What convinced you the universe alone is all that exists?

[Mark Quayle]

Forgive me for my ignorance as to how to put quotes within quotes like you guys do so well. Bear with me.

[2]

Mark Quayle said: ↑
Amoranemix 25 said:
[1] I doubt it is illogical in even one way. How are these points you present supposed to make something creating itself be illogical ?

Mark replied: My points don't make something illogical. They are or they are not illogical on their own. You have a strange way of seeing reality. (1) A thing cannot cause itself to exist. It is self-contradictory, because a non-existent thing cannot cause. It cannot spontaneously begin to exist. That is nonsense.[2] (2)A thing that exists, is either first cause, or was caused.The 'infinitesimal speck' from which the BB proceeded was mechanical fact, and on top of everything else one might say about it, bears the evidences of being acted upon or produced (created) with purpose/ design since it obviously resulted in specificity and not homogeneity.[3] There is no more reason to say specificity results by chance or randomness, than there is to say that chance or randomness can cause anything. This too is self-contradictory.

Now Amoranemix: These are three bald assertions. I would ask you to prove them if they weren't off topic.

You appear to reason as follows :
P1. I don't know how something could cause itself to exist.
P2. It would be covenient for my faith if nothing could cause itself to exist.
C. Therefore, it is impossible for something to cause itself to exist.

That argument is invalid. It seems related to the god of the gaps argument.

[3] How so ?

[1] I notice you were careful not to say, "A thing creating itself is not illogical." You only ask how my points prove it! I guess I need to expand a bit, since you asked, though you implied you would not ask since they were off topic. Often I say something that seems to me to bring obvious implications with it, that are somehow not obvious to others. "A thing cannot cause itself to exist" because it would first have to exist to be able to cause anything. It also "cannot spontaneously begin to exist" because beginning necessarily implies causation, if nothing else, the principle by which it began --therefore, not spontaneity.

Does that help?

[2] "A thing that exists, is either first cause, or was caused." Perhaps I should put the logical link in there, that "cannot spontaneously begin to exist" rules out Spontaneity of existence, period, by definition of the word 'spontaneous'. It is not a static word. So, other than spontaneity, do you have another option besides 'caused to exist' and 'self-existent'?


You say:
You appear to reason as follows :
P1. I don't know how something could cause itself to exist.
P2. It would be covenient for my faith if nothing could cause itself to exist.
C. Therefore, it is impossible for something to cause itself to exist.

That is not what I argue, not how I reason. I wonder how it appeared to you that way.

[3] I thought I had just explained. Chance or randomness causing anything, is self-contradictory. But furthermore, as has been said by others, 'Chance is just a placeholder for "I don't know".'



Mark said: "If God exists, God is not an opinion.[4] Are you one of those who likes the foggy notion that there are many truths?[5]
But I thought atheists are not supposed to believe there is no God, but rather to fail to believe there is a God. Here you are positing the notion that there is no actual God.[6]"

[4] In that case, there would be many gods. The one that exists and those people believe in. The real one would be unlikely to conform to what you will accept or to what (s)he/it has to be according to you.

There's something to that --God does not conform. He simply is. Funny how truth is like that.

[5] No.

I'm glad to hear it.

[6] There atheists who disbelieve there is any god and atheists who disbelieve in specific gods.

So you slide out from under my point.



Mark, concerning the claim that 'it could be' the universe is eternal and cyclical: "You are describing infinite regression of cause. Difficult to imagine? Difficult to swallow. In fact, a bit indigestible. 'Repugnant', one might say."

Reality does not care about your aversions.

Truth doesn't have any relationship to claims or feelings. So what. Is that your defense of infinite regression?

Matter that has continually multiplied on and on for eternity past would violate Occam's razor. As would any infinitely regressing causal loops. You can't avoid it. Therefore, a prime mover is necessary and would more accurately fit the rule of parsimony. Why? Because it puts a stop to theorizing eternally and unnecessarily regressive entities.

If I understand correctly, your argument is the following :

P1. Paulomycin's god is by definition omnipotent.
P2. An omnipotent being is necessary to explain the world.
C. Therefore Paulomycin's god exists.

I suspect omniscience is included in your definition of omnipotence.
Further you attempt to demonstrate P1.

If you were to be successful, that would still leave 2 problems. First, it leaves God's morality open. Second, when skeptics refer to the Christian god, they are usually referring to an entity equipped with plenty of religious baggage, like claims found in the Bible. Proving an omniscient, omnipotent being would thus still give no good reason to believe in Yahweh.

You are talking with Paulo here, but I can't help but jump in. He and I were talking not long ago about this habit atheists have, that often when they see their defense eroding, they quickly, lest they lose the debate, revert to something like, "Well, even if you are right about Omnipotence (or First Cause)(or even First Cause With Intent) you still have to prove that it is the Christian God!" Like, "AHA! Got you on THAT one!"

 

[Paulomycin]

[9] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

Here, you are implicitly claiming. . .

Reality does not care about your aversions.

. . .a secular reality without evidence. Since you are an atheist, and since you are unwilling to honestly suspend your atheism for any length of time, then that is your implicit claim.

Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

Call it a gamble that I end up winning 99% of the time, because I'm leveraging a perceived forced incredulity. I'm predicting that it will repeat itself.

Has ontological naturalism ever been objectively refuted ?

It is objectively self-refuting. To appeal to naturalistic means to justify naturalism is arguing in a circle. For that reason (but not that reason alone), ontological naturalism is an extremely weak position.

I haven't noticed anyone suggesting that matter has continuously multiplied on and on for eternity past.

Of course no one on your side is going to suggest any of this in any specified detail, because the fallacy of vagueness is an excellent tool for epistemic cover. Atheists generally hate complete transparency. Once all the specific options are considered in detail, the results are unavoidable.

How so ? Occam's razor doesn't claim that there cannot be more than one of something. If it did, skeptics would better reject it.

The actual definition of Occam's razor is, "entities should not be multiplied without necessity." In this case, it refers to materialist entities that are multiplied without necessity to an infinite regress. It's a complete trainwreck of logic that ultimately answers nothing (because infinity).

You are assuming that your favourite hypotheses must be true because that would render obsolete the other hypothesis. That reasoning is however fallacious. It could otherwise also be used to render your favourite hypothesis obsolete. The simplest hypothesis that explains the evidence is to be preferred and complexity is not solely determined by the number of instances a hypothesis contains.

First, it's not even a scientific hypothesis at all. It's a logical proof. You should know the difference. Logical proofs are absolute. Second, even scientific hypotheses cannot be irrational proposals in and of themselves. Logical soundness should be the 1st test that a hypothesis is even coherently communicable. Infinite causal loops (a.) or an eternal finite materialism (b.) are never rational proposals. The first is an infinite regress (an indirect contradiction) and the second is a brute contradiction that finite matter is eternal.

Claims of possibility (speculation) require less evidence than claims of fact. The vaguer a claim, the less evidence it requires. If that speculation already requires evidence, then most of your unevidenced claims of fact are woefully undersupported.

Because you magically assert that is the case, rather than demonstrate specifically how my facts are "undersupported."

If I understand correctly, your argument is the following :

P1. Paulomycin's god is by definition omnipotent.

No. The definition is not a premise. Definitions are necessary before arguments even commence. Otherwise, you people will attempt to trip me up on "which god" and the ambiguity of god(s). I propose to prove an omnipotent being, then the proof follows the claim.

P2. An omnipotent being is necessary to explain the world.

You're omitting either the causal argument I posted, or the modus ponens I posted after that.

If you were to be successful, that would still leave 2 problems. First, it leaves God's morality open.

If "god" is subordinate to a higher standard of morality, then that god is not omnipotent. Therefore, strawman.

Second, when skeptics refer to the Christian god, they are usually referring to an entity equipped with plenty of religious baggage, like claims found in the Bible. Proving an omniscient, omnipotent being would thus still give no good reason to believe in Yahweh.

Don't get ahead of yourself. Once an omnipotent being is proven, then atheism is falsified. Omnipotence automatically infers the "potential" of both omniscience as well as omnipresence. Furthermore, it infers moral non-contingency.

The rest becomes a debate over assumed "religious baggage," that atheists have since failed to demonstrate. Insistent assertions and gainsaying are never equal to a real argument. It only makes atheists the entitled Karens of the universe.

I assume with omni you mean universe.

Correct.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” – Stephen Hawking

Which is irrational.

1.) "create itself" is a self-refuting argument. In-order for anything to create itself, it must be its own creator, which means that it would have to exist before it was, which means it would have to be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. That violates the most fundamental law of reason—the law of noncontradiction. Therefore, the concept of self-creation is manifestly absurd, contradictory, and irrational. To hold to such a view is bad science and equally bad philosophy and theology, because both philosophy and science rest upon the ironclad laws of reason. Theology should too. Otherwise, I'd still be an atheist myself.

2.) Scientists like Lawrence Krauss typically run equivocation scams on "something from nothing," where "nothing" is bait & switched into a prior "something" of quantum vacuum which then needs to be accounted for anyway. I am bringing this up because I'm already aware of that dodge. So don't even go there.

Obviously I don't buy your alleged proofs,

Because your knee-jerk incredulity is performing exactly as I predicted.

but criticizing them here would probably lead to too long an off topic discussion. If you post one in its own thread I may find time to challenge it there.

Or, I can simply assume you're either unable to rationally criticize them, or incapable. Regardless, my proofs remain unrefuted. So no worries.

Strange. There is no mention of God in those articles about the beginning of the universe.

Strange, you're not refuting the main point, which leaves the necessity of "God" wide open.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It is objectively self-refuting. To appeal to naturalistic means to justify naturalism is arguing in a circle. For that reason (but not that reason alone), ontological naturalism is an extremely weak position.

This reminds me of my earliest exposure to Quantum Physics --I was told a new sort of math had to be invented to show that the old math was useless, but that it was done by using the old math! I say WHAT?

 

[durangodawood]

Your feelings?

Dogmatic assumption? <-- Whether yours, or someone else's?

Belief in the myth of Conflict Thesis?

Something else?

Or, is the conclusion part of a larger step-by-step process that you can explain in clear detail without being painfully vague and ambiguous?

I dont know if the universe is all that exists.

Maybe it is. Maybe it isnt. We can have faith one way or the other. But we're not in much of a position to know.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I dont know if the universe is all that exists.

Maybe it is. Maybe it isnt. We can have faith one way or the other. But we're not in much of a position to know.

Faith in what?

 

[durangodawood]

Faith in what?

Faith that the universe is (or conversely, isnt) all that exists.

 

[Paulomycin]

I dont know if the universe is all that exists.

Maybe it is. Maybe it isnt. We can have faith one way or the other. But we're not in much of a position to know.

Whoa. So you're literally making a blind faith claim to the contrary?

I completely reject the idea that the existence of God is built on some "leap of faith." I reject Kierkegaard (or the popular interpretation of Kierkegaard), who started all that garbage to begin with. I only adhere to justified belief based on proof or evidence.

You need faith (trust) for salvation (yes), but not for belief in the existence of God. There are still Theists out there who trust in the proof and evidence of God, rather than a blind leap of naive fideistic faith.

 

[Paulomycin]

Faith that the universe is (or conversely, isnt) all that exists.

Just. . .wow.

You don't see this every day. I don't even.

 

[durangodawood]

Whoa. So you're literally making a blind faith claim to the contrary?

I completely reject the idea that the existence of God is built on some "leap of faith." I reject Kierkegaard (or the popular interpretation of Kierkegaard), who started all that garbage to begin with. I only adhere to justified belief based on proof or evidence.

You need faith (trust) for salvation (yes), but not for belief in the existence of God. There are still Theists out there who trust in the proof and evidence of God, rather than a blind leap of naive fideistic faith.

Its how it seems to me after encountering various attempts to reason toward God. Yeah I could be wrong and maybe the winning argument is out there somewhere. But I doubt it.

 

[durangodawood]

Just. . .wow.

You don't see this every day. I don't even.

Youre kind of prickly about all this?

You doing ok?

 

[Paulomycin]

Youre kind of prickly about all this?

You doing ok?

I was born prickly. That's not the point. The point is that you've just straight-up admitted that your side is a (leap of) faith claim.

 

[durangodawood]

I was born prickly. That's not the point. The point is that you've just straight-up admitted that your side is a (leap of) faith claim.

Did you see where I revised my claim to make it more.... provisional. I noted that I could be wrong about this.

 

[Paulomycin]

Did you see where I revised my claim to make it more.... provisional. I noted that I could be wrong about this.

Do you take the claim in the OP on faith or not?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Faith that the universe is (or conversely, isnt) all that exists.

I don't see how that means anything.

 

[durangodawood]

Do you take the claim in the OP on faith or not?

What claim? The OP is all questions.

 

[Paulomycin]

What claim? The OP is all questions.

Do you take the claim that, "the universe alone is all that exists," on faith? <--Yes or no.

 

[Lion IRC]

....how to put quotes within quotes

Take post "A" (green) and insert post "B" (being quoted) immediately after the parentheses close ]

[QU0TE="Mark Quayle, post: 75909099, member: 410020"]

[QU0TE="Lion IRC, post: 75909139, member: 315264"]The Arc was designed by God.[/QU0TE]

how to put quotes within quotes[/QU0TE]

 

[durangodawood]

Do you take the claim that, "the universe alone is all that exists," on faith? <--Yes or no.

I have no idea whether that claim is true or not.

So no, I do not accept it on faith.
Nor do I accept it as a reasoned conclusion.
Nor do I accept it on empirical evidence.

(I have a preference that its not true.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

Take post "A" (green) and insert post "B" (being quoted) immediately after the parentheses close ]

[QU0TE="Mark Quayle, post: 75909099, member: 410020"]

[QU0TE="Lion IRC, post: 75909139, member: 315264"]The Arc was designed by God.[/QU0TE]

how to put quotes within quotes[/QU0TE]

Lol, thanks, but, HUH?? I'll try, though.

 

[Lion IRC]

blah blah blah...

Lol, thanks, but, HUH?? I'll try, though.

It gets pretty easy once you've done it a few times.