Curtis, 1.> > So far, we have not gotten a definite answer from you if you agree with the first premise or not. > > I'm gunna go with a no on this one because the universe itself is the most > obvious example of something that we don't know if it has a cause. It also > seems to be in contradiction with the conservation of matter and energy > principle. The universe may have arisen out of a different form of matter > state than we find today without cause other than the nature of the laws of > matter unfolding. > > The first premise might sound OK to most people who didn't think about it > very hard. Most things in our world do seem to be caused by something else. > Until we get to matter and energy as a fundamental. Then our natural > intuition leads us astray. Matter and energy do not have to have a cause, > they may just be a primary principle in the world. The universe has begun to > exist in its present form of matter at an historical point in time, but the > matter it is made out of may have preceded it in a different form. > > < If we have a clear position from you with the first premise, then we can > move on to the second premise.> > > > I don't accept the first assertion so I don't see how moving on helps. But I > am willing to hang if you can answer my objections to the first assertion. >
It sounds like you disagree with the first premise: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". If so, how can anything or something come from nothing? It should be understood that common experience and scientific evidence confirm the first premise. JR > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can discuss the other two premises after this premise is resolved. > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MY point was about your second premise. You > > > > > > > > > have no way of knowing whether the universe > > > > > > > > > was "created," in the sense that it didn't > > > > > > > > > exist one moment and then existed the next. > > > > > > > > > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe > > > > > > > > > that the universe was never created, that it > > > > > > > > > has always been, is now, and always will be. > > > > > > > > > There has never been a time when it was not. > > > > > > > > > There will never be a time when it is not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore the whole issue of "What was around > > > > > > > > > before the First Creation that enabled Creation > > > > > > > > > to happen?" is moot. Without the notion of a > > > > > > > > > First Creation, this whole argument falls apart. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My point is that humans, out of their fear and > > > > > > > > > lack of understanding of their own birth and > > > > > > > > > death, project a similar birth and death onto > > > > > > > > > the universe. The fact that they do so doesn't > > > > > > > > > make it so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > C'mon, John...say it. I know you can. :-) IF > > > > > > > > > the universe is eternal, and was never "created," > > > > > > > > > then this whole argument is hooey. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb > > > > > > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam > > > > > > > > > > > > Cosmological > > > > > > > > > > > > Argument which goes like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The universe began to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is merely > > > > > > > > > > > an assumption on your part, one caused by not > > > > > > > > > > > being able to conceive of the universe as eternal > > > > > > > > > > > and never-created? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the universe is eternal, point #2 is invalid, > > > > > > > > > > > and thus point #3 is invalid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Puny humans, because they have a beginning and > > > > > > > > > > > an end, find it difficult to conceive of anything > > > > > > > > > > > that doesn't. Their lack of imagination, however, > > > > > > > > > > > don't mean shit to the universe. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
