Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quite an interesting link, however there are quite some things that don't add up ... Quote:
1. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
2. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.
The very first statement is in error I think. The universe can be in mmmm, how do you say that, 'in harmony when it comes to energy production and consumption', so any loss of energy need not be when it's infinitely old.
I pretty much agree with the second statement though, if it's NOT infinite, then it must have had a beginning. That's quite rational.
However even if you believe in God as a being outside the realm of this universe, then the place he would be MUST be infinite too, otherwise God must have had a beginning.
(like you doubt the existance of the place of the other universes, I doubt this 'infinite' place a God would be.)
Well, unless you believe Gods can pop out of nowhere, like life can, then there's no problem. However since you believe that can't really happen, then that God must have had a creator. Quite rational too, don't you think?
Quote:
If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.
I guess this guy flew to all edges of the universe then ... How does he know?  I thought no true borders where discovered yet?
Quote:
There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.
Circular reasoning, or at least so it seems to me. 'There can be no infinite events, because infinite events would mean an infinite place or universe for them to happen.' Well, the last part is quite questionable. Remember the line, with an infinite amount of points on it? Well the line itself has a finite touch to it, but what if all those infinite points on the line are infact events? I think infinite events can happen within a limited space, as the line example proves, besides I pretty much doubt the universe will implode into nothingness someday, so that makes the duration irrelevant (infinite).
Quote:
1. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
1. Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself.
2. Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.
1. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist.
2. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
3. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.
1. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.
Yup, at first I thought he was going to admit that things can pop out of nowhere, because it would make sense at exactly that point, but no he goes for an 'uncaused cause'. Pfffff... Uncaused means not caused but still causing something to happen, how can something that has no cause cause something else? When he would do the math, he would see that 'something comming from nothing' is actually equal to 'an uncaused something causing things to happen'. But why should this uncaused something be 'greater in size and duration than what he 'creates''? God can be infinitely small too, if he would be infinite in the first place. Size get's rather irrelevant when something is infinite. Apart from that, we are able to create things both larger and smaller than ourselves, so ... A God that can't can not be almighty.
I also kinda missed the part 'why' this uncaused cause would be God. Supernatural? Why put God outside of the natural? A rethorical question off course, since we can't find anything that truly leads to him/her/whatever.
Quote:
An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.
Infact it should be:
Quote:
An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe.
Yes, and thus would mean this uncaused cause doesn't exist.
Cheers
|
