One piece, the Kalam

[DogmaHunter]

I mean, modern science has unveiled and continues to unveil enormous complexity and interdependency in the make up of reality.

Argument from incredulity.
"my evidence against science, is that I don't understand it".
or
"we don't know, therefor god"

 

[DogmaHunter]

No,it's an analogy with DNA.
Both are characters forming data that is implicable.

DNA is a molecule which is sometimes represented by characters for simplicity and ease of understanding.

But it does not consist of characters. It consists of molecules.

Of course any analogy with DNA will be somewhat flawed

Especially if the analogy falls flat on its face as a result of it being based on a complete misunderstanding of what DNA actually is.

 

[Chriliman]

"before"?
What does that mean, when the start of the universe = the start of time itself?

Right, when I say "before" I'm referring to the eternal state of existence that caused/created the universe.

Causes happen BEFORE effects.
Because of the temporal nature of causality, the word "cause" might be a nonsensical concept when talking about the origins of the universe.

If the universe exists because of nonsense then I'm done trying to help you figure this out.

 

[Hieronymus]

Causes do not happen, they cause things to happen, otherwise we would say "effect".
But okay, an effect can be a cause for another effect too, when there's a sequence of events.

Argument from incredulity.

No, argument for a Creator, more intelligent and skilful than we are.

"my evidence against science, is that I don't understand it".
or
"we don't know, therefor god"

No, that's just your foolish projection so you can dismiss what i say.
Reality bares all traits of design, or of dead unconscious things outperforming all of humanity.
Humanity as a whole is not as creative as whatever brought forth our reality.
Get a clue, even if you disagree.
You have the brains.
Brains have a purpose.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Causes do not happen, they cause things to happen, otherwise we would say "effect".

That makes no sense.
In temporal reality, btw, every cause is an effect of a previous cause.
That's kind of the nature of causality.

Which is why causality is a temporal phenomena. It's a sequence of chained events.
Which is also exactly why the word "cause" might not be a sensible word to use for the nature of the big bang. As it would imply that something happened "before" time itself existed.

But okay, an effect can be a cause for another effect too, when there's a sequence of events.

I'ld think that it can't be any other way.
Otherwise, we'ld have "uncaused" things happening all the time.

(incidently, it can be said that in the quantum world, that is exactly what happens, if I understand correctly).

No, argument for a Creator, more intelligent and skilful than we are.

Yes. Which is based in the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

No, that's just your foolish projection so you can dismiss what i say.

It seems to me that that is exactly what you said...
Why else would you put such emphasis on how "complex" things are?

Isn't such an emphasis on complexity just another way of saying that you don't comprehend it?

Reality bares all traits of design, or of dead unconscious things outperforming all of humanity.

Yes, you keep claiming this.

Humanity as a whole is not as creative as whatever brought forth our reality.

Neither are birds. How is that relevant?
And what does "creativity" even mean in a universe that operates through deterministic laws of physics?

Get a clue, even if you disagree.
You have the brains.
Brains have a purpose.

No, brains have function.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Right, when I say "before" I'm referring to the eternal state of existence that caused/created the universe.

What does that mean?
It seems to me that the concept of "existing" is a temporal concept itself...

If the universe exists because of nonsense then I'm done trying to help you figure this out.

lol, have you now become so arrogant that you think that you've figured out the problem of the origins of the universe?

Remember, it's YOU here who's making these claims. I'm merely pointing out the problematic ingredients in your claims.

 

[Hieronymus]

That makes no sense.

Speak for yourself.

In temporal reality, btw, every cause is an effect of a previous cause.
That's kind of the nature of causality.

Agreed.
We're of course wondering about the original uncaused cause.
(the original cause is uncaused by definition)

Which is why causality is a temporal phenomena. It's a sequence of chained events.
Which is also exactly why the word "cause" might not be a sensible word to use for the nature of the big bang. As it would imply that something happened "before" time itself existed.

Not necessarily.
When time is a part of creation, there is still a cause for it, even when it's beyond time.

I'ld think that it can't be any other way.
Otherwise, we'ld have "uncaused" things happening all the time.

I don't see why that would be the case.

(incidently, it can be said that in the quantum world, that is exactly what happens, if I understand correctly).

Not really, the quantum-field / -matrix is a premise for that to happen.
The quantum-matrix (or field or even soup) is not nothing, it's something, it has properties.
(but i'm no expert either)

It seems to me that that is exactly what you said...
Why else would you put such emphasis on how "complex" things are?

Iand others before me have explained that thoroughly, and since you're a member on CF i don't think you have a valid excuse to dismiss this.
Sorry.

Isn't such an emphasis on complexity just another way of saying that you don't comprehend it?

Almost,it says that it's beyond human comprehension and / or abilities, therefore the source / cause / maker has to be superior to us.
It's simple logic.
Because there are no naturalistic mechanisms that can account for what we see and what we are.
This means the scientific community should acknowledge their limits in respect to their assumed explanatory powers.
There is no valid explanation as to how life, even organs and organelles, came about (in a technical sense)
Yes, some proteins may form, but that's not the same as a highly complex (because it IS highly complex) orgnisms.
Simple organisms do not even exist.

 

[Hieronymus]

What does that mean?
It seems to me that the concept of "existing" is a temporal concept itself...

Not possible.
Only nothing comes from nothing.
But there's something, therefore there was something that caused the things that are.

 

[Chriliman]

What does that mean?
It seems to me that the concept of "existing" is a temporal concept itself...



lol, have you now become so arrogant that you think that you've figured out the problem of the origins of the universe?

Remember, it's YOU here who's making these claims. I'm merely pointing out the problematic ingredients in your claims.

No, it's just that if there's no sense behind why the universe exists then I see no point in trying to figure out why it exists.

If there is sense to why the universe exists then it's likely that it makes sense for a reason.

 

[bhsmte]

Not possible.
Only nothing comes from nothing.
But there's something, therefore there was something that caused the things that are.

Define nothing. Then, deomonstrate that nothing has ever existed.

 

[Hieronymus]

Define nothing.

Nothing = not anything, not a thing.
Not even the quantum-matrix (or -field or -soup), because that's something.

Then, deomonstrate that nothing has ever existed.

We can neither prove or disprove anything didn't exist ever.
But logic dictates that the original cause existed, to cause the effect we call reality and / or the universe.
...this is a battlefield of semantics and definitions...

 

[bhsmte]

Nothing = not anything, not a thing.
Not even the quantum-matrix (or -field or -soup), because that's something.We can neither prove or disprove anything didn't exist ever.
But logic dictates that the original cause existed, to cause the effect we call reality and / or the universe.
...this is a battlefield of semantics and definitions...

I dont follow your logic.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm not sure if intelligence itself is complex.
Maybe it's as simple as love?
That is, if intelligence is "vision and understanding", not "knowing a lot of things", if you know what i mean.

I'm referring to intelligence in the sense of cognition.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, it's just that if there's no sense behind why the universe exists then I see no point in trying to figure out why it exists.

If there is sense to why the universe exists then it's likely that it makes sense for a reason.

The universe doesn't owe you any purpose.
Your emotional problems with that, notwithstanding.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nothing = not anything, not a thing.
Not even the quantum-matrix (or -field or -soup), because that's something.We can neither prove or disprove anything didn't exist ever.
But logic dictates that the original cause existed, to cause the effect we call reality and / or the universe.
...this is a battlefield of semantics and definitions...

And what caused that original cause?
It wouldn't be "nothing" by any chance, would it?

 

[Hieronymus]

And what caused that original cause?
It wouldn't be "nothing" by any chance, would it?

Seriously, can the original cause be caused?
Think about it.
What does original mean?

 

[quatona]

It´s good to see that apparently noone asserts that there has ever been nothing.
Now, I think on this premise we will have a hard time to arrive at the conclusion that that which has always existed is a God (unless we define God exclusively as "that which has always existed" - without adding unnecessary assumptions).

 

[Hieronymus]

It´s good to see that apparently noone asserts that there has ever been nothing.

The universe hasn't always existed.
But the cause has always existed.
If the cause is immaterial, a materialist would say the cause is nothing, i guess...

 

[quatona]

The universe hasn't always existed.

...at least not in its current appearance.

But the cause has always existed.

Does "cause" include that which the universe possibly transformed from?

If the cause is immaterial, a materialist would say the cause is nothing, i guess...

You could ask him instead of guessing.

Besides, I was under the impression that the Kalam argued for the existence of a God - instead of merely trying to disprove materialism.

 

[Hieronymus]

You could ask him instead of guessing.

It's no guess. (edit) o, it was..
They tend to think God is nothing.