's like a bullet, but also with wave properties. I would even consider that an evidence of superstrings, though that would be an inductive argument....

So, as I was saying, if you consider the Universe to be ALL that exists, you must also consider the abstract, the immaterial and everything else.
Absolutely! But you are ignoring everything that is physical!!!!!! :D

If you consider the Universe to be a container, it can possibly contain all those things.
A container is finite.

Do you NOT see the distinction I am trying to make?
Or do you simply disagree?
I disagree. You don't seem to be attaching physical properties to things that are physical. You seem to be mixing them.

the assumption is that the unviverse is all that exists. if this is true then the something "outside" is not "outside" it is "inside" our universe. this doesnt help much because if we say something is inside our universe we create an outside which cannot be. the universe is all that exists. in these terms the universe is existence itself.
Yes, I understand that. But what I'm pointing out is the fact that if the universe is all that exist it must be infinite, otherwise there would be necessarily "something" outside of the universe. If the universe is finite, then there must be something outside of it.

if the universe has a size then it would have an outer edge.
Not if it is infinite.

if it had an outer edge it would have an outside and an inside.
That's exaclty what I'm pointing out. It cannot be infinite, therefore it is finite and therefore, there is an outer edge, an inside, an outside and it is not all that exist.

if you define a the univesre as such you are in to the system within a system concept which means the universe is all that exists inside our circumference of expereince.
inside our circumference of expereince. Thank you.

how would this be different to a contained universe with a contained amount of energy? please, bear in mind i am not a scientist.
A contained universe would have a boundary. So if you define it as "all that exist" then there must be no boundary, which means that the universe cannot be contained. Is it that hard to see that?

what physical laws restrict the universe? physical laws are a property of the the universe the universe is not a property of physical laws.
Physical laws are natural creations of the universe. You cannot have an infinite amount of energy. That's not what we observe anyways...!

truthseeker you are simply using a different definition than myself and one raven
your definition is everything that exists within the circumference of the smaller system.

our definition is everything that exists.

truthseeker you are simply using a different definition than myself and one raven
your definition is everything that exists within the circumference of the smaller system.

our definition is everything that exists.
Huuuumm....
I suppose that's true.

I liked what you said here. And I'm stressing the important part, which I focus on.

if the universe has a size then it would have an outer edge. if it had an outer edge it would have an outside and an inside. if you define a the univesre as such you are in to the system within a system concept which means the universe is all that exists inside our circumference of expereince.

I think this is the major difference between us.

Ok. This is a very hard discussion, I think we all agree on that. So I will try to expose my argument in the simplest and most organized way.

1) The universe is all that exist.

a. The universe is a physical thing, with physical properties. <---you seem to disagree with this. It might be an area of major discussion.
b. A size is a physical property
-------------------------------------------------------------------
C: Therefore, the universe has a size.


2) The universe has a definite size.

a. Whatever has a definite size can be either finite or infinite
I. If it is finite (or "contained") it has an outside and an inside
C1. If it has an outside, then it is not all that exist

I. If it is infinite, it doesn't have an outside and inside
II. An infinite universe would have an infinite amount of energy
III. We know that the universe does not have an infinite amount of energy
C2. Therefore, the universe cannot be infinite

-------------------------------------------------------------------
C: Therefore, the universe cannot be all that exists.


I know it's hard to discuss it. There are many levels in our arguments...
Also, there are other reasons why the universe cannot be infinite- I'm only mentioning one in order to simplify the argument.

Notice that we seem to disagree in a couple of areas ( 1)a. and 2)a.III. )

TS:

Also, there are other reasons why the universe cannot be infinite

How could you ever know this? You can't logically generate truths about the physical universe. We will only ever be able to say that given a model that accurately describes the observable universe, the model requires that it shoud or should not be infinite.

2) The universe has a definite size.

a. Whatever has a definite size can be either finite or infinite
I. If it is finite (or "contained") it has an outside and an inside
C1. If it has an outside, then it is not all that exist
Hmmm - I think this is where the flaw in your logic falls over....

"Existence" is a property of the inside of the Universe.
The concepts of "Inside" and "outside" are properties of this Universe.

We can know NOTHING about what is not in this Universe.
It is meaningless to speculate.

You can not thus say it is logical to assume that if the universe is finite then it has an "outside" as "outside" is a concept of the Universe, and the logic you use relates only to the properties of the Universe - i.e. not to that which is not part of the Universe.

We can have NO CONCEPT as to what is not within this universe.

Once you look to what is not part of the Universe you can say nothing meaningful, and therefore logic can not be used with any meaning.

Therefore to say that the Universe is only part of a larger system is meaningless.

To use logic you must start with the fact that the Universe is all that is meaningful - all that is knowable - all that is.
Logic breaks down to meaninglessness once that fact is ignored or not accepted.

Hmmm - I think this is where the flaw in your logic falls over....

"Existence" is a property of the inside of the Universe.
What if there's more "Existance" beyond our circumference of experience? Do we experience "all that exist"? How would you know?

The concepts of "Inside" and "outside" are properties of this Universe.
Well, yeah. So what's outside?

We can know NOTHING about what is not in this Universe.
It is meaningless to speculate.
Well, that's an assumption, though...

You can not thus say it is logical to assume that if the universe is finite then it has an "outside" as "outside" is a concept of the Universe, and the logic you use relates only to the properties of the Universe - i.e. not to that which is not part of the Universe.
I don't get it. What's the difference between a "concept of the Universe" and "the properties of the Universe"? It sounds like you are saying "A is not equal to A". :confused:

We can have NO CONCEPT as to what is not within this universe.
Well, at this point in time, yes. But if there is an outside, then that already implies that there is an outside, since you cannot have a boundary without having two different "substances", which the boundary separates. It would be like saying there's a boundary in the middle of the ocean, when all that there is is ocean.

Once you look to what is not part of the Universe you can say nothing meaningful, and therefore logic can not be used with any meaning.
Just because it's outside our sphere of experience, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or is not logical. The Universe is all that we know of. But that doesn't mean that there's something which we don't know. We cannot make such assumption...

outside the boundary exists outside. all that exists outside or inside is the universe.

outside the boundary exists outside.
And what is outside?

all that exists outside or inside is the universe.
So the universe is whatever is outside AND inside the universe? :bugeye:

outside the boundary exists outside. all that exists outside or inside is the universe.
Universe, according to dict.die.net is

n 1: everything that exists anywhere;
2: the whole collection of existing things

What about the multiverses, the polyverses and the pluriverses? Remember the thread is "The Universe Is All That Exists".

Well, yeah. So what's outside?Meaningless question. (see below).

Well, that's an assumption, though...No - it's by definition. We can know nothing BY DEFINITION. The Universe is ALL there is for us to experience.