Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 15 2007,11:22)|
|Gil gets theomological:|
? ? ? ?
|Cosmological ID — Who Designed the Designer?|
Some insights can totally change one’s perspective. One of those insights for me was learning that time had a beginning at the origin of the universe. (Oops, “beginning” implies a point on the time line, so let’s change that to “a point of appearing.”) If time came into existence, then the cause of the universe could not have had a cause, or a history, or a beginning, or a designer, because all of these require that the cause of the universe be located on the time line of the universe, which did not exist prior to the creation of the universe. (Oops, can’t use “prior to” because that implies time.)
Thus, the question of who designed the designer is meaningless when it comes to the origin of the universe. The designer must be “it is that it is,” or if “it” is personal, “I am that I am.”
I realize that this twists one’s brain into a Mobius strip, but it does make sense if you think about it.
If moebius strip is the best you can muster, this may make sense. Those of us capable of being everted into a Klein Bottle understand the actual import of your musing is that the assertion of a cosmological "designer" is itself meaningless.
Look at the response from saxe17: Pure Tard! ?
And thank you, Mr. saxe17. ?May I ask if you use a bong or roll your own?
|I don?t believe the concept of cause and effect dictates every cause requires a cause. It only requires that every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause. Where does one get the idea that every cause necessarily belongs to an antecedent cause? The concept of infinite causes being mandatory is illogical and also just plain silly.|