Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

[Eight Foot Manchild]

This is actually informative, unlike your perious post which are simply shouting

I didn't post those for you. You have no business attempting to address scholarly research papers. I can't stop you, of course, but that's not why I shared them.

Those are not true multi-celluar organisms. They are at most pluricellular. There is no division of work among cells, they were just clumped togther via settlement.

Gosh, you better contact the researchers really quick. I'm sure they'll be grateful to hear the input of someone with zero understanding of the subject.

I'm ignoring the other two questions. It's not my job to educate you. I can only take so much dishonesty and willful ignorance before you disqualify yourself from being taken seriously. You passed that threshold a while ago.

For people reading along:

Like many concepts in evolutionary biology, there is no hard line defining multicellularity. Which is exactly what you'd expect to see in anything that is evolved - intermediary stages consisting of small, cumulative steps. I encourage you to check out the papers for yourself, and the popular level articles around them, for meaningful discussion on the topic.

 

[Silmarien]

The concept of a first cause is already known to be nonsensical. It violates causality while attempting to answer to causality. The Big Bang was the t=0 event, and it is when space and time began to exist. Space and time are necessary for the existence of causality because causality is the process by which a system goes from one state to another over a duration of time. Therefore, the Big Bang cannot have been brought about via causality unless there is some ambient causality enveloping our known causality, but that just pushes the problem back one step and the same problems will apply.

If you go with Aristotle's causality, then the prime mover has no material cause to act on. So if God acted on nothing, he did nothing.

So before looking down your nose on rational skeptics, maybe do your homework first.

Oh, and of course, this is off topic to what is being said so I don't know why you're acting like it's a "gotcha."

[Staff edit]. The Big Bang, assuming modern cosmology is correct about it at all, is irrelevant to arguments from causality. Generally speaking, the idea is that causality within the universe cannot simply spring into being of its own accord, so the problem has indeed already been pushed back one step. Quite intentionally. I would suggest a careful reading of a modern defense of Aquinas if you want a clearer grasp of these concepts.

And yes, I do go with Aristotelian causality. We have two options: creatio ex deo and creatio ex nihilo. In the first, God is effectively using himself as a material cause, and the second removes God from the rules of causality as we know them entirely, because as you yourself pointed out, there's no reason to assume they work the same outside of spacetime.

This is not at all off-topic. Whether or not the universe can magically pop into existence for no reason whatsoever is a very different question than whether or not leprechauns exist. If you think that the universe did in fact do so, that's perfectly acceptable, but you can't pretend that you're not counting the proverbial gumballs too. Not after insisting not only that we don't know whether we have an odd or even number, but that it is nonsensical that there might be an even number.

[Staff edit].

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The Big Bang, assuming modern cosmology is correct about it at all, is irrelevant to arguments from causality.

The Big Bang is the t=0 event and by definition there cannot be a cause. At least as far as we understand causality.

Generally speaking, the idea is that causality within the universe cannot simply spring into being of its own accord,

Then you're proposing something for which there is no evidence, namely, some ambient form of causality enveloping our universe.

so the problem has indeed already been pushed back one step.Quite intentionally.

No. I'm not discounting the idea that the Big Bang was acausal. You are. And you're doing so with zero evidence.

I would suggest a careful reading of a modern defense of Aquinas if you want a clearer grasp of these concepts.

Lol.

And yes, I do go with Aristotelian causality. We have two options: creatio ex deo and creatio ex nihilo.

And you have no evidence that either of those causalities exist.

In the first, God is effectively using himself as a material cause, and the second removes God from the rules of causality as we know them entirely, because as you yourself pointed out, there's no reason to assume they work the same outside of spacetime.

So our choices are that God acted on himself, in which case we are all made of the same stuff as God, or else we have... wait... oh that's right, you left my point unaddressed. If God acted on nothing, then he did nothing.

I agree that if there is a reality beyond our universe, then that reality would be very strange to us. The rules of causality, if causality even exists, might be different. But one thing I know for sure is this: "From nothing, nothing comes" is false because it is self refuting. It is saying that in a state of nothingness, there exists a rule.

This is not at all off-topic. Whether or not the universe can magically pop into existence for no reason whatsoever is a very different question than whether or not leprechauns exist.

The beginning of the universe is off topic to this thread. It's fine though. I know threads evolve.

If you think that the universe did in fact do so, that's perfectly acceptable, but you can't pretend that you're not counting the proverbial gumballs too.

Right. If I asserted that the universe came to be for no reason and with no cause, I'd be claiming to know something I can't possibly know. Which is the whole point of the gumball analogy. I'm not making claims of knowing how the universe began. Are you stuffing words into my mouth yet again?

Not after insisting not only that we don't know whether we have an odd or even number, but that it is nonsensical that there might be an even number.

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's nonsensical to claim to know there is an even number.

[Staff edit].

 

[Silmarien]

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's nonsensical to claim to know there is an even number.

You just said: "The concept of a first cause is already known to be nonsensical."

That is very different than saying that it is nonsensical to claim to know that there is a first cause. You are effectively saying that the concept of an even number of gumballs is nonsensical. Slither your way around that, if you wish, but the quote is there.

As for the rest of your post, I'm uninterested in discussing the merits of cosmological arguments with you, since I already know it'll be 75% obfuscation and 25% ad hominem anyway.

[Staff edit].

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You just said: "The concept of a first cause is already known to be nonsensical."

That is very different than saying that it is nonsensical to claim to know that there is a first cause. You are effectively saying that the concept of an even number of gumballs is nonsensical. Slither your way around that, if you wish, but the quote is there.

It was clarified. We know that there was no event in the universe which preceded the Big Bang. So we know that there was not and could not have been a cause *unless* you're describing some other form of causality (for which there is no evidence).

[Staff edit].

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

It was clarified. We know that there was no event in the universe which preceded the Big Bang. So we know that there was not and could not have been a cause *unless* you're describing some other form of causality (for which there is no evidence).

I think a better way of saying it is that our understanding of physics breaks down, pre-Planck time.

Big Bang cosmology describes the initial conditions, expansion and early evolution of the universe as we know it. Is that all there is to the totality of physical reality?

No one knows, and scientists aren't in the business of pretending to know things.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

We have two options: creatio ex deo and creatio ex nihilo.

You missed a big one. The biggest one, in fact, and the only one we actually have precedent for - creatio ex materia, a cause acting on pre-existing material. This constitutes every act of creation we've ever witnessed. A pile of lumber becomes a table. A canyon becomes a riverbed. Red curry paste, palm sugar, coconut milk and chicken becomes khao soi (I'm cooking while I type this), etc...

Now an analogy, definitionally, is meant to compare two like things, and there is no other thing like the origins of the universe. So it's not a perfect analogy. We can't be talking about the same type of crude matter (as Yoda would say) in other examples of ex materia, because matter as we know it didn't exist yet.

But there may have been something. Something in some state of existence, prior to Planck time, that our physics cannot address, at least currently. That is what I believe. That there was something, not 'nothing', pre-Planck time.

I can't know for sure, but of those three options (ex deo, ex nihilo, ex materia), I have to go with the one that at least has some imperfect inductive ground.

We're talking about the very outer limits of knowability, and indeed intelligibility, so that's as far as I go. Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think a better way of saying it is that our understanding of physics breaks down, pre-Planck time.

Big Bang cosmology describes the initial conditions, expansion and early evolution of the universe as we know it. Is that all there is to the totality of physical reality?

No one knows, and scientists aren't in the business of pretending to know things.

It doesn't matter how you phrase something for her. I see you're engaging her... good luck with that. LOL.

 

[miknik5]

The Big Bang is the t=0 event and by definition there cannot be a cause. At least as far as we understand causality.



Then you're proposing something for which there is no evidence, namely, some ambient form of causality enveloping our universe.



No. I'm not discounting the idea that the Big Bang was acausal. You are. And you're doing so with zero evidence.



Lol.



And you have no evidence that either of those causalities exist.



So our choices are that God acted on himself, in which case we are all made of the same stuff as God, or else we have... wait... oh that's right, you left my point unaddressed. If God acted on nothing, then he did nothing.

I agree that if there is a reality beyond our universe, then that reality would be very strange to us. The rules of causality, if causality even exists, might be different. But one thing I know for sure is this: "From nothing, nothing comes" is false because it is self refuting. It is saying that in a state of nothingness, there exists a rule.



The beginning of the universe is off topic to this thread. It's fine though. I know threads evolve.



Right. If I asserted that the universe came to be for no reason and with no cause, I'd be claiming to know something I can't possibly know. Which is the whole point of the gumball analogy. I'm not making claims of knowing how the universe began. Are you stuffing words into my mouth yet again?



Not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's nonsensical to claim to know there is an even number.

No. GOD didn't act on or out of HIMSELF

GOD is above all things created yet HE acted outside of HIMSELF

His acting outside of HIMSELF is simply HIS doing for man what man could never do.

Showing that HIS GRACE was ever present.

Even from the beginning

GOD didn't need to create in order to be.

HE is

HE created so that we could be

By the way

HE could have done nothing

 

[miknik5]

It doesn't matter how you phrase something for her. I see you're engaging her... good luck with that. LOL.

Is that really the issue?

 

[miknik5]

Just a reminder.

There was nothing


And (still and yet - my emphasis) the SPIRIT of GOD hovered over the waters (JPS 1917)

 

[miknik5]

And before you accuse me of being off topic and not responding to anything you have said, Even though to another poster you said

"The beginning of the universe is off topic to this thread. It's fine though. I know threads evolve"

post 709 and 711 respectively are in response to these following ideas which you suggested in your below post


I have posted just the blocks of your post that apply to my responses so that you can better follow

(By the way ideas are not statements of fact or truth. They are personal opinions)

So our choices are that God acted on himself, in which case we are all made of the same stuff as God, or else we have... wait... oh that's right, you left my point unaddressed. If God acted on nothing, then he did nothing.

I agree that if there is a reality beyond our universe, then that reality would be very strange to us. The rules of causality, if causality even exists, might be different. But one thing I know for sure is this: "From nothing, nothing comes" is false because it is self refuting. It is saying that in a state of nothingness, there exists a rule.


The beginning of the universe is off topic to this thread. It's fine though. I know threads evolve.

 

[Silmarien]

You missed a big one. The biggest one, in fact, and the only one we actually have precedent for - creatio ex materia, a cause acting on pre-existing material.

Well, yes. If you believe that matter is eternally existent, then that works as well. On the other hand, if you believe that matter came into existence along with space and time during the Big Bang, then that option is not available. I was addressing the second scenario, because it was what was implied by the objection. There's nothing incoherent about creatio ex deo and creatio ex nihilo.

We're talking about the very outer limits of knowability, and indeed intelligibility, so that's as far as I go. Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent.

Well, we're not all Wittgensteinians, but I appreciate the sentiment. Negative theology is the best theology.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Cthulhu has the best fan artwork. Maybe he has his tentacles in a few things already, any PR companies with suspicious names over there?

...I don't know, Tom. That's the problem with submerged aliens with insuperable powers.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Big Bang is the t=0 event and by definition there cannot be a cause. At least as far as we understand causality.



Then you're proposing something for which there is no evidence, namely, some ambient form of causality enveloping our universe.



No. I'm not discounting the idea that the Big Bang was acausal. You are. And you're doing so with zero evidence.



Lol.



And you have no evidence that either of those causalities exist.



So our choices are that God acted on himself, in which case we are all made of the same stuff as God, or else we have... wait... oh that's right, you left my point unaddressed. If God acted on nothing, then he did nothing.

I agree that if there is a reality beyond our universe, then that reality would be very strange to us. The rules of causality, if causality even exists, might be different. But one thing I know for sure is this: "From nothing, nothing comes" is false because it is self refuting. It is saying that in a state of nothingness, there exists a rule.

... there might be a rule for a state of "nothingness," and then, like Physics Professor Frank Close, we might ask, "...from where does that rule, or rules, come from?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Well, yes. If you believe that matter is eternally existent

No, that isn't necessary. I don't believe the 'something' was matter. Not in any form we would recognize, anyway.

I realize that betrays a strictly literal meaning of 'ex materia'. Like I said, it's an imperfect analogy, but I think there is some inductive strength there. We can at least say that everyone has witnessed causes acting on 'something'. No one has ever witnessed causes acting on nothing, or out of an act of a god or gods.

There's nothing incoherent about creatio ex deo
and creatio ex nihilo.

There's nothing really...anything about them.

I can't say either are wrong, but I can say I see no reason to adopt them as part of my views on the origin of everything. Or anything, for that matter.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Incidentally, I happen to share a life and home with a professor of astronomy. If anyone would like me to relay some questions to her on the subject, she would be delighted to answer.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Incidentally, I happen to share a life and home with a professor of astronomy. If anyone would like me to relay some questions to her on the subject, she would be delighted to answer.

Ok. Ask her this: When it comes to understanding the structure of it all, should I listen more to Frank Close OR to Lawrence Krauss? Or to neither; does someone else deserve our attention, maybe Michio Kaku or Neil deGrasse Tyson?

 

[Silmarien]

No, that isn't necessary. I don't believe the 'something' was matter. Not in any form we would recognize, anyway.

I realize that betrays a strictly literal meaning of 'ex materia'. Like I said, it's an imperfect analogy, but I think there is some inductive strength there. We can at least say that everyone has witnessed causes acting on 'something'. No one has ever witnessed causes acting on nothing, or out of an act of a god or gods.

Well, if you believe that "something" has to have always* existed but is unlikely to be matter in any way that we might understand the term, you're pretty much a step away from Necessary Being anyway. Which is perfectly fine--there are atheists out there who accept Necessary Being but don't attribute the traditional divine properties to it.

There's still the question of why causality exists at all, why it is that objects can affect each other, and so forth and so on. That's what arguments from causality are really about--the idea that the whole concept of cause and effect is incoherent without some sort of ordering principle.

* Using the term "always" loosely, since I think the evidence points to time being a property of the universe.

There's nothing really...anything about them.

I can't say either are wrong, but I can say I see no reason to adopt them as part of my views on the origin of everything. Or anything, for that matter.

Then don't? I'm an Aristotelian, not an apologist. If you want to talk about theistic philosophy, I'm happy to discuss it. If you don't, that's fine too.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

... there might be a rule for a state of "nothingness," and then, like Physics Professor Frank Close, we might ask, "...from where does that rule, or rules, come from?

If there exists a rule, then nothingness is out of the picture.