A question for athiests

[jeff992]

Did Hilbert actually test this assertion?



We do not live in a cause-effect universe. Quantum mechanics suggests that either there are things without causes or that causes need not come before effects. We could live in an effect-cause universe ...



What does 'outside time' mean?
Why do you assume that an infinite being is logically possible if you assert that such a thing cannot exist in our universe?

He had an example called Hilberts Hotels, i can provide a long explanation of this if you like...

1. everything that begins must have a cause

2. The universe began to exist

3. The universe must have a cause

Would you agree?

According to this, the universe must have had a cause. The universe is then contingent upon an infinite source to create the finite time of the universe.

 

[Asimov]

He had an example called Hilberts Hotels, i can provide a long explanation of this if you like...

1. everything that begins must have a cause

2. The universe began to exist

3. The universe must have a cause

Would you agree?

1 = False premise.
2 = Naked Assertion.
3 = Invalid Conclusion.

According to this, the universe must have had a cause. The universe is then contingent upon an infinite source to create the finite time of the universe.

Even if true, this doesn't actually prove that God exists.

 

[jeff992]

1 = False premise.
2 = Naked Assertion.
3 = Invalid Conclusion.

False premise? Could you please demonstrate how premise one is false? It's quite logical and parallel with human experience of reality. If something, anything begins to exist anywhere, there was some sort of cause. Assume the universe is finite for a minute. Then it must be true that it came from somewhere. Did it just pop out of nothing? It must have had some kind of cause if it began to exist. Is there anything to the contrary you would like to point out?

Even if true, this doesn't actually prove that God exists.

I never said that any certain kind of "God" existed. At this point, all that exists would some kind of infinite being that can create natural law and the universe and still stay infinite.

 

[quatona]

False premise? Could you please demonstrate how premise one is false? It's quite logical and parallel with human experience of reality.

Except that our experience of reality does not include the coming about of universes. All our observations are made within our universe, and since the origin of the universe - in either case - necessarily assumes circumstances, rules and conditions different from those observed within the universe, any assumption is as problematic as the next.

If something, anything begins to exist anywhere, there was some sort of cause. Assume the universe is finite for a minute. Then it must be true that it came from somewhere. Did it just pop out of nothing?

I don´t know. Why not?
And who says the universe is finite, anyways?

I never said that any certain kind of "God" existed. At this point, all that exists would some kind of infinite being that can create natural law and the universe and still stay infinite.

How about the idea that the universe is this being? Just for example?
Or the universe having the unique ability to create itself?
You know, you started from appealing to our observation, experience in reality, and used it to exclude one of the possibilities. Has it occured to you that "infinite" isn´t observed in this universe either, that it is not part of our experience either and actually inconceivable? And here you have no problem with embracing such an idea.
Why the double standard?

 

[jeff992]

Except that our experience of reality does not include the coming about of universes. All our observations are made within our universe, and since the origin of the universe - in either case - necessarily assumes circumstances, rules and conditions different from those observed within the universe, any assumption is as problematic as the next?

But that's just my point. For a finite universe to exist, there must be an infinite cause, it's the only possible situation.

I don´t know. Why not?
And who says the universe is finite, anyways?

Well, you just said it was finite up there... The universe is comprised of all its space-time points and its boundary points. The initial singularity is the beginning of the universe, the first state of physical reality. But where did th singularity come from?

How about the idea that the universe is this being? Just for example?
Or the universe having the unique ability to create itself?
You know, you started from appealing to our observation, experience in reality, and used it to exclude one of the possibilities. Has it occured to you that "infinite" isn´t observed in this universe either, that it is not part of our experience either and actually inconceivable? And here you have no problem with embracing such an idea.
Why the double standard?

As stated above, the singularity at the beggining state of the univrerse was the universe. The singularity must have come from somewhere and i could not have been itself...that would be impossible. Yes, I am saying infinite is not observable in this universe and that is why there must have been something infinite before the universe to make the singularity.

 

[quatona]

But that's just my point. For a finite universe to exist, there must be an infinite cause, it's the only possible situation.

No, every other explanation violates our axioms from experience just as much or as little as this one.

Well, you just said it was finite up there...

No, I didn´t.

The universe is comprised of all its space-time points and its boundary points. The initial singularity is the beginning of the universe, the first state of physical reality.

Says who?

But where did th singularity come from?

Does it have to come from something? Why?

As stated above, the singularity at the beggining state of the univrerse was the universe. The singularity must have come from somewhere and i could not have been itself...that would be impossible.

Why did it have to come from somewhere, and why could it not have been itself?

Yes, I am saying infinite is not observable in this universe and that is why there must have been something infinite before the universe to make the singularity.

What makes you assume that the universe itself is subject to the laws we observe within the universe?

 

[jeff992]

you said "the origin of the universe" this means it is finite (Had a beggining).

Which other explanations are you refering to?

says everybody. Friedman-Lemaitre model, big bang theorists, stephan hawking, P.C.W Davies, Sir Fred Hoyle...ect ect

It has to come from something because something cannot come from nothing. How does a random singularity start then?? any other explanations?

I assume that because that's all we have to go on.

You can be as skeptical about everything as you want. But the point is, everyone takes evidence and weighs it for themeselves and decides what is most logical.

What is your theory?

 

[m9lc]

Original poster,

The answer to your question is the universal truth. I am totally, 100% sure of the answer to your question, and everyone else should convert to my belief. My belief: I have no idea.

 

[quatona]

you said "the origin of the universe" this means it is finite (Had a beggining).

Yes, somehow I couldn´t find a universal term for what I meant. Would "past of the universe"be fine with you?

It has to come from something because something cannot come from nothing.

That is merely your assertion. Saying "nothing can be eternal" can be said with as much or as little justification.

How does a random singularity start then?? any other explanations?

No.

assume that because that's all we have to go on.

Since we don´t have it to go on but you simply assume it, this is not really convincing.

You can be as skeptical about everything as you want.

Thank you, that´s very generous of you.

But the point is, everyone takes evidence and weighs it for themeselves and decides what is most logical.

If every explanation comes with logical gaps, I needn´t favour any of the explanations.

What is your theory?

I have no theory at all. I just don´t understand why you apply certain standards to one explanation and therefore refute it, and don´t apply those standards to another explanation and therefore accept it.

 

[The Nihilist]

The argument from causality is invalid because, as Hume and Kant pointed out, it cannot be proven that causal relations are an accurate way to describe the world. To be clear, they argue that we have no reason to believe in causality.

 

[jeff992]

The argument from causality is invalid because, as Hume and Kant pointed out, it cannot be proven that causal relations are an accurate way to describe the world. To be clear, they argue that we have no reason to believe in causality.

I would not call it so much an argument of just causality, but am presenting the problem of a singularity that either came from something infinite or nothing. Of course, nothing can be "proven" in this kind of argument beyond a shadow of a doubt so we must look at what we know now and go from there. I think it can be shown to be rational that the universe had a starting singularity because of what we know about entropy, singularities, etc.

 

[Asimov]

False premise? Could you please demonstrate how premise one is false? It's quite logical and parallel with human experience of reality. If something, anything begins to exist anywhere, there was some sort of cause.

And you suddenly think that by repeating your claim that it's proven to be true?

Your last sentence begs the question. You assume that there must be a cause because you assume that everything that begins must have a cause. Thus you conclude any event must have a cause.

Fortunately for me, logical fallacies do not support your argument.

Thus, your first premise is false.

[1]Assume the universe is finite for a minute. [2]Then it must be true that it came from somewhere. [3]Did it just pop out of nothing? [4]It must have had some kind of cause if it began to exist.

1. Ok.
2. Non sequiter.
3. Maybe, I'm not one to assert that but I only mention it as a possibility.
4. Again you beg the question.

Is there anything to the contrary you would like to point out?

This is irrelevant since the your statement is not reliant upon me being unable to prove it false (argument from ignorance).

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

loaded question; you already assume that it must have a cause, thus I cannot give you an answer to your satisfaction based on your own presuppositions.

I never said that any certain kind of "God" existed. At this point, all that exists would some kind of infinite being that can create natural law and the universe and still stay infinite.

Occam's Razor would dictate that we should necessarily choose the universe itself as the necessary being.

Do you mean by infinite "eternal (without beginning or end)"? As a time reference.
What "natural law" do you mean?

 

[The Nihilist]

I would not call it so much an argument of just causality, but am presenting the problem of a singularity that either came from something infinite or nothing. Of course, nothing can be "proven" in this kind of argument beyond a shadow of a doubt so we must look at what we know now and go from there. I think it can be shown to be rational that the universe had a starting singularity because of what we know about entropy, singularities, etc.

What I find most problematic is that you are still using the language of causality.
In addition to that, though, there are some hypotheses as to how our universe could have happened. For example. 2 fifth dimensional universes could have collided. Where did those come from, you ask? Well, they have different rules for entropy, and they have always existed.

 

[Asimov]

I would not call it so much an argument of just causality, but am presenting the problem of a singularity that either came from something infinite or nothing.

False dichotomy, it could be eternal itself.

Of course, nothing can be "proven" in this kind of argument beyond a shadow of a doubt so we must look at what we know now and go from there.

It can't even be remotely proven. You're mangling theoretical physics (which is, by the way, theoretical) to attempt to fit it into your worldview.

I think it can be shown to be rational that the universe had a starting singularity because of what we know about entropy, singularities, etc.

The singularity is "theoretical". We "know" nothing about singularities. We have models and hypotheticals to provide us with possible explanations about the observations that we DO have of the universe and see how accurately they fit the data and the mathematics.

What does entropy have to do with? If think you're going to use the Laws of Thermodynamics to support your argument, you have another think coming.

 

[jeff992]

What I find most problematic is that you are still using the language of causality.
In addition to that, though, there are some hypotheses as to how our universe could have happened. For example. 2 fifth dimensional universes could have collided. Where did those come from, you ask? Well, they have different rules for entropy, and they have always existed.

that does seem pretty ridiculous. How do dimensions collide, how do they create a perfectly ordered univsere, and why did't they collide earlier? So these dimensions have just be moving around forevor? Is there any reason for their metaphysical existance? do you think all of this is viable?

 

[jeff992]

this is getting pretty messy. From the top.

I am not saying any of this proves a God (deistic, christian, whatever) but that God makes sense with the origin of the universe. If the universe never began to exist, then that means that the number of events in the past history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self–contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self–contradictory answers.

Also the idea of Hilberts Hotels

--imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are full. When a new guest arrives asking for a room, the proprietor apologizes, "Sorry, all the rooms are full." But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose once more that all the rooms are full. There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. "But of course!" says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4 and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were full! Equally curious, according to the mathematicians, there are now no more persons in the hotel than there were before: the number is just infinite. But how can this be? The proprietor just added the new guest's name to the register and gave him his keys-how can there not be one more person in the hotel than before? But the situation becomes even stranger. For suppose an infinity of new guests show up the desk, asking for a room. "Of course, of course!" says the proprietor, and he proceeds to shift the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #4, the person in room #3 into room #6, and so on out to infinity, always putting each former occupant into the room number twice his own. As a result, all the odd numbered rooms become vacant, and the infinity of new guests is easily accommodated. And yet, before they came, all the rooms were full! And again, strangely enough, the number of guests in the hotel is the same after the infinity of new guests check in as before, even though there were as many new guests as old guests. In fact, the proprietor could repeat this process infinitely many times and yet there would never be one single person more in the hotel than before. suppose some of the guests start to check out. Suppose the guest in room #1 departs. Is there not now one less person in the hotel? Not according to the mathematicians-but just ask the woman who makes the beds! Suppose the guests in room numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . check out. In this case an infinite number of people have left the hotel, but according to the mathematicians there are no less people in the hotel-but don't talk to that laundry woman! In fact, we could have every other guest check out of the hotel and repeat this process infinitely many times, and yet there would never be any less people in the hotel. But suppose instead the persons in room number 4, 5, 6, . . . checked out. At a single stroke the hotel would be virtually emptied, the guest register reduced to three names, and the infinite converted to finitude. And yet it would remain true that the same number of guests checked out this time as when the guests in room numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . checked out. Can anyone sincerely believe that such a hotel could exist in reality? These sorts of absurdities illustrate the impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things. (Craig)

does anyone not agree?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Can anyone sincerely believe that such a hotel could exist in reality? These sorts of absurdities illustrate the impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things. (Craig)

does anyone not agree?

I'm not a theoretical mathematician, but IMO infinity should not be regarded as a number at all, and I find its use in math dubious. I don't think that:

Infinity + 1 = Infinity

The use of the plus operator here is meaningless. The answer is really "undefined", just as when one divides by zero. In fact, infinity pretty much means "undefined", or is at least one case of this.

So, no, I don't believe in infinite numbers of hotels, or anything else.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

how do they create a perfectly ordered univsere

What leads you to think that our universe is "perfectly ordered"? What does that mean? And what would be the alternative?

What would an imperfectly ordered universe be like? If it is internally contradictory, why not simply conclude that it could never exist anyway?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Asimov]

this is getting pretty messy. From the top.

Messy?

I am not saying any of this proves a God (deistic, christian, whatever) but that God makes sense with the origin of the universe.

I disagree, you haven't explained how God makes sense with the origin of the universe.

If the universe never began to exist, then that means that the number of events in the past history of the universe is infinite.

So? You yourself are arguing for an actual infinity, which you have already stated is impossible. But then you say "God makes sense" When you clearly have also stated "These sorts of absurdities illustrate the impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things." If God is an actual infinity, then he can't exist by your very own logic.

But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self–contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self–contradictory answers.

Infinity isn't a number, you can't do that with conventional mathematics. Of course it's incoherent, because you're using the wrong math!

Can anyone sincerely believe that such a hotel could exist in reality? These sorts of absurdities illustrate the impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things. (Craig)

And yet you yourself say "I would not call it so much an argument of just causality, but am presenting the problem of a singularity that either came from something infinite or nothing."

By your own logic, the universe must have come from nothing.

 

[Asimov]

I'm not a theoretical mathematician, but IMO infinity should not be regarded as a number at all, and I find its use in math dubious. I don't think that:

Infinity + 1 = Infinity

The use of the plus operator here is meaningless. The answer is really "undefined", just as when one divides by zero. In fact, infinity pretty much means "undefined", or is at least one case of this.

So, no, I don't believe in infinite numbers of hotels, or anything else.


eudaimonia,

Mark

add. - I agree with this here. If my post is a little incoherent, refer to Eudaimonists post for more clarity.