Refreshing to find someone acquainted with Thomas :-). (Philosophy joke, love it)

This particular CA is not exactly Thomistic, but I think we have missed the point of what Thomas (and Aristotle) is communicating here.

It is not so much that the universe can’t be infinite, but that a reasonable person wouldn't assume so.

The most common example I know of is the train analogy. Suppose you approached a line of box cars moving along a track. You look left down the track, and then right. All you can see are box cars. Is this enough for a reasonable person to assume that because no first or last box car is seen that it must be an infinite chain of box cars?

Now your second horn was much more intriguing to me. "An infinite amount of hooks is not impossible". I will agree with you but in a slightly different way. The most familiar infinite with people is number. Number by nature and in successive addition will continue forever. Yes, they are infinite, though they do have a beginning nevertheless.

I cannot accept (though in fairness have not convinced even myself of any conclusion) that the principle of universal causality is true. I believe that if you trace back every cause you will eventually reach cause number 1.

quote:

You began by saying, "The universe begins". Indeed. This statement is true because we can see clearly that the universe exists, thus it has a beginning. Now, how did the universe begin?

Sorry to leap in at this late stage, but it is refreshing to have someone who uses grammar to debate against.

My problem with this argument is that it doesn't really stand up - that is, it suffers from the same problem that Aquinas' First and Second Way suffer: it fails to properly consider the definition of infinity. The universe, which if the big bang and big crunch theories are correct, does not have a beginning. It is simply infinite, and just because our minds are not sufficiently well developed to come to terms with something that is actually infinitely regressive does not mean that this is not the case. Consider this example, which is attached to Aquinas' arguments, but is also applicable to this argument:

Aquinas:

Causes are hooks. An infinite regress of hooks is impossible. Eventually, the chain of hooks must be suspended from some sort of ceiling. This ceiling is god.

Problem:

An infinite regress of hooks is not impossible (the universe seems to be infinite). It is possible for an infinite number of hooks simply to be connected to one another, without requiring an anchoring ceiling. After all, if there is a ceiling, the line of hooks is not infinite.

quote:

I'm not the one that uses wiki all the time, lol, now your getting posters confused.

Romashu, here lost is using numbers to indicate a syllogistic argument, not differing specific points, presumably towards the conclusion that there is a prime mover, whom one might choose to call god, though not necessarily.

I'm not the one that uses wiki all the time, lol, now your getting posters confused.

Wiki is useful if you know how to find the truth.

Personally, I don't think the universe necessarily has a beginning or end. I think it just continuely recycles itself.

The universe was most likely created after various collisions with others.

The standard would be how atoms function on a subatomic level. There will be no emotion in the future. Just beings of pure intellect. like robots. ^.^

quote:

Romashu:

Wow! I am not sure how anything you said was in anyway related to Kalam comsological argument.

Perhaps you could clarify for me and elaborate?

i looked up what kalam was on wolfie's ever precious wikipedia and i just took the three points from that since this 3 points is way different.

You are right about a lot of things there wolfie. But perhaps we are still slightly off topic.

You began by saying, "The universe begins". Indeed. This statement is true because we can see clearly that the universe exists, thus it has a beginning. Now, how did the universe begin?

As far as chaos goes, in the case of "games" there are a seeming infinite amount of outcomes for several games, however there are typical patterns that develop as the game continues and especially when the options begin lacking.

However, in the case of the universe how, or better yet what would be the judge or standard of perfection for the universe?

Well, think about it.

The universe begins, it's made up of tiny building blocks that form larger building blocks. On a micro-scale things just seem to be ordered and function perfectly (on a sub-atomic level anyways). Then as the universe develops, things like stars and planets form. Earth is formed, and slowly it becomes the perfect habitat for life, the ideal temperature, water, a breathable atmosphere. Then life begins to evolve and the longer it exists the more perfectly suited it becomes for its environment. Then, people come to be and we get more and more intelligent as life progresses. We make machines that perform their functions perfectly. I believe the reason for existance is to assertain a level of perfection and logic that is equal to that of the sub-atomic particles the universe began with.

My idea that chaos always lead to perfection is what the chaos theory is. Random events that happen trillions and trillions of times end of forming a perfect pattern called a fractal. I believe that the random events in the universe over a period of trillions of years will form a perfect pattern. (However, I am not sure what the significance of said pattern would be).

You should look up the chaos game. There's a couple of them. In one a computer randomly selects 3 points. It triangulates them and plots the center point of each. After millions of seemingly random plots a fractal pattern is formed. It's really neat.

Romashu:

Wow! I am not sure how anything you said was in anyway related to Kalam comsological argument.

Perhaps you could clarify for me and elaborate?

Personally i think that Kalam goes completely against god.

1. Im not sure about this one at all.

2. I agree that man is a free agent and has choices that he might regret sooner or later. But to designate yourself as a Partisan of Justice and Unity is going too far. It sounds more like a superhero that merges with people or things or he unifies people in marrage.

3. Man can aquire knowledge before death but how is it possible after death. Even wolfie will prbly agree with me on this since shes said it before, "After you die you dont have a brain" how then do you aquire knowledge after death? Answer, you dont.

Interesting responce. Tell me, how did you come to your first conclusion:

"It's cause is to reach perfection and order. It started as chaos and all chaos eventually leads to order."

Also I think you may have misunderstood cause here. Perhaps it would be better to say:

3. The there is a cause to the existance of the universe.

It's cause is to reach perfection and order. It started as chaos and all chaos eventually leads to order.

Sometimes I think the universe is some sort of simulation. It keeps trying to reach perfection, but it fails and then deconstructs and reconstructs and tries again...

Watch this just be a game of spore some kid is playing on his computer, lol.

I'm not necessarily sure if something exists because it has a cause or if it devolops that cause as it exists.