They did alot of fucked up stuff in the past like the crusades. They held back the human civilization by a few hundred years by killing philosophers and inventors for a long time. Currently, they have a pedo problem but instead of reporting anything to the police, they tried to cover it up by moving the priests around. If they catch some flak for it then oh well.

WolfpackN64 said: ArchangelMadzz said: Cosmological Argument: There needs to be a being with no beginning to start everything, why? Because if not then the chain goes back forever, why can't the universe go back forever? Because I said so. Why does it have to be a sentient being? Because I said so. Why is this being the Abrahamic god? Cause I said so. What was before the big bang is speculation, but even most scientific models go out from the hypothesis that there was simply no time before the big bang. A temporal infinity in the past is thus impossible, and that means a causal one is also impossible. I never said it had to be sentient, interpret being in a wide sense here. If you start from the concept of a necessary being, it has to be unique, ergo, there can only be one. That's not "because I said so". There is many a library written on the topic from all sides.

It's not a hypothesis that there was no time before the expansion of the singularity, it's founded in theory. Space and time are one in the same, you cannot have one without the other and one distorts and effects the other. If there was no space before the singularity then that means there was no time before the singularity. Meaning a 'necessary being' couldn't have existed before the big bang as there would be no time for that being to exist in as time is a requirement for an event.

It's impossible because? 

You've just basically said if your argument begins with the assumption that you're right, then you have to be right. 

The Big Bang is considered the start of time. Time has no meaning if there is no matter or Energy around. There is no absolute clock independent of spacetime.

It is possible, and scientifically interesting to discuss that God could have caused the Nig Bang. IMO this just gives you a bigger problem: the Universe is mathematical, so you can just about see that it could come from nothing by way of “well no one invents Mathematics, it just is”. Getting God to appear from nothing to create the Universe is a tougher explanation...

Aeolus451 said: They did alot of fucked up stuff in the past like the crusades. They held back the human civilization by a few hundred years by killing philosophers and inventors for a long time. Currently, they have a pedo problem but instead of reporting anything to the police, they tried to cover it up by moving the priests around. If they catch some flak for it then oh well.

You do know the church was one of the prime inventors in the middle ages. What philosophers did they kill?

ArchangelMadzz said: WolfpackN64 said: What was before the big bang is speculation, but even most scientific models go out from the hypothesis that there was simply no time before the big bang. A temporal infinity in the past is thus impossible, and that means a causal one is also impossible. I never said it had to be sentient, interpret being in a wide sense here. If you start from the concept of a necessary being, it has to be unique, ergo, there can only be one. That's not "because I said so". There is many a library written on the topic from all sides. It's not a hypothesis that there was no time before the expansion of the singularity, it's founded in theory. Space and time are one in the same, you cannot have one without the other and one distorts and effects the other. If there was no space before the singularity then that means there was no time before the singularity. Meaning a 'necessary being' couldn't have existed before the big bang as there would be no time for that being to exist in as time is a requirement for an event. It's impossible because?  You've just basically said if your argument begins with the assumption that you're right, then you have to be right.

Don't put assumptions on me I didn't make. As I said before. If there is such a thing as a necessary being, time would not be of essence since it would have always been (and couldn't become if it wasn't).

In truth, the catholic religion has been pretty despicable throughout History.  If anything they are looked at too positively for some reason.  To each their own I suppose. 

WolfpackN64 said: ArchangelMadzz said: It's not a hypothesis that there was no time before the expansion of the singularity, it's founded in theory. Space and time are one in the same, you cannot have one without the other and one distorts and effects the other. If there was no space before the singularity then that means there was no time before the singularity. Meaning a 'necessary being' couldn't have existed before the big bang as there would be no time for that being to exist in as time is a requirement for an event. It's impossible because?  You've just basically said if your argument begins with the assumption that you're right, then you have to be right. Don't put assumptions on me I didn't make. As I said before. If there is such a thing as a necessary being, time would not be of essence since it would have always been (and couldn't become if it wasn't).

Your assumption has to be that there is a necessary being. That is literally the only way the cosmological argument works unless you can prove there was a necessary being.

just reading the topic made me ask the question: "why?"

why does it need to stop exactly? long gone are the days that catholics could impose censorship or dictate how people should think / act.

so turns out the answer (even assuming the premise is a correct one) is no, it doesn't need to stop anything.

I always found the God created the Universe, but God just is, bit to be a cop out. Something has to come from nothing. Isn’t that the interesting bit (either way round: God or the Mathematics)?

ArchangelMadzz said: WolfpackN64 said: Don't put assumptions on me I didn't make. As I said before. If there is such a thing as a necessary being, time would not be of essence since it would have always been (and couldn't become if it wasn't). Your assumption has to be that there is a necessary being. That is literally the only way the cosmological argument works unless you can prove there was a necessary being.

That's because it's a philosophical argument. Both sides have an assumption and reason towards it. The Cosmological Argument needs a necessary being. That's it's whole argument. Proof is provided in the model of the Principle of Sufficiënt reason. It's the closest you can argue for or against God.

I'm going to state again. It's scientifically impossible to say anything about a necessary being. If it exists, it would encompass all knowledge and all qualities of all beings and objects, past, present and future. Since it's essence is of a limitless quantity, the being itself is the ONLY ONE that can understand his own essence. We can understand parts of it's essence through revelation (theology) or reason (philosophy). Thus, in most cases, and certainly here. This is a philosophical debate first and foremost. And if it didn't exist, we wouldn't know.