Near perfect existence

[anonymous person]

"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.

I have presented you with an argument for the existence of an efficient cause of the universe (this would be considered a thing), which exists timelessly sans the universe and in time subsequent to its inception. This being would be immaterial as well.

Offering a rebuttal to my argument along the lines of "things don't exist in the absence of the universe" is question begging for naturalism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have presented you with an argument for the existence of an efficient cause of the universe (this would be considered a thing), which exists timelessly sans the universe and in time subsequent to its inception. This being would be immaterial as well.

Offering a rebuttal to my argument along the lines of "things don't exist in the absence of the universe" is question begging for naturalism.

What about a material cause? Why have you discarded that?

 

[quatona]

I have presented you with an argument for the existence of an efficient cause of the universe (this would be considered a thing), which exists timelessly sans the universe and in time subsequent to its inception. This being would be immaterial as well.

No, you haven´t. You simply asserted it.

Offering a rebuttal to my argument

Argument? Which argument? All you came up with so far is an unsubstatiated hypothesis without any explanatory power.

along the lines of "things don't exist in the absence of the universe" is question begging for naturalism.

Stop making up rebuttals for me. Simply go with those that I actually gave. Please.

 

[anonymous person]

Did you see the thread I linked to?

I saw your argument.

You argue that the fact that we do not experience things coming into being ex nihilo, that therefore the universe if it comes into being, does not need a cause.

Why is this not a non-sequitur Ben?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I saw your argument.

You argue that the fact that we do not experience things coming into being ex nihilo, that therefore the universe if it comes into being, does not need a cause.

Try reading the thread next time, and then address what I actually say.

 

[anonymous person]

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.


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.


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?

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.


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.

It's called circular reasoning.

Rephrasing a circular argument makes it no less circular.

The word "cause" does not apply to the universe because the word is only meaningful when used in reference to effects in the universe.

Why is it only meaningful when used in reference to effects within the universe and not the universe itself?

Answer the question without arguing in a circle.

 

[quatona]

dp

 

[quatona]

dp, sorry.

 

[quatona]

It's called circular reasoning.

Rephrasing a circular argument makes it no less circular.

The word "cause" does not apply to the universe because the word is only meaningful when used in reference to effects in the universe.

Why is it only meaningful when used in reference to effects within the universe and not the universe itself?

Answer the question without arguing in a circle.

Why would I defend a position I don´t hold and an argument I haven´t made?
If all you want to do is refute your own strawmen I guess there is no point in getting me involved in your self-talk.

 

[bhsmte]

Tyson says if you want to destroy the universe then all you need is more energy then what is currently holding it together.

Does Tyson say we are going to destroy the universe?

 

[quatona]

and another dp.

 

[anonymous person]

Try reading the thread next time, and then address what I actually say.

I do not have the time to devote to reading the entire thread. It is sixty some odd pages long. If what I said was an inaccurate description of your argument, then tell me where I am wrong so I can address it please.

 

[anonymous person]

What about a material cause? Why have you discarded that?

It is not that I discard the hypothesis.

Rather I take the hypothesis you mention and look at it and examine it.

H1. Something composed of matter i.e. (material) brings into existence (causes) space-time, all matter and energy from nothing.

And I ask myself:

1. Is this hypothesis logically possible.

Well, it seems to me that H1 does not even pass the first test. It is not logically possible for something composed of matter to bring into existence, from nothing, all matter, all energy, and space-time itself.

So I stop there and review the other available hypotheses. Are they logically possible at least?

H2. Something not composed of matter i.e. (immaterial) brings into existence (causes) space-time, all matter and energy from nothing.

And I ask myself:

1. Is this hypothesis logically possible.

Well, it seems to me that H2 as opposed to H1, is at least logically possible. Affirming it entails no logical contradiction

Then I ask:

2. What am I to make of an immaterial cause? How could something not composed of matter create all matter?

In response I go back and ask myself:

Do I have any presuppositions that seemingly contradict this hypothesis that I may need to examine more closely as a result of having evidence that they may very well be false?

Well, I observe cause and effect relationships quite often in my experience, and of course these things happen in the natural world in which I exist. Whenever I observe an effect, I reasonably conclude that it happened because something caused it to happen. Since they happen in the natural world, I expect them to be the result of some efficient cause that itself is composed of matter or at least an efficient cause which endures through time and space.

Then I ask myself this question:

Is the coming into being of the universe ex nihilo analogous to the effects that I observe in the natural world on a daily basis? IOW, should I look at the coming into being of the universe ex nihilo the same way I look at say, the formation of a star?

The answer is yes and no!

While they are both analogous in the sense that we have a relationship between a cause and its effect i.e. the formation of a star (the effect) as a result of certain natural processes acting upon matter (the cause), I understand that they simply cannot be analogous when it comes to their nature. Why? Because natural processes acting upon matter cannot logically be viewed as a cause of anything if they do not exist in the first place!

So from this it is seen that I use inductive reasoning and logic to arrive at arguing for a particular hypothesis over another.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You have said there is no evidence that anything is eternal. Should you not therefore also apply this to this hypothetical matter and energy and space you think might exist outside our universe?

So admittedly...you were blowing smoke when you spoke about "evidence and observational data" regarding what is "outside" our universe?

Since those things cannot be known...the best you can do is guess.

 

[anonymous person]

So admittedly...you were blowing smoke when you spoke about "evidence and observational data" regarding what is "outside" our universe?

Since those things cannot be known...the best you can do is guess.

Seems you are addressing a strawman

 

[Ana the Ist]

Seems you are addressing a strawman

I'm addressing a statement that you made...a specific claim.

I can quote it if you like.

 

[anonymous person]

I'm addressing a statement that you made...a specific claim.

I can quote it if you like.

Ok go ahead.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Basically, it seems to me that you want to allow for the existence of matter and space and energy outside of our universe, despite the empirical evidence and data we have which would seem to render this view problematic. This hypothesis seems less preferable to one which would not require us to set aside the empirical evidence and data from the observations we have gathered which seem to indicate that there is no matter or energy or space-time external to our universe.

This quote right here...

I asked twice about your "evidence and observational data" but you never gave any...at all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'll wait lol.

 

[anonymous person]

This quote right here...

I asked twice about your "evidence and observational data" but you never gave any...at all.

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." - Stephen Hawking

As for this evidence, one piece is discussed on the below linked website.

www.technologyreview.com/view/427722/mathematics-of-eternity-prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/

 

[Ana the Ist]

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." - Stephen Hawking

As for this evidence, one piece is discussed on the below linked website.

www.technologyreview.com/view/427722/mathematics-of-eternity-prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/

I can't get your link to load. Just quote the part that explains the evidence of what's outside the universe.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Does Tyson say we are going to destroy the universe?

Not at all, but the conspiracy people will try to claim that Tyson said that Cern is going to destory the universe. Although their main point is they believe that Cern is going to open the abyss that we read about in Rev 9.

"He opened the bottomless pit, and smoke went up out of the pit, like the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by the smoke of the pit. 3Then out of the smoke came locusts upon the earth, and power was given them, as the scorpions of the earth have power. 4They were told not to hurt the grass of the earth, nor any green thing, nor any tree, but only the men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads.…"

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/large-hadron-collider7.htm

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is not that I discard the hypothesis.

Rather I take the hypothesis you mention and look at it and examine it.

H1. Something composed of matter i.e. (material) brings into existence (causes) space-time, all matter and energy from nothing.

And I ask myself:

1. Is this hypothesis logically possible.

Well, it seems to me that H1 does not even pass the first test. It is not logically possible for something composed of matter to bring into existence, from nothing, all matter, all energy, and space-time itself.

You haven't established that all matter and energy originated in that way in the first place.

So I stop there and review the other available hypotheses. Are they logically possible at least?

H2. Something not composed of matter i.e. (immaterial) brings into existence (causes) space-time, all matter and energy from nothing.

And I ask myself:

1. Is this hypothesis logically possible.

Well, it seems to me that H2 as opposed to H1, is at least logically possible. Affirming it entails no logical contradiction

Then I ask:

2. What am I to make of an immaterial cause? How could something not composed of matter create all matter?

In response I go back and ask myself:

Do I have any presuppositions that seemingly contradict this hypothesis that I may need to examine more closely as a result of having evidence that they may very well be false?

Well, I observe cause and effect relationships quite often in my experience, and of course these things happen in the natural world in which I exist. Whenever I observe an effect, I reasonably conclude that it happened because something caused it to happen. Since they happen in the natural world, I expect them to be the result of some efficient cause that itself is composed of matter or at least an efficient cause which endures through time and space.

What else do you notice about things "beginning to exist"?

Then I ask myself this question:

Is the coming into being of the universe ex nihilo analogous to the effects that I observe in the natural world on a daily basis? IOW, should I look at the coming into being of the universe ex nihilo the same way I look at say, the formation of a star?

The answer is yes and no!

While they are both analogous in the sense that we have a relationship between a cause and its effect i.e. the formation of a star (the effect) as a result of certain natural processes acting upon matter (the cause), I understand that they simply cannot be analogous when it comes to their nature. Why? Because natural processes acting upon matter cannot logically be viewed as a cause of anything if they do not exist in the first place!

Who says that they do not exist?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I do not have the time to devote to reading the entire thread. It is sixty some odd pages long. If what I said was an inaccurate description of your argument, then tell me where I am wrong so I can address it please.

Your argument seems no different to that presented by Joshua260, whose own argument appeared to be derivative of Craig's.