The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[Davian]

...
No sir, not that easy. To maintain that the universe is eternal is to do so inspite of the evidence, not because of it!

As before, it depends what you mean by universe.

Earlier, I was pointing out how the 'cosmos' and the 'universe' could be looked at as two separate things; I clarify this now with the use of the word 'omniverse'.

In regards to the cosmological argument, WLC uses the term 'universe'. From Wiki:

Universe: A Universe, also known as a Cosmos, is a particular individual space-time organization with a specified number of dimensions of space and time and definite and specific laws of physics. Other Universes (other Cosmoses) may have different numbers of dimensions of space and time and different laws of physics than our own Universe (Cosmos).

Multiverse: A given universe joined with all possible configurations of that universe.

Metaverse: In string theory, the part that houses the branes or film that each universe is said to be attached to and hang like individual sheets.

Xenoverse: the unknown alien elements that are beyond the metaverse and multiverse structure.

Hyperverse: Multiple xenoverses.

Omniverse: All possible attributes and modes are in play, multiverses are categorized by the attributes/modes active in its child universes. Some or all possible modes of existence are actualized.


Wiki continues:

Allegorical illustrations of the concept

Physicists such as Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose have suggested that universes both fork and combine, which could be visualized as more of a system of roads and pathways.

End of infinity

In some views, the number of omniverse subsets possible is finite. Given that omniverse is the largest set conceptualized by humanity, such a view is sometimes called "the end of infinity". From this frame of reference, it is possible that even if each multiverse had completely different laws of physics, and the amount of possibilities went off in the most unlikely directions, there would be a limit and an end to the amount of possibilities. Many astronomers though, believe the omniverse is infinite, and do so with this theory: if the omniverse was finite, then there would be no law for the dimensions, and through that causes major problems.

This view is founded in a theory of the omniverse splintering into universe, multiverse, many-worlds interpretation, M-theory, parallel universe, possible worlds, and so on. Etymologically, the term "universe" is meant to refer to the entirety of one reality. Omni- is a prefix meaning "all", making the omniverse encompass all possible universes, unlike the multiverse that can encompass any two or more universes with the same set of laws and constants.

So, Elioenai26, as I have said earlier, WLC's argument, as you have presented it, fails to address all of the possibilities, such as the existence of an omniverse, mentioned above.

Elioenai26, are you here to push religion, or do science?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Which would be bloody ironic given that Penrose is still producing work that involves the possibility of prior universes, iirc

I already mentioned this like a million pages back.

I'm pretty sure that Elioenai26 is stuck in some infinite loop. It's a handy way to argue forever when you know you're wrong...

 

[quatona]

This is clearly inept! Why? Because philosophers of science recognize that in order to recognize an explanation (x) as the best explanation, you dont have to have an explanation for the explanation!

The problems with this defense:
"Godditit" is not an explanation - it´s an assertion that doesn´t explain anything. An explanation would actually be a theory how Godditit. The actual problem as to how anything can exist is not explained but explained away.

After all, if I came here and declared that aliens from another universe have created the earth you wouldn´t accept that for a progress in solving the metaphysical problem, but immediately ask where those aliens and the other universe came from (and rightly so).
Even the assertion "the universe created itself" would stand firm were it not for the fact that (like "Godditit") it a. doesn´t explain anything, and b. requires an explanation itself.
Actually, that´s what you are doing all the time here: you are tackling any other "explanation" than your own by telling us how these explanations need an explanation, and therefore are inacceptable.

In terms of the law of causality it´s not enough to declare "There must have been a cause because there always must be a cause, so let´s postulare a cause (even though we have no clue whatsoever how this causation can possibly work)and call it...".

 

[KCfromNC]

I suspect that this will be the answer, too.

What I don't understand is why God doesn't have to begin to exist, but the universe has to.

Because that baseless assertion leads to the conclusion that he wishes were true. QED.

 

[KCfromNC]

Causation and Laws of Nature in Early Modern Philosophy : Causation and Laws of Nature in Early Modern Philosophy Oxford Scholarship Online

Philosophy isn't science.

http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_1_No_11_Special_Issue_August_2011/22.pdf

Philosophy isn't science.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Philosophy isn't science.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Philosophy isn't science.

International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Volume 6, Number 3 - SpringerLink

Religion isn't science.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Philosophy isn't science.

http://www.d.umn.edu/~hudson/papers/ct20.pdf

Doesn't contain the word law or principle. It discusses how to talk about causality. Did you not read this article, or were you just hoping to BS us yet again with unrelated nonsense?

The above are just samples of scholarly articles on the causal principle.

None of which answer my question. It seems from the list provided you have a hard time distinguishing science from religion and philosophy.

Why is it so hard to find real references to peer-reviewed scientific literature explaining and showing evidence for this alleged law of causality?

 

[KCfromNC]

You still desire to abandon the principle. The universe is material. It needs a cause because it came into existence.

When did it do that?

 

[KCfromNC]

And since logic and the absurdity of an infinite regress tell us that the singularity was not eternal

Here you go again, talking about time before time existed.

 

[Elioenai26]

Seems to me that there is some confusion as to how science and philosophy relate.

Science would be impossible without philosophy.

This should be common knowledge.

I see that it is not, however.

Also quatona, you word for word quote Richard Dawkins when he said that positing God explains nothing.

The point of the fact is that you don't have to be able to explain God or how He did it in order to recognize that it is the best explanation from the pool of options.

 

[quatona]

Also quatona, you word for word quote Richard Dawkins when he said that positing God explains nothing.

I haven´t quoted him. I am not familiar with his works. It´s but five words, and I am pretty sure a lot of people have said them "word for word" independently of each other.
So the fact that Mr. Dawkins happens to agree with me in this point renders the point refuted - or what´s the reason you mention it?

The point of the fact is that you don't have to be able to explain God or how He did it in order to recognize that it is the best explanation from the pool of options.

Well, it´s not an explanation to boot, and of all the available non-explanations it´s not the best one in that it is comparably unparsimonous.

 

[The Engineer]

Seems to me that there is some confusion as to how science and philosophy relate.

Science would be impossible without philosophy.

This should be common knowledge.

I see that it is not, however.

I'm well aware that science would be impossible without philosophy.

Also quatona, you word for word quote Richard Dawkins when he said that positing God explains nothing.

So?

The point of the fact is that you don't have to be able to explain God or how He did it in order to recognize that it is the best explanation from the pool of options.

No, it's not.

 

[Elioenai26]

I'm well aware that science would be impossible without philosophy.


So?


No, it's not.

Not for you because you are an atheist! Your explanations must cohere with your naturalistic presuppositions.

This is how you choose to view the world in which you live in. This is your worldview, and this is your choice.

Tell me, where does love fit into this picture?

 

[The Engineer]

Not for you because you are an atheist! Your explanations must cohere with your naturalistic presuppositions.

This is how you choose to view the world in which you live in. This is your worldview, and this is your choice.

Tell me, where does love fit into this picture?

Love is extreme attraction towards a specific object, usually a member of the opposite sex. So much for the definition.

Love has been observed. Most people have felt love themselves at some point, and the underlying neurological mechanisms (which are very complex) can be observed, for example in the anterior cingulate cortex.

By the way, the behavior caused by being in love is not unlike OCD. Just saying.

 

[Gadarene]

Not for you because you are an atheist! Your explanations must cohere with your naturalistic presuppositions.

There you go again presupposing about presuppositions.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The point of the fact is that you don't have to be able to explain God or how He did it in order to recognize that it is the best explanation from the pool of options.

Anthropomorphizing ignorance is not an explanation. And it does not fill any gaps either; rather it (still) is the gap. But it probably makes you feel better.

 

[Davian]

Not for you because you are an atheist! Your explanations must cohere with your naturalistic presuppositions.

This is how you choose to view the world in which you live in. This is your worldview, and this is your choice.

"God did it" is not an explanation.

Atheism is not a worldview.

How is belief a choice?

Tell me, where does love fit into this picture?

Love is biology. What is your point?

 

[Elioenai26]

Love is extreme attraction towards a specific object, usually a member of the opposite sex. So much for the definition.

Love has been observed. Most people have felt love themselves at some point, and the underlying neurological mechanisms (which are very complex) can be observed, for example in the anterior cingulate cortex.

By the way, the behavior caused by being in love is not unlike OCD. Just saying.

I happen to know, sir, that love is much more than that.

Have you ever loved anyone before? Has anyone ever loved you? I am interested in your take on this.

 

[Elioenai26]

"God did it" is not an explanation.

Atheism is not a worldview.

How is belief a choice?

Love is biology. What is your point?

What do you think your wife would have said to you, if on your wedding day, you slipped the ring on her finger and right before you kissed her you said: "I love you so much, but of course this is nothing more than biology, but well, I love you."

What do you think her reaction would have been?

 

[The Engineer]

I happen to know, sir, that love is much more than that.

The fact that love is not caused by magic, but by good old neurochemistry doesn't make it any less fascinating.

Have you ever loved anyone before? Has anyone ever loved you? I am interested in your take on this.

Yes, I have my experience with love, and I'm well aware that it was caused by little more than my brain behaving funnily. Still felt awesome.

 

[Elioenai26]

There you go again presupposing about presuppositions.

Do you love anyone Gadarene? Does anyone love you?

 

[Elioenai26]

The fact that love is not caused by magic, but by good old neurochemistry doesn't make it any less fascinating.


Yes, I have my experience with love, and I'm well aware that it was caused by little more than my brain behaving funnily. Still felt awesome.

Your brain behaving funnily?

Is this how you see love?