Near perfect existence

[anonymous person]

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

And Craig's was derived from those who defended it before him.

In fact it is not Craig's argument in the sense that he came up with it. These issues have been discussed in philosophy for centuries.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And Craig's was derived from those who defended it before him.

In fact it is not Craig's argument in the sense that he came up with it. These issues have been discussed in philosophy for centuries.

They were also discussed in that thread.

 

[bhsmte]

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

His arguments seem identical to joshuas, along with his writing style.

 

[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/

So...upon getting your link to load, I found out that there's no evidence or observational data regarding what exists "outside" the universe.

Are you ready to admit that you never had any such evidence?

I won't be letting this go.

 

[anonymous person]

So...upon getting your link to load, I found out that there's no evidence or observational data regarding what exists "outside" the universe.

Are you ready to admit that you never had any such evidence?

I won't be letting this go.

Would not the coming into being of the universe be evidence that there is a cause of the universe?

It seems that it would.

The universe could not have created itself.

So the evidence that the universe came into being is evidence that something brought it into being. My Chevy Silverado is evidence of an efficient cause that designed and made it.

Since all matter and energy and space time itself are the effect in question, its cause must exist outside of or transcend the universe.

Of course the question of the origin of the universe is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Science has no say when it comes to things beyond its reach.

So maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. An inference from observing certain effects (empirically) can give us grounds for concluding (philosophically) that there exists a transcendent being responsible for bringing the universe into existence.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Would not the coming into being of the universe be evidence that there is a cause of the universe?

It seems that it would.

The universe could not have created itself.

So the evidence that the universe came into being is evidence that something brought it into being. My Chevy Silverado is evidence of an efficient cause that designed and made it.

Since all matter and energy and space time itself are the effect in question, its cause must exist outside of or transcend the universe.

Of course the question of the origin of the universe is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Science has no say when it comes to things beyond its reach.

So maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. An inference from observing certain effects (empirically) can give us grounds for concluding (philosophically) that there exists a transcendent being responsible for bringing the universe into existence.

Well maybe you misunderstood what I'm getting at here. Since we don't actually know what is "outside" our universe...it could be anything.

Including any number of completely natural causes for the universe.

 

[anonymous person]

Well maybe you misunderstood what I'm getting at here. Since we don't actually know what is "outside" our universe...it could be anything.

Including any number of completely natural causes for the universe.

What you are suggesting is that the word "universe" does not mean what it traditionally has been understood to signify i.e. all of time and space and its contents. See:

1. Universe. Webster's New World College Dictionary, Wiley Publishing, Inc. 2010.
2. Jump up^ "Universe". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 2012-09-21.
3. Jump up^ "Universe". Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved 2012-09-21.
4. Jump up^ Zeilik, Michael; Gregory, Stephen A. (1998). Introductory Astronomy & Astrophysics (4th ed.). Saunders College Publishing.ISBN 0030062284.

But rather that the universe is just part of a larger space-time regime governed by natural laws. Some people refer to this larger space-time regime as a world ensemble, of which our universe is one of an infinite number of universes.

Positing such a world ensemble is the only way you can maintain that our universe came to be as a result of natural causes.

The problem with such a hypothesis is that there simply is no reason to think that there actually exists a world ensemble which our universe is but a part.

So unless you have evidence for such a thing, I think attempting to redefine the term "universe" is simply unwarranted.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What you are suggesting is that the word "universe" does not mean what it traditionally has been understood to signify i.e. all of time and space and its contents. See:

1. Universe. Webster's New World College Dictionary, Wiley Publishing, Inc. 2010.
2. Jump up^ "Universe". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 2012-09-21.
3. Jump up^ "Universe". Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved 2012-09-21.
4. Jump up^ Zeilik, Michael; Gregory, Stephen A. (1998). Introductory Astronomy & Astrophysics (4th ed.). Saunders College Publishing.ISBN 0030062284.

But rather that the universe is just part of a larger space-time regime governed by natural laws. Some people refer to this larger space-time regime as a world ensemble, of which our universe is one of an infinite number of universes.

Positing such a world ensemble is the only way you can maintain that our universe came to be as a result of natural causes.

The problem with such a hypothesis is that there simply is no reason to think that there actually exists a world ensemble which our universe is but a part.

So unless you have evidence for such a thing, I think attempting to redefine the term "universe" is simply unwarranted.

Whoa whoa whoa...

Pump the brakes there anonymous, if you're accepting the dictionary definition yourself, then there is no "outside" the universe.

You're positing that an "outside" of the universe exists in the first place. It's this assumption I'm going off of...you don't get to change the rules as you go.

Is the universe all that "is" or is there such a place as "outside" the universe?

 

[Ana the Ist]

And this is where he gets stuck...because he does believe in an "outside" of the universe...

...but he also knows that he has no idea what's there. For all he knows it's just more space, time, and matter. He has no evidence nor reason to think otherwise...

 

[anonymous person]

Whoa whoa whoa...

Pump the brakes there anonymous, if you're accepting the dictionary definition yourself, then there is no "outside" the universe.

You're positing that an "outside" of the universe exists in the first place. It's this assumption I'm going off of...you don't get to change the rules as you go.

Is the universe all that "is" or is there such a place as "outside" the universe?

Your thinking is based on what I have coined "the naturalistic assumption". It will be hard for you to conceive of something immaterial existing timelessly apart from the universe and in time subsequent to its inception because you see corporeality, temporality, and being extended in space as necessary conditions for an entity's existence. IOW, you think that unless entity E is extended in space and exists in time and has come to be as a result of natural processes, then such an entity cannot be.

I have just given you an argument against such a view. You cannot object to my argument by saying, "well, there is nothing outside the universe" for this is simply question begging.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your thinking is based on what I have coined "the naturalistic assumption". It will be hard for you to conceive of something immaterial existing timelessly apart from the universe and in time subsequent to its inception because you see corporeality, temporality, and being extended in space as necessary conditions for an entity's existence. IOW, you think that unless entity E is extended in space and exists in time and has come to be as a result of natural processes, then such an entity cannot be.

I have just given you an argument against such a view. You cannot object to my argument by saying, "well, there is nothing outside the universe" for this is simply question begging.

I'm not saying there's nothing outside of the universe lol...you are.

I totally understand your view. You think of the universe like an expanding bubble...which beyond the boundary of there lies nothing except some magical god who made our universe (cause I guess that's all gods do lol).

The reality is that our universe could quite simply be expanding into more space, time and matter...and since these are things which we know exist, it's far more reasonable to believe this.

 

[anonymous person]

I'm not saying there's nothing outside of the universe lol...you are.

There is nothing made of matter or extended in space or in time outside of the universe. That is what I am saying.

But there is a being who brought the universe into existence. This being is not composed of matter or extended in space. This being is a spiritual being.

I totally understand your view. You think of the universe like an expanding bubble...which beyond the boundary of there lies nothing except some magical god who made our universe (cause I guess that's all gods do lol).

Well, the idea that space itself is expanding like a bubble is a view that is supported by a wealth of empirical data. So I feel confident in holding it.

As far as a magical cause of the universe.....

I would not call this cause "magical". Mysterious definitely. Awesomely powerful and awe-inspiring yes.

The reality is that our universe could quite simply be expanding into more space, time and matter...and since these are things which we know exist, it's far more reasonable to believe this.

Well the reality is that that view is simply rendered untenable in light of the scientific evidence to the contrary. The universe is not expanding into empty space, but rather, space itself is expanding.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is nothing made of matter or extended in space or in time outside of the universe. That is what I am saying.

What I'd like to know is why you think this...because it appears to be an assumption based upon nothing. I asked you for evidence...you never gave any. We can keep coming back to this point...or you can admit this basic assumption has absolutely no foundation in reality.

 

[anonymous person]

What I'd like to know is why you think this...because it appears to be an assumption based upon nothing. I asked you for evidence...you never gave any. We can keep coming back to this point...or you can admit this basic assumption has absolutely no foundation in reality.

Do you not know what the definition of the word universe is?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you not know what the definition of the word universe is?

Yea...do you?

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is nothing made of matter or extended in space or in time outside of the universe. That is what I am saying.

What I'd like to know is why you think this...because it appears to be an assumption based upon nothing. I asked you for evidence...you never gave any. We can keep coming back to this point...or you can admit this basic assumption has absolutely no foundation in reality.

I'm asking again since you dodged the question...why do you believe this?

 

[anonymous person]

Yea...do you?

Then thy are you asking me why I think there is nothing made of matter or extended in space or in time outside of the universe?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then thy are you asking me why I think there is nothing made of matter or extended in space or in time outside of the universe?

Because nothing in science...or really nothing at all proposes that.

This is all news to you isn't it? You really thought science has been saying all this time that nothing exists "outside" of the known universe?

 

[anonymous person]

Because nothing in science...or really nothing at all proposes that.

This is all news to you isn't it? You really thought science has been saying all this time that nothing exists "outside" of the known universe?

I googled "universe" and got:

All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

Now if the universe refers to all existing matter and space, then tell me why this does not imply that there is no matter outside the universe?

Do you know what the word "all" means?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I googled "universe" and got:

All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

Now if the universe refers to all existing matter and space, then tell me why this does not imply that there is no matter outside the universe?

Do you know what the word "all" means?

Because it could be infinite...all we know is the tiny bit that we can see of the tiny bit we're in.

Our big bang, our singularity event, could just be one of an infinite number of such events (because ultimately there's no reason to think it's special) all stretching out and intersecting each other. We can't even see all of our universe because light hasn't caught up with its expansion.

So it's rather silly to sit there and claim that it isn't expanding into more universe. It could just be an infinite stretch of space time and matter. That's one possible scenario.

Literally no one in science thinks it just ends and you get to....nothing. That's completely unfounded and frankly...a little silly. It makes it sound like if we could put you on a ship fast enough...you'd reach the edge and then what? Is there some velvet rope and a sign that says "only gods beyond this point."?