Near perfect existence

[anonymous person]

Yes. This necessarily means the assumption that certain principles observed within the universe must be transcended into a situation beyond the universe, while at the same time exceptional claims are inevitable.
This (positing a "non-natural" situation and at the same time appealing to "naturalistic" principles) is a problem all these hypotheses are suffering from. Yours including.
I notice that you point it out when it comes to competing hypotheses but you are doing the same.


IOW you have your preconceived God concept and try to build hypotheses that "make sense" to you in that they leave your God concept intact. Speaking of fine-tuning, your hypotheses are fine-tuned to confirm your God concept. That´s your starting point, not vice versa. Because otherwise there would be no reason to mention cosmology and morality in the same breath, to begin with.
Now, everyone is entitled to hold onto their preferred hypotheses. Nothing wrong with that, especially in light of the fact that there isn´t and can´t be a valid methodology and epistemology for a state of affairs that escapes our conceptual framework.
We all have heard that you prefer the hypotheses you prefer - but apparently making yourself heard isn´t enough for you. You keep claiming you have arguments to present. It looks like you would like to convince us. However, whenever it is shown to you that your hypothesis suffers from the same shortcomings that the competing hypotheses suffer from, you return to "but this is the hypothesis I prefer".

As far as I am concerned - you mentioned my "worldview", without even knowing it. The difference between you and me is: My worldview is actually a worldview (regarding the world as it is). You, however, are positing a certain beyond-worldview (regarding a state of affairs beyond this world), in the absence of any solid basis for evaluating the validity of different beyond-worldviews (apart from personal preferences and preconceived metaphysical concepts).



To be precise, that´s what you are claiming. Whereas there is a singnificant shortage of actual arguments.
On another note, you aren´t very demanding when accepting a mere hypothesis as having "explanatory power" - at least when it comes to your own hypothesis.

Well, first of all I would like to hear what exactly it is that it´s supposed to explain.

If the universe comes into being, it does so with or without a sufficient cause.

Nothing comes from nothing.

So the universe came from something.

You reject the proposition nothing comes from nothing.


As I stated earlier, arguments only go as far as the one who is presented with them is willing to go.

In your case quatona, I am satisfied with presenting what I have to you. If you think that the universe could come into being without any cause whatsoever, then that is fine. It is not reason or rational argument that lead you to this conclusion however. For your argument that we observe cause and effect relationships in the universe, therefore, the causal principle does not apply to the universe itself is a non-sequitur.

You have been shown that your view is fallacious, yet you still hold to it. I think you know very well that even the great skeptic David Hume would not go so far as to claim such an absurd proposition that something could arise without a cause.

Instead of abandoning your view for one that does not require you to maintain that something can come from nothing, you simply repeat what you have already said with slightly different wording.

The views you hold, you hold not because there is proof or support for them, but because they sit better with what you prefer reality to be like.


“People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.”

― Blaise Pascal, De l'art de persuader

 

[quatona]

If the universe comes into being, it does so with or without a sufficient cause.

Nothing comes from nothing.

So the universe came from something.

You reject the proposition nothing comes from nothing.


As I stated earlier, arguments only go as far as the one who is presented with them is willing to go.

In your case quatona, I am satisfied with presenting what I have to you. If you think that the universe could come into being without any cause whatsoever, then that is fine. It is not reason or rational argument that lead you to this conclusion however.

You are misrepresenting me. I haven´t concluded anything. Au contraire, I am merely refusing to follow your premises, because you haven´t established a basis for them.

For your argument that we observe cause and effect relationships in the universe, therefore, the causal principle does not apply to the universe itself is a non-sequitur.

Except that you are eager to misrepresent my criticism of your argument as being an argument for a competing hypothesis.
I am not saying "the causal principle does not apply...". I am saying that once we reject epistemological naturalism (which you do, and which obviously is necessary once we talk about a beyond-state of affairs), we have lost the option of pointing to principles observed within the universe. They may or may not apply - we simply can´t tell.

You have been shown that your view is fallacious, yet you still hold to it.

No, you haven´t even tried to show that. Whenever I gave my objections to your "arguments", you didn´t address those objections, and instead felt content with pointing out that your conclusions are "preferable to you".

I think you know very well that even the great skeptic David Hume would not go so far as to claim such an absurd proposition that something could arise without a cause.

Likewise, he wouldn´t have gone so far as to claim that matter, space and time were magically created ex nihilo. He was at least consistent in rejecting exceptional claims altogether.
Be careful whose authority you are appealing to. You may find yourself sitting in the glass house.

Instead of abandoning your view for one that does not require you to maintain that something can come from nothing, you simply repeat what you have already said with slightly different wording.

Which appears necessary since you still haven´t addressed it, and - to tell from the way you represent it - haven´t even understood it.

The views you hold, you hold not because there is proof or support for them, but because they sit better with what you prefer reality to be like.

I don´t hold any view about the origins of the universe - so this must be a huge projection on your part.

“People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.”

Well, I will acknowledge that as an honest self-description on your part.
Personally, I haven´t arrived at any belief concerning the question at hand - so this quote doesn´t apply to me.

 

[anonymous person]

You are misrepresenting me. I haven´t concluded anything. Au contraire, I am merely refusing to follow your premises, because you haven´t established a basis for them.


Except that you are eager to misrepresent my criticism of your argument as being an argument for a competing hypothesis.
I am not saying "the causal principle does not apply...". I am saying that once we reject epistemological naturalism (which you do, and which obviously is necessary once we talk about a beyond-state of affairs), we have lost the option of pointing to principles observed within the universe. They may or may not apply - we simply can´t tell.


No, you haven´t even tried to show that. Whenever I gave my objections to your "arguments", you didn´t address those objections, and instead felt content with pointing out that your conclusions are "preferable to you".

Likewise, he wouldn´t have gone so far as to claim that matter, space and time were magically created ex nihilo. He was at least consistent in rejecting exceptional claims altogether.
Be careful whose authority you are appealing to. You may find yourself sitting in the glass house.


Which appears necessary since you still haven´t addressed it, and - to tell from the way you represent it - haven´t even understood it.


I don´t hold any view about the origins of the universe - so this must be a huge projection on your part.



Well, I will acknowledge that as an honest self-description on your part.
Personally, I haven´t arrived at any belief concerning the question at hand - so this quote doesn´t apply to me.

If the universe began to exist it did so with or without a cause?

Do you agree?

 

[quatona]

If the universe began to exist it did so with or without a cause?

Do you agree?

Define "cause".
Are you talking about causality as we know it (physical causes for physical events), or are you already trying to hide your exceptional ideas in this term, pretending you are appealing to a well-known, familiar concept which has a basis in our experience?

 

[anonymous person]

Define "cause".
Are you talking about causality as we know it (physical causes for physical events), or are you already trying to hide your exceptional ideas in this term, pretending you are appealing to a well-known, familiar concept which has a basis in our experience?

Define cause?

Do you not know what the word means?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Define cause?

Do you not know what the word means?

He is trying to prevent you from equivocating. Yes, you need to define your terms more precisely.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You have been shown that your view is fallacious, yet you still hold to it. I think you know very well that even the great skeptic David Hume would not go so far as to claim such an absurd proposition that something could arise without a cause.

You know, it's funny... Joshua260 said the exact same thing!

Instead of abandoning your view for one that does not require you to maintain that something can come from nothing, you simply repeat what you have already said with slightly different wording.

Perhaps he should create another account and repeat the same thing with slightly different wording instead?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If the universe began to exist it did so with or without a cause?

Do you agree?

You haven't established that the universe "began to exist" in the sense in which you are using that term.

 

[anonymous person]

You haven't established that the universe "began to exist" in the sense in which you are using that term.

I asked a hypothetical question.

 

[anonymous person]

I googled cause and got:

a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I asked a hypothetical question.

In that case, no, not necessarily.

 

[quatona]

Define cause?

Do you not know what the word means?

Yes, I know what it means within the frame of reference of our physical universe (e.g. within this frame of reference, for a physical event a physical cause is postulated).
If you want to transcend it to a state of affairs beyond this frame of reference, you are obviously and necessarily using this word for a concept not covered by the meaning that we have come to use it in.

Let me demonstrate it by using a different example:
I do know what we mean when saying "apple". The word refers to objects observed in this universe. It is meaningful and meant to describe something within the frame of reference of our universe.
Now, if someone would start talking about "spiritual or non-material apples outside the universe", I would be at a complete loss.

 

[quatona]

I googled cause and got:

a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.

"Person", "thing". We´ll keep that in mind.
Persons and things (as we and the dictionary uses these words) obviously didn´t exist in the absence of the universe (I mean, the existential question you are trying to answer is exactly: "How did things and persons come into existence?").
So, no, by this definition the universe couldn´t have a cause.
Unless, of course, you also want to use "person" and "thing" in a new meaning.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The questions you ask below are so broad they should perhaps be developed in separate threads. I will just mention my basic stance for each.

What do you propose could exist timelessly sans the universe and in time subsequent to bringing it (the universe) into existence?

I don't think that the universe (physical reality) was created by anything else. It is uncreated. Time, if anything, is a property of the universe, but it only has context within the universe. It has no context "outside" the universe, and so one might think of it as "timeless" (time has no meaning) from that perspective.

What do you propose could account for our awareness of moral values and duties?

I'm not sure what sort of challenge you are referring to. We have brains -- intellect -- and that is sufficient to conceptualize moral values and duties.

What do you propose could account for what seems to be the fine-tuning found in certain cosmological constants and quantities?

I'm not convinced that there is a real problem here. In any case, anything I could offer would be pure speculation.

What do you propose could account for the rise and spread of Christianity which was founded by a Jewish carpenter who was crucified under Pontius Pilate in a pagan Roman Empire to become the religion with the largest number of adherents, numbering in the billions?

I don't believe in the origins of Christianity that you mention above. I am far from a Bible expert, but I lean slightly towards the views of Richard Carrier.

But putting that aside, there are several major religions. I don't see how it is any mystery that a religion can grow and last a long time. We have many examples.

And one of them had to be the largest. Unless there was a tie, there couldn't fail to be a largest religion. I don't see why it shouldn't be Christianity, or why this gives Christianity any special distinction.

I'll give you a hint as to what gave Christianity a leg up, and that was the Roman Empire adopting Christianity as a state religion, probably for political reasons.

These and many more pieces of data are what our worldviews must account for and make sense of.

Must? Not really.

I am persuaded that my view is the best at accounting for the data at my disposal. Preferable at least over its alternatives/competitors.

Okay, fair enough.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

In that case, no, not necessarily.

So the universe did not necessarily need a cause if it came into existence.

Why not?

 

[bhsmte]

You know, it's funny... Joshua260 said the exact same thing!

Perhaps he should create another account and repeat the same thing with slightly different wording instead?

Good call!

 

[anonymous person]

Yes, I know what it means within the frame of reference of our physical universe (e.g. within this frame of reference, for a physical event a physical cause is postulated).
If you want to transcend it to a state of affairs beyond this frame of reference, you are obviously and necessarily using this word for a concept not covered by the meaning that we have come to use it in.

Let me demonstrate it by using a different example:
I do know what we mean when saying "apple". The word refers to objects observed in this universe. It is meaningful and meant to describe something within the frame of reference of our universe.
Now, if someone would start talking about "spiritual or non-material apples outside the universe", I would be at a complete loss.

I'm not talking about apples. I am talking about that which brings about a particular state of affairs i.e. space time and all matter and energy i.e. the universe.

Your rebuttal is to argue that the causal principle is not applicable to the universe if it comes into existence, only this things in the universe.

Why is it not applicable to the universe? Your answer is that the causal principle is something that is only applicable to effects that take place within the universe....

Crickets chirping......


Do you know what this is an example of?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do you know what this is an example of?

Your inability to understand quatona's critique?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So the universe did not necessarily need a cause if it came into existence.

Why not?

Did you see the thread I linked to?

 

[quatona]

I'm not talking about apples. I am talking about that which brings about a particular state of affairs i.e. space time and all matter and energy i.e. the universe.

I know you didn´t talk about apples. Neither did I. Upon your question, I talked about words. "Cause" is a word, "apple" is a word. That´s the analogy. You asked for an explanation why words that we can understand clearly as long as we remain within the frame of reference in which we have learned them to be meaningful, leave us totally clueless when transposed outside that frame of reference. That´s the case even with simple concrete words like "apple", even more so with abstract terms.

Your rebuttal is to argue that the causal principle is not applicable to the universe if it comes into existence, only this things in the universe.

No, it is not - and I have corrected you on that misrepresentation of my position quite a few times before. I said there is no reason whatsoever to assume that it necessarily applies to the universe, and obviously you don´t have anything in store to defend your assumption that it does.
If you don´t read my posts anyway, I suspect there isn´t much point in trying to explain any further and assume that suddenly you start paying attention to what is being said.

Why is it not applicable to the universe?

I have explained to you why it can´t be applicable in the definition of "cause" you gave. Maybe you could try to address what I said, instead of simply repeating your questions or starting to try a new chapter of your script?

Your answer is that the causal principle is something that is only applicable to effects that take place within the universe....

No, that has not been my answer, and it isn´t. Read my previous posts. It´s all there. In post #522 you´ll find it in a short and simple, even bolded sentence summarizing my position. It´s not hard to understand.

Crickets chirping......


Do you know what this is an example of?

Yes: An example of you employing the strawman fallacy.
Apparently you are unable to defend your hypothesis in its own right. You appear to be depending on attacking competing hypotheses even if the person you are talking to doesn´t hold such.