The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[Davian]

No finite entity has the power to create a material entity from nothing. We find no instances, apart from the instance of creation of the universe, of material things beginning to exist without material causes.

If the cosmos is not infinite, why would its cause, if it needed one, be required to be infinite? Because you are working back from your conclusion that it was your "God"?

For a material thing to come into being without a material cause requires an efficient cause of infinite power.

Where did you establish that scientifically?

In addition, several of the necessary properties of said cause indirectly argue that the cause must be infinite. Namely, the cause's timelessness, immateriality, and non-spatiality, all can be summed up under the qualitative superlative encompassing adjective "infinite".

Only if one presupposes that there must be such a thing.

When power is mentioned in this context, the primary connotation is ability, or potentiality regarding it's causal capacity. In other words, this cause must be at least powerful enough to be able to cause all of space-time and matter to come into existence literally out of nothing, from no prior antecedent materially condtioned state of affairs.

So your use of a quantitative adjective was incorrect.

Since the first cause exists independently and transcendant beyond space-time and matter, it is not a natural/material entity and therefore is not subject to the second law. This is not special pleading for the simple fact that there are two arguments, namely the metaphysical principle that something cannot come into being from nothing uncaused, and two, the claim that the universe came into existence at some point in the finite past. These two arguments demand that they be best explained by the existence of a transcendant cause of the universe, which by definition, would be exempt from the laws of nature. Reasons are given in support of these two arguments.

So it is special pleading, in the absence of those two arguments being demonstrably true.

Tell me, where did this 'first cause' get all of this energy? Can it make more?

Are you trying to sell me on the idea of a perpetual motion machine?

Compared to a finite entity.

No, compared to what? Another universe? Which one? How many have you looked at? Where is this 'design' and 'precision' that you speak of?

The personhood of the first cause is implied in several ways. One is that the origin of an effect with a beginning (the universe) must be a cause without a beginning (the first cause). The beginning of the universe was the effect of a first cause. By the nature the first cause, it cannot have a beginning of its existence or any prior cause. The cause exists changelessly without beginning, and a finite time ago it brought the universe into existence.

Now to answer your question Davian, the cause is in a true sense eternal and yet the effect that it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How is this possible? If the sufficient conditions for the effect are eternal, then why isn’t the effect also eternal? How can a first event come to exist if the cause of that event exists changelessly and eternally? How can the cause exist without its effect?

Al Ghazali, the Muslim philosopher who propounded the Kalam during the Middle Ages reasoned that the only way to explain this sufficiently and rationally is to say that the cause of the universe’s beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time.

Philosophers call this type of causation “agent causation,” and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions that were not previously present.

From the above, it follows that the first cause could have, a finite time ago, freely brought the universe into being at a particular instance. In this way, the cause could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time.

Note* - By “choose” one need not imply that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning.) By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.

Choice without change? That does not sound at all like a choice. And a slip there, from 'first cause' to 'creator'. And now 'he' has free will. How does that work, being timeless? That truck is still stuck in the mud.

Try again?

This is a strawman argument because it is built upon the unsubstantiated assumption that God is only a fabrication from the imagination of men, which simply cannot be proven.

It may not be proven, but it is certainly well substantiated. I submit to you this thread, for example.

All of your posts.

This:

Suffice it to say, no argument or belief of mine is empirically verifiable.

Anything by WLC.

The creation of apologetics, and what you are doing here, substantiate that the assumption is warranted, until there is evidence to the contrary.

I'm not buying any perpetual motion machines today.

 

[Elioenai26]

So your use of a quantitative adjective was incorrect.

I used the word qualitative not quantitative. The distinction makes all the difference when discussing the inifinite.

So it is special pleading, in the absence of those two arguments being demonstrably true.

If the two premises can be refuted and shown to be more plausibly false than true, the conclusion does not follow period.

Tell me, where did this 'first cause' get all of this energy? Can it make more?

Your question betrays a misunderstanding of what an immaterial, changeless, non-spatial, timeless entity is. Such a being does not "get" or "receive" anything from anything outside of itself.

Are you trying to sell me on the idea of a perpetual motion machine?

No. A machine is a material structure and therefore could not have created the universe.

No, compared to what? Another universe? Which one? How many have you looked at? Where is this 'design' and 'precision' that you speak of?

Ockham's Razor tells us it is unwarranted to postuate or multiply causes beyond what is justified for sufficient explanation. This eliminates any idea of multiple universes.

I shall refer you to the teleological arguments for the existence of God which deal with the irreducible complexities and designs found in nature.

Choice without change? That does not sound at all like a choice. And a slip there, from 'first cause' to 'creator'. And now 'he' has free will. How does that work, being timeless? That truck is still stuck in the mud.

If you choose to create a post on this forum, does it change who you are essentially as a human? I think you can answer this one.

It may not be proven, but it is certainly well substantiated.

A case could be made that it is very well substantiated to maintain that God is more than a just a figment of men's imaginations.

I'm not buying any perpetual motion machines today.

I'm glad because I am not selling any. They do not exist.

 

[Davian]

I used the word qualitative not quantitative. The distinction makes all the difference when discussing the inifinite.

You did not say infinite, you said immensely powerful.

If the two premises can be refuted and shown to be more plausibly false than true, the conclusion does not follow period.

No, the burden of evidence is still on you.

Your question betrays a misunderstanding of what an immaterial, changeless, non-spatial, timeless entity is. Such a being does not "get" or "receive" anything from anything outside of itself.

I get it. A perpetual motion thingy.

No. A machine is a material structure and therefore could not have created the universe.

Make it immaterial. (what would it be made of, then?)

Ockham's Razor tells us it is unwarranted to postuate or multiply causes beyond what is justified for sufficient explanation. This eliminates any idea of multiple universes.

And deities.

I shall refer you to the teleological arguments for the existence of God which deal with the irreducible complexities and designs found in nature.

Got one that is not faulty?

If you choose to create a post on this forum, does it change who you are essentially as a human? I think you can answer this one.

Evasion noted.

A case could be made that it is very well substantiated to maintain that God is more than a just a figment of men's imaginations.

You have been unsuccessful to date.

I'm glad because I am not selling any. They do not exist.

If that is the case, I will quote from my favourite book, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

Well That About Wraps it Up for God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Thanks for the comments guys. They are much appreciated.

For the sake of expediency, I shall only be addressing coherent objections to the KCA.

Thank you and I pray you all have a wonderful Sunday!

You refuse to discuss dualism, even though you introduced several dualist assumptions into the discussion. You want us to constrain our objections to the first two premises, while you freely speculate well beyond them. Your argument clearly isn't confined to those two premises so I don't see why our discussion should be confined to them, especially given that the acceptance of those premises is not sufficient to guarantee theism, much less the sort of dualist theism you are advocating.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If the two premises can be refuted and shown to be more plausibly false than true, the conclusion does not follow period.

As I keep saying, the notion that the universe had a beginning does not come with a pre-commitment to theism.

Your question betrays a misunderstanding of what an immaterial, changeless, non-spatial, timeless entity is. Such a being does not "get" or "receive" anything from anything outside of itself.

A misunderstanding? That implies the notion that there is some understanding of what immaterial entities are. What knowledge of immaterial entities do we possess (other than their differentness)?

Ockham's Razor tells us it is unwarranted to postuate or multiply causes beyond what is justified for sufficient explanation. This eliminates any idea of multiple universes.

That also eliminates the idea of a supernatural cause.

 

[Elioenai26]

You did not say infinite, you said immensely powerful.

In response to the first question of your post #629: "Why 'must' it be infinite?" My answer contained the following statement:

"Namely, the cause's timelessness, immateriality, and non-spatiality, all can be summed up under the qualitative superlative encompassing adjective "infinite".

The cause's attribute of immense power is summed up under the qualitative superlative "infinite" along with any other adjective rightly ascribed to it.

No, the burden of evidence is still on you.

This particular response is disjointed from the statement it is a response to. I never aid the "burden of evidence" was not on me. What I said is that if the two premises can be refuted and shown to be more plausibly false than true, the conclusion does not follow period. This is a statement about the soundness of the argument, not on whether or not the proponent has or does not have the burden of proof.

Make it immaterial. (what would it be made of, then?)

As long as you presuppose materialism is the only rationally intelligible means of viewing reality, you will not be able to objectively interact and assimilate these arguments. Your question: "What would it be made of then?", implies your presupposition that it is composed of material parts.

And deities.

Correct! Deities, plural.

Got one that is not faulty?

Yes.

Evasion noted.

Care to substantiate this?

You have been unsuccessful to date.

Care to substantiate this?

If that is the case, I will quote from my favourite book, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

Well That About Wraps it Up for God.

Only if God is defined as a perpetual motion machine!

 

[Elioenai26]

You refuse to discuss dualism, even though you introduced several dualist assumptions into the discussion. You want us to constrain our objections to the first two premises, while you freely speculate well beyond them. Your argument clearly isn't confined to those two premises so I don't see why our discussion should be confined to them, especially given that the acceptance of those premises is not sufficient to guarantee theism, much less the sort of dualist theism you are advocating.

I would be delighted to discuss dualism with you, just not here in this thread.

I will be starting a new thread soon which will be supplemental to this thread which shall be on the Nature of the First Cause.

In that thread, we shall touch on dualism.

This thread is for discussion regarding the first two premises of the KCA.

Thank you.

 

[quatona]

This thread is for discussion regarding the first two premises of the KCA.

I guess that´s why in the OP you just mentioned the first two premises, instead of posting pages upon pages about all the particularities of your argument and the conclusion.
No wait...

And I guess that´s why you were always willing to discuss the two premises instead of declaring them unquestionable axioms of science and philosophy whenever they were questioned.
No wait...

 

[Elioenai26]

As I keep saying, the notion that the universe had a beginning does not come with a pre-commitment to theism.

I think your syntax is off.

What you mean to say is that theism is not implied in the notion that the universe had a beginning. Now, coming from you, the assertion has yet to be substantiated by any references, citations, evidence, or proof of any sort.

Having said that, let me say this: I have provided below some references and quotes from men knowledgeable in their various areas of study, all of which are applicable to the issue at hand. Many of these are the conclusions of said men, that have been arrived at after having, for many years, studied the matter of the origins of the universe and their implications.

"Recent developments in astronomy have implications that may go beyond their contribution to science itself. In a nutshell, astronomers, studying the Universe through their telescopes, have been forced to the conclusion that the world began suddenly, in a moment of creation, as the product of unknown forces." ( Excerpt from Truth Journal by Professor Robert Jastrow-Ph.D. (1948), from Columbia University; Chief of the Theoretical Division of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1958-61) and Founder/Director of NASA 's Goddard Institute; Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University; Professor of Space Studies-Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College)

Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow confesses: "Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." (Wikipedia Robert Jastrow)

"A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event." (Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama)

In an interview Jastrow states: "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact." (Wikipedia Robert Jastrow)

Although Arthur Eddington a contemporary of Einstein found the idea repgunant, he had to admit: "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."(Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe, New York: Macmillan, 1933, 178)

"Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)

"There is a kind of religion in science . . . every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause. . . . This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with trauma,the mind reacts by ignoring the implications—in science this is known as "refusing to speculate"—or trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang, as if the Universe were a firecracker."(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 113-114)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity. (Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).

And so on and so forth.... All of the bold emphasis is mine to denote how these men see that theism is either directly or indirectly implied by the universe and all that it entails.

That also eliminates the idea of a supernatural cause.

You left out one letter: "s" in cause.

It should be causes.

 

[Elioenai26]

I guess that´s why in the OP you just mentioned the first two premises, instead of posting pages upon pages about all the particularities of your argument and the conclusion.
No wait...

And I guess that´s why you were always willing to discuss the two premises instead of declaring them unquestionable axioms of science and philosophy whenever they were questioned.
No wait...

I shall ask for you to post, if you are going to, some type of material that is actually relevant to the KCA, not just your summation of what I have been willing or not willing to do, which has no bearing on either of the two premises.

Thank you.

 

[quatona]

I shall ask for you to post, if you are going to, some type of material that is actually relevant to the KCA, not just your summation of what I have been willing or not willing to do, which has no bearing on either of the two premises.

Just go back to the beginning of the thread and you will find what you are asking for: a critical look at the premises. Except that back then you merely handwaved away the objections to the premises by claiming they were consensually accepted by science and philosophy.

If you are so concerned with keeping the discussion strictly on the premises: Why did you post all that endless stuff that has no bearing on the premises, in the first place?

 

[Elioenai26]

Just go back to the beginning of the thread and you will find what you are asking for: a critical look at the premises. Except that back then you merely handwaved away the objections to the premises by claiming they were consensually accepted by science and philosophy.

If you are so concerned with keeping the discussion strictly on the premises: Why did you post all that endless stuff that has no bearing on the premises, in the first place?

This has nothing to do with premise (i) or (ii). Please keep to the topic.

If you have an undercutting defeater or a rebutting defeater that has not already been addressed, then do so.

 

[Davian]

I find it intellectually dishonest that you have edited my posts to alter their intent in your replies. If you can't or don't want to answer a point, say so. I am sure that someone with 'the truth' and a personal relationship with a deity can come up with some excuses.

You claimed, "For a material thing to come into being without a material cause requires an efficient cause of infinite power."

Where did you establish that scientifically?

In response to the first question of your post #629: "Why 'must' it be infinite?" My answer contained the following statement:

"Namely, the cause's timelessness, immateriality, and non-spatiality, all can be summed up under the qualitative superlative encompassing adjective "infinite".

The cause's attribute of immense power is summed up under the qualitative superlative "infinite" along with any other adjective rightly ascribed to it.

That does not address my question. Why 'must' it be 'infinite', particularly to create a cosmos with a net energy level of 'zero'?

Or do you need to say 'infinite' because you are working back from your conclusion that it was your "God"?

This particular response is disjointed from the statement it is a response to. I never aid the "burden of evidence" was not on me. What I said is that if the two premises can be refuted and shown to be more plausibly false than true, the conclusion does not follow period. This is a statement about the soundness of the argument, not on whether or not the proponent has or does not have the burden of proof.

What you say and what you have done has not been consistent. From what I have seen it appears more like you presume you are right until you admit that you have been shown otherwise. With an argument that you don't even buy yourself. Tell me, does your faith in this deity of yours depend on this argument?

I don't buy it either.

Try to state your claim in the form a falsifiable hypothesis. Do some science.

As long as you presuppose materialism is the only rationally intelligible means of viewing reality, you will not be able to objectively interact and assimilate these arguments. Your question: "What would it be made of then?", implies your presupposition that it is composed of material parts.

No, the question pokes fun at your insistence at telling me of what this 'first cause' isn't.

Correct! Deities, plural.

Do you not claim that this 'first cause' is also your deity? Occam's razor takes them all out.

Yes.

Care to substantiate this?

Care to substantiate this?

Care to substantiate this?

Have you not been paying attention to the responses in this thread?

Only if God is defined as a perpetual motion machine!

You said, it does not "get" or "receive" anything from anything outside of itself. It has excess power, to do other stuff. So, does this god of yours run down, and eventually out of power, or does 'he' keep going, without having to get or receive additional power, like a perpetual motion machine?

As you say, they do not exist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I would be delighted to discuss dualism with you, just not here in this thread.

I will be starting a new thread soon which will be supplemental to this thread which shall be on the Nature of the First Cause.

In that thread, we shall touch on dualism.

This thread is for discussion regarding the first two premises of the KCA.

Thank you.

Plainly it is not. At every opportunity you have had you have gone beyond those two premises to conjectures about the nature of the cause. People keep responding to your dualist assumptions because you keep bringing them into the argument.

I think your syntax is off.

What you mean to say is that theism is not implied in the notion that the universe had a beginning. Now, coming from you, the assertion has yet to be substantiated by any references, citations, evidence, or proof of any sort.

It doesn't require references or citations, just some thought. You have not shown us how the idea that the universe had a beginning necessarily ties one to a position of theism.

Having said that, let me say this: I have provided below some references and quotes from men knowledgeable in their various areas of study, all of which are applicable to the issue at hand. Many of these are the conclusions of said men, that have been arrived at after having, for many years, studied the matter of the origins of the universe and their implications

I don't find your quote-mining impressive in the slightest. I too could quote mine the works of other men, who have also studied for years in the same area, that would support my assertions. But that would not substitute for an argument.

You left out one letter: "s" in cause.

It should be causes.

Yes, it eliminates all supernatural causes. I'm glad you agree.

 

[Elioenai26]

I find it intellectually dishonest that you have edited my posts to alter their intent in your replies. If you can't or don't want to answer a point, say so. I am sure that someone with 'the truth' and a personal relationship with a deity can come up with some excuses.

You claimed, "For a material thing to come into being without a material cause requires an efficient cause of infinite power."

Where did you establish that scientifically?


That does not address my question. Why 'must' it be 'infinite', particularly to create a cosmos with a net energy level of 'zero'?

Or do you need to say 'infinite' because you are working back from your conclusion that it was your "God"?


What you say and what you have done has not been consistent. From what I have seen it appears more like you presume you are right until you admit that you have been shown otherwise. With an argument that you don't even buy yourself. Tell me, does your faith in this deity of yours depend on this argument?

I don't buy it either.

Try to state your claim in the form a falsifiable hypothesis. Do some science.

No, the question pokes fun at your insistence at telling me of what this 'first cause' isn't.

Do you not claim that this 'first cause' is also your deity? Occam's razor takes them all out.

Care to substantiate this?


Have you not been paying attention to the responses in this thread?



You said, it does not "get" or "receive" anything from anything outside of itself. It has excess power, to do other stuff. So, does this god of yours run down, and eventually out of power, or does 'he' keep going, without having to get or receive additional power, like a perpetual motion machine?

As you say, they do not exist.

If you are not hesitant to maintain that a finite being could create the universe, then that is on you. You just have no good reason to do so, except to avoid the theological implications of an infinite first cause.

 

[Elioenai26]

Plainly it is not. At every opportunity you have had you have gone beyond those two premises to conjectures about the nature of the cause. People keep responding to your dualist assumptions because you keep bringing them into the argument.



It doesn't require references or citations, just some thought. You have not shown us how the idea that the universe had a beginning necessarily ties one to a position of theism.



I don't find your quote-mining impressive in the slightest. I too could quote mine the works of other men, who have also studied for years in the same area, that would support my assertions. But that would not substitute for an argument.



Yes, it eliminates all supernatural causes. I'm glad you agree.

Repeated attempts to derail this discussion have proven unsuccessful for you and several others.

I am not going to allow red herrings to divert this discussion into other areas that do not have a direct bearing on the KCA.

 

[Danyc]

Elio does not seem to want honest discussion. I'm really not sure why we keep entertaining him. Wouldn't it be a better use of our time to simply ignore him? There are people out there who actually want to learn.

 

[Davian]

I find it intellectually dishonest that you have edited my posts to alter their intent in your replies. If you can't or don't want to answer a point, say so. I am sure that someone with 'the truth' and a personal relationship with a deity can come up with some excuses.

You claimed, "For a material thing to come into being without a material cause requires an efficient cause of infinite power."

Where did you establish that scientifically?


That does not address my question. Why 'must' it be 'infinite', particularly to create a cosmos with a net energy level of 'zero'?

Or do you need to say 'infinite' because you are working back from your conclusion that it was your "God"?


What you say and what you have done has not been consistent. From what I have seen it appears more like you presume you are right until you admit that you have been shown otherwise. With an argument that you don't even buy yourself. Tell me, does your faith in this deity of yours depend on this argument?

I don't buy it either.

Try to state your claim in the form a falsifiable hypothesis. Do some science.

No, the question pokes fun at your insistence at telling me of what this 'first cause' isn't.

Do you not claim that this 'first cause' is also your deity? Occam's razor takes them all out.

Care to substantiate this?


Have you not been paying attention to the responses in this thread?



You said, it does not "get" or "receive" anything from anything outside of itself. It has excess power, to do other stuff. So, does this god of yours run down, and eventually out of power, or does 'he' keep going, without having to get or receive additional power, like a perpetual motion machine?

As you say, they do not exist.

If you are not hesitant to maintain that a finite being could create the universe, then that is on you.

Where did I say that?

You just have no good reason to do so, except to avoid the theological implications of an infinite first cause.

Do you concede my points?

Does this god of yours run down, and eventually out of power, or does 'he' keep going, without having to get or receive additional power, like a perpetual motion machine?

 

[Davian]

Elio does not seem to want honest discussion. I'm really not sure why we keep entertaining him. Wouldn't it be a better use of our time to simply ignore him? There are people out there who actually want to learn.

It's a slow day. And I am curious... how much wrong can someone accumulate?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Repeated attempts to derail this discussion have proven unsuccessful for you and several others.

I am not going to allow red herrings to divert this discussion into other areas that do not have a direct bearing on the KCA.

You had no qualms about derailing the discussion in your speculations. It's only when others respond that you claim it is being derailed.