1.) Movement within three dimensional time and space presupposes a reason for moving. 2.) At one point, nothing moved within three dimensional time and space, or could be moved, the reason being three dimensional time and space didn't exist. 3.) Ergo, God is the presupposed reason for all movement within three dimensional time and space.
Number 2 is debateable. Number 3 doesn't follow from numbers 1 and 2 even if they were both correct. So, the argument is a non-sequitur.
1.) How so...? 2.) Yes, it does... movement presupposes a reason for moving. At one point, nothing moved; and then, things did... so, it follows that, God is the presupposed reason for the movement that once wasn't a reality.
There might have been no beginning in the grand scheme of things. You can't definitively point to a spot and say "this is where the beginning is." How do you know God is the reason for movement? You are assuming God is necessary for the movement, not actually showing it. Defining God as "necessary for the movement" just assumes what you are trying to prove.
1.) Do u not believe the big bang to be true?? 2.) Wrong... I define God as that which is, and yet can move and is unmoved. I am, and can move... but I am moved myself as well, i.e., I am not unmoved; this is not the case for God, yet it is the case for everything which followed the big bang.
Yeah, but what happened before that is unknown. Nobody knows what things were like before that. That's basically "The Unmoved Mover" argument. All movement needs a mover, but God needs no mover. God can move without being moved. That's nothing more than special pleading. Just the phrase "Unmoved Mover" should be enough to raise an eyebrow.
1.) I didn't say anybody did... 2.) Fine, if ur not satisfied, let us change it up a little... 1.) Everything within this 3-dimensional reality is inter-dependent. 2.) Reality within 3-dimensional time and space is a chain of dependency. 3.) The chain of dependency, i.e., reality, within 3-dimensional time and space didn't always exist, something existed before the reality of 3-dimensional time and space. 4.) Ergo, this something is not dependent on the chain of dependency within 3-dimensional time and space.
Well, once you go into that realm of "before the Big Bang," you are entering unknown territory. So any claim about that period would be nothing more than speculation and guessing. It will either forever be an unknown, or we will find out eventually: Perhaps in our lifetimes, or maybe not in our lifetimes. I see what you are trying to say, but it can't be said for sure yet.
Thank u for the honesty... and, just to be clear, I understand that u don't believe we should speculate on reality before the big bang, but, it cannot be denied that this argument is valid and sound in-itself, right? The inter-dependent one...
It could be if we knew everything there is to know about motion and causation. Apparently physicists think that some things could be uncaused. If that is true, then how many things could be uncaused? Maybe lots. Back in Aristotle's day, he didn't know anything about uncaused events. Maybe he would have retracted the argument for all we know. Some arguments are a product of the times, and then times change and knowledge increases.
1.) Refute my speculation... with more speculation, really? What ur saying is that everything which can be discovered by empirical science is objectively true... yet u fail to realize that empirical science can very possibly founded on axioms that are inherently flawed, i.e., the axiom that reality is objective, is asserted relatively. Science presupposes the notion of an objective reality... so, science posits objective reality, before it even started looking for it (as u accuse of doing the same thing with the notion of God), i.e., scientists are fooling themselves when trying to refute metaphysics!
I was just saying that there may be uncaused events, according to physicists. Lots of things are still unknown. I just don't like to substitue "God" for "unknown." Too many people did that throughout history for everything that they couldn't explain. After all we know now, I just don't want to jump to conclusions like they did in the past.
How do u know there even is an "unknown", or that there is more to know? What if all that can be known, is known to us in relation to our relative perspective, i.e., there is no objective "unknown"? There is no way to deny God... for we still assume there to be an objective "unknown"; unless, of course, one believes, and deems, everything relative; even the assertion of everything being relative is something relatively asserted, i.e., nothing can exist outside relativity, once accepts relativity... But do u really believe this to be the case?
I guess a person could think that we know everything about the universe, and others would say that we do not know know everything. Maybe back in the day, they thought they knew everything. And we know more now. It just seems like there will always be things to figure out. I guess a reverse question would be, "How would we know when we know everything?" lol
The concept of there being an eternal discovering of knowledge still presupposes there being an eternal something, i.e., God. So, if u believe ur notion, that "there will always be things to figure out", to be something true, then it could be argued that the idea, or inclination to believe (in ur case), in something eternal or infinite, i.e., God, to being something real and true, then just goes to show how the idea of God, i.e., something eternal and infinite, is something which is innate within our intellect.
Until he can be disproved, he will continue to assert that a lack of proof against his idea is synonymous with being proven right. Be careful, you're treading in dangerous waters.
Not at all, mr. presumptuous... as I have said many times on GC -- everything beyond solipsism is a belief; some beliefs being more logical than others. I'm just trying to show that no matter how arrogant and pedantic scientist get, and science gets, they can never refute, LOGICALLY, metaphysics, and the idea of God; and, also, there is no way they can prove that a belief in something eternal is more logical and valid than a belief in "nothing"... an eternal nothing at that .
When you can't prove an idea either way, you can say just about anything you want. And you have lots of fun trying to convince people to believe ideas that are meaningless. I picture you as something similar to an astral projector; you stick to your ideas, regardless of the fact they don't actually change anything in reality, and assume they are all-important, because you believe them to be true. I can't disprove you astral projected or haven't, so you come up with every reason in the handbook to try and convince me you did. When I scoff once, you quote me again, and enlarge and address different sections of the text with more meaningless blather that I can't disprove, in an attempt to draw me into a useless debate. Have fun
Wow... my argument's don't depend on ur inability to disprove my beliefs. It depends on how you can't deny the non-empirical fact, that logic reflects reality, i.e., beyond my subjective experience of it. So, no matter how superficial ur analysis of my views are, it still doesn't undermined the fact all of my arguments are more quite logically structured.