Does the universe need a cause? (Creator, theist, eternal, point of view)

[pandamonk]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

I have done so many times and yet you miss it. Sorry to have wasted your time. I guess you will continue to ascribe beliefs to most theists that they simply do not hold to.

Again i have not ascribed beliefs to MOST theists. Everything that you have said, i have given an answer to which, i believe, sufficiently defends my points.

[Victor]

The Universe doesn't need anything. But we do.

[pandamonk]

Originally Posted by Victor

The Universe doesn't need anything. But we do.

What do you mean? The universe does not need a cause? Why must we need a cause? Do you mean by we, life or humanity? If humanity, then i will say that we evolved. If you mean life, then the evolutionary theory, i think, caters for this also. Cells are made of chemicals(i think), which could have combined in the right conditions(extreme heat)to create the first cellular organisms, which mutate and evolve.

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by pandamonk

Lol, scripture may be wrong.

Not in my experience!

YMMV, as ever.

Bruce

[pandamonk]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Not in my experience!

YMMV, as ever.

Bruce

Do you accept the full bible? I'm unsure of your beliefs. If you do accept the bible, then there are numerous contradictions throughout, which i have shown in previous threads. Here is a link to the first site found with a google search. I'm sure there are much better sites which show this, but that's a start. If the bible has a contradiction, then we can conclude it has a mistake, and that something is wrong. If there is a mistake with some parts, and the others cannot be prove or shown to be true, then how can we acccept that there aren't more mistakes, and how do we know what's right and what's wrong? This is why i stated that "scripture may be wrong".
May i ask, what do you mean by "YMMV, as ever"?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by pandamonk

To say that the universe was caused, is to say that the "causer" adheres to natural laws. This therefore means that these laws existed before the cause, and therefore that they could not have been caused. It is therefore impossible for God to be the cause for natural laws, which are products of the universe. Being the creator of the universe is an attribute of God, so therefore he has lost, probably, his more vital attribute.

That's basically what F. C. Baur taught. His maxim is "there can be no historical effect that does not have a historical cause." However, a powerful God is not limited by this maxim - our God is not incapable of acting in history - like creating the world - while not having his source in history. We confess that the divine reached out from eternity and touched the material cosmos in a very special way that only God was able to do by virtue of his power.

However, it's a confession. It's not the product of logic or science, so there will be no scientific or logical proof. The problem, however, is with logic and science's abilities, not with theology. Science and logic cannot produce conclusions for something that is wholly outside of its scope - both models and methods can only measure the natural, and God most certianly is not natural but divine and outside of history.

Being that religious confessions are not the product of science and logic, both models are pretty much useless in reviewing it. It would make no more sense to try and evaluate art or poetry with science.

[pandamonk]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

That's basically what F. C. Baur taught. His maxim is "there can be no historical effect that does not have a historical cause." However, a powerful God is not limited by this maxim - our God is not incapable of acting in history - like creating the world - while not having his source in history. We confess that the divine reached out from eternity and touched the material cosmos in a very special way that only God was able to do by virtue of his power.

However, it's a confession. It's not the product of logic or science, so there will be no scientific or logical proof. The problem, however, is with logic and science's abilities, not with theology. Science and logic cannot produce conclusions for something that is wholly outside of its scope - both models and methods can only measure the natural, and God most certianly is not natural but divine and outside of history.

Being that religious confessions are not the product of science and logic, both models are pretty much useless in reviewing it. It would make no more sense to try and evaluate art or poetry with science.

I wouldn't say that the problem is with logic and science, because God has not been proven, and logic and science is how we understand the world at the moment. There is no proof for the supernatural, but science and logic are constantly coming up with answers for many difficult questions and proving them(or working to). I would rather trust science and logic than theology. If you do not trust logic, then how do you string together, and understand each sentence?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by pandamonk

I wouldn't say that the problem is with logic and science, because God has not been proven, and logic and science is how we understand the world at the moment. There is no proof for the supernatural, but science and logic are constantly coming up with answers for many difficult questions and proving them(or working to). I would rather trust science and logic than theology. If you do not trust logic, then how do you string together, and understand each sentence?

The problem, of course, is that myth (the substance of theology) specifically intends to interact with people in history (us). We use science and logic to review everything around us, and for the time being naturalistic presuppositions rule philosophy, forcing metaphysics out of the picture.

You may enjoy this discussion: Angellous Vs No*s

[pandamonk]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

We use science and logic to review everything around us, and for the time being naturalistic presuppositions rule philosophy, forcing metaphysics out of the picture.

I don't fully understand what you mean by this . Could you please explain?

[pandamonk]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

You may enjoy this discussion: Angellous Vs No*s

I probably would, but it is already 7 pages long, and i hate coming in that late. I'm too lazy, lol. I may read it later, but for now i feel like getting of the computer. I've been on way too long .