On Oct 11, 1:59=A0pm, Louis Epstein <l...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> hanson_m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> : On Oct 5, 10:56?am, Louis Epstein <l...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> :
> :> All details can be legitimately questioned and investigated,
> :> but to deny the necessity of an Infinitely First Cause is
> :> wholly insane.
> :
> : And you've said the same thing in various different ways in this
> : thread, but can you prove that assertion without invoking it as part
> : of the proof?
> :
> : I do tend to agree, as it happens - at least in part - but the past
> : 103 years of physics have taught us again and again that common sense
> : cannot be trusted in matters of physics and cosmology because it is
> : routinely flouted by the universe. This is not of itself an argument
> : for denying First Cause, but it does constitute an entirely rational
> : basis for not taking it for granted and for expecting it, at the very
> : least, to come with a twist.
> :
> : We already know, for example, that First Cause cannot be "first" in
> : the chronological sense because time itself is a post-Big-Bang
> : property of the universe. Remove the universe and you remove any
> : notion of before and after, leaving First Cause in a certain amount of
> : ontological difficulty. There are ways around this, but don't expect
> : First Cause to be first, and don't expect it to be a "cause",
> : either...
>
> You have to remember that God is more-dimensional than the material
> universe and transcends all its properties.The limitations we seem
> to see can't apply to God.
Well, now you're making three more assertions, but they are
unnecessary. The correct answer to the question, "How did the universe
come into being?" is "I don't know." You can fill in the terra
incognita with fictional geography if you wish to - a poly-dimensional
transcendent god, perhaps - but you need to be clear that it is a
product of your mind and not something that logic demands.
--
Mike.
|
