Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[roflcopter101]

We have come to know that, but in return you can't disprove God either and that is what this is all about anyhow! For all your logic why should I care?

Disprove to me the existence of Cthulu, and I will disprove to you the existence of God. You should care about logic (and by extension my logic) because you probably use that more when you cross the street. If you follow the Bible when you cross the street, then that's fine by me.

It takes more Strength and faith to believe in nothing than reasoning we come to know!

And I argue that it also takes less mental effort.

Also there is nothing irrational about the supernatural being of God and His creation!

The concept of a supernatural God is irrational in many aspects.
If God knows everything that we will do in our lifetimes, how would there be free will?
Where did God come from?
Would God be able to create a stone so heavy that it couldn't lift it?
What distinguishes religious episodes from mental sickness?
Why would we care about a God that allows suffering?
If God is morally perfect, the could it know/experience/exhibit evil?

 

[JediMobius]

If one says the universe exists necessarily, that would equate to saying the universe is God.

 

[Axioma]

If one says the universe exists necessarily, that would equate to saying the universe is God.

Does this imply that the universe has the powers and characteristics typically associated with God, specifically omni-everythingness and caring about what goes on in the vicinity of a small unregarded yellow sun far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy?

 

[daniel777]

I believe I did. Your objection was that the argument posed by the OP was irrational and not able to be expressed in logical terms. I argued that both creationism and the OP's objection are equally irrational and un-expressible.

no... you created a straw man proposition for creationism and attacked it as an unsound argument. unsound and in-expressible are two different things. propositions that are able to be expressed can be proven to be sound or unsound, but propositions that are unable to be expressed aren't propositions at all and can't be proven to be sound or unsound.

creationism is able to be expressed and you haven't shown any logical inconsistency in its soundness even within your straw-man objections.

the proposition i argued against three post ago, however, isn't able to be expressed at all and is absurd.

I have no idea what the G--> <>G section is saying. Can the argument be expressed more lucidly?
Why can't the universe exist necessarily? Why does the universe need a cause outside of its own being?

the sentences after the symbols explain, and the symbols more of an aid anyway. but it all basically means that if God exists, he has to exist necessarily since he is, in the VERY simplest sense, defined as that which exists necessarily.

as for the second question, which is also unrelated, the proposition was "if God exists". i'll be happy to discuss it with you somewhere else though.

I believe I answered that below that section, though maybe I was not clear enough.

not quite clear enough.

Your objection was that the lack of causality was absurd and impossible. I argue that the concept of God not needing a creator itself is violating such principles of causality, and equally absurd and impossible.

these are actually two different objections, and yours isn't really relevant to the discussion, nor does it answer the first objection that i posed.

mine: something cannot come from nothing

yours: something must always come from something.
response:this isn't a principle of causality. something doesn't have to come from something else if it never "came".

however, something that does "come" always needs a cause.

Again, the God not needing a cause argument. The OP's proposal would be equally valid as creationism if both did not stick to the principles of causality.

so far you haven't answered the objection.... applying it to strawmen beliefs doesn't count as an argument against the objection.

You said "i'm not really a creationist in the way you're thinking about it". I was wondering what you thought I was thinking.

i wasn't. i just knew you weren't a mindreader, and that my "creationist" is really thought out. still not where i would like it though.

I argue that your "creationist" is about the same as my "creationist".
My "creationist" is a person that believes that an omnipotent and inscrutable power created the universe. From what I have seen, your "creationist" is a person that believes that an omnipotent and inscrutable power created the universe that exists necessarily. As your purported creator exists necessarily, I have argued that it does not adhere to the precepts of causality that you argue that the OP's theory violates.

well, you're still wrong. strawman.

and arguing that something cannot exist necessarily makes no sense unless the argument relies on the necessity of reason. so, you're wrong again..... and it just so happens that's another form of the objection three posts ago that you keep avoiding.

Your post 666 argued that the OP's proposal is irrational and empty. I argued that creationism is also irrational and empty. After you have elucidated your views on that matter, I still believe your creationism is equally irrational and empty.

i wasn't really defending my creationism, whatever you think it is... if you haven't noticed, i've been restating the same objection in different ways the entire time, and every time you never give an answer. even if creationism is equally absurd (which it isn't), that still doesn't answer my initial objection.

you also said that you didn't understand my "creationist" argument (which implied the same objection) anyway.... so what are you talking about?

let me ask, are you interested in finding the truth in propositions or just in proving other people wrong? because so far, you've completely ignored my objections and the op and just concentrated on attacking strawmen arguments that "i never proposed". .... and now you're telling me what i believe. did i not say that this would turn into an "i told you so"?
look, you can pm me if you don't understand something. i might come across as a head-basher, but that's not really me. truth is, i'd much rather discuss ideas than argue them.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then how does anything start?

Some things have a cause, but not everything. For the rest, there is no 'how'.

The way I see it, nothing begets nothing. You'd have to show how anything else could happen.

I agree that nothing begets nothing. The absence of anything itself is not a thing, 'it' cannot do anything, because it's not anything. However, the absence of anything also means that there is an absence of anything which would inhibit something else spontaneously coming into being (e.g., virtual particles).

Radioactive decay has a cause. Try again.

A decay event requires a specific activation energy. For a snow avalanche, this energy comes as a disturbance from outside the system, although such disturbances can be arbitrarily small. In the case of an excited atomic nucleus, the arbitrarily small disturbance comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations. A radioactive nucleus (or any excited system in quantum mechanics) is unstable, and can thus spontaneously stabilize to a less-excited system. The resulting transformation alters the structure of the nucleus and results in the emission of either a photon or a high-velocity particle which has mass (such as an electron, alpha particle, or other type).

Ahem:

"the arbitrarily small disturbance comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations."

Which are random, spontaneous, uncaused events.

"A radioactive nucleus (or any excited system in quantum mechanics) is unstable, and can thus spontaneously stabilize to a less-excited system."

The system can spontaneously decay. It doesn't have a prior cause: it just happens.

Moreover, while radioactive decay can be triggered by supplying its activation energy (that's why we can trigger the radioactive decay of a Uranium-238 atom, even though it wouldn't normally decay for years to come), that isn't the only way for it to happen. In U[sup]238[/sup], the radiation (specifically, an alpha particle) tunnels out of the nucleus, effectively ignoring the fact that it ordinarily 'requires' energy to leave the nucleus. Quantum tunnelling is a spontaneous, random event that arises soley from the fact that there exists a finite possibility that it might happen.

Much like how, in the absence of anything, there is a finite possibility that something could spontaneously come into being.

You didn't answer my question. Is there another kind of existence? And what epistemology are you referring to?

I don't understand your question. There is only 'existence'. Something either exists, or it doesn't. What you were talking about ('self-existence' and 'observed existence') are two ways we deduce that something exists. In other words, they're to do with epistemology: the study of knowledge. Specifically, the ways in which we can know whether something exists or whether a given statement is true.

I can see two ways to determine this: logical deduction ("I think, therefore I am"), and empirical observation ("I see it, therefore it exists").

The only difference is that a rock is tangible. Both can be studied, both have a variety of uses, both can be defined and analyzed. Since when does something have to be a physical entity to be a thing?

Because only physical entities exist.

Dictionary.com:
1. a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object. 2. some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described: The stick had a brass thing on it. 3. anything that is or may become an object of thought: things of the spirit.
A "thing" is not limited to the first definition.

Anything that exists can be called a thing. There are different types of things - ideas, observable data, or physical objects. But, they are all things and exist in someway. If something is not a thing, then it can't be said to exist.

Which is why mathematics is not a 'thing': it doesn't exist.

 

[roflcopter101]

What, the same thing couldn't be said about any scientific theory of the origins of the universe?

It can be said of any proposal that does not circumvent causality.

You're assuming the creator must have been created, but why must that be assumed? What are the grounds for this assumption?

I assume it because if the creator was not created, the universe would not necessarily need to have been created.

 

[roflcopter101]

I would appreciate you not saying "you're wrong" every time you refute my arguments. Nobody is wrong until an argument has been clearly shown to be irrefutable or false.

Also, I must say clearly that I HAVE been answering your objection. Continue reading for my arguments.

no... you created a straw man proposition for creationism and attacked it as an unsound argument.

Frankly, Daniel, I have no idea what is this straw man proposition that you say I have made. Please tell me.

unsound and in-expressible are two different things. propositions that are able to be expressed can be proven to be sound or unsound, but propositions that are unable to be expressed aren't propositions at all and can't be proven to be sound or unsound.

I have said that both creationism and the OP's proposal are equally expressible and equally unsound. If the purported creator does not require a cause for its existence, then its existence is equally un-expressible as the universe not needing a cause.

creationism is able to be expressed and you haven't shown any logical inconsistency in its soundness even within your straw-man objections.

The OP's objection is able to be expressed as well. I have also shown that if God does not require a cause, then it is inconsistent to require the OP's universe to have a cause. It would be folly to dismiss one or the other as possible origins of the universe.

the proposition i argued against three post ago, however, isn't able to be expressed at all and is absurd.

And I am arguing that the proposition is as sound and expressible as creationism, making both of them equally absurd.

the sentences after the symbols explain, and the symbols more of an aid anyway. but it all basically means that if God exists, he has to exist necessarily since he is, in the VERY simplest sense, defined as that which exists necessarily.

I was referring to the 1. and 2. sections. The diction confused me.
The problem I am having is why God can exist necessarily but the universe can't.

as for the second question, which is also unrelated, the proposition was "if God exists". i'll be happy to discuss it with you somewhere else though.

I believe it is totally related. If God does not require a cause, why does the universe require a cause?

these are actually two different objections, and yours isn't really relevant to the discussion, nor does it answer the first objection that i posed.

mine: something cannot come from nothing

yours: something must always come from something.
response:this isn't a principle of causality. something doesn't have to come from something else if it never "came".

however, something that does "come" always needs a cause.

Both are relevant.
I am not arguing that something must ALWAYS come from something, I am saying that it is irrational to argue that only God did not "come". If something did "come", then yes, I agree that it needs a cause, but it is possible in the OP's argument that the universe simply appeared in the same way that God did.

so far you haven't answered the objection.... applying it to strawmen beliefs doesn't count as an argument against the objection.

What is your objection? The OP's concept is un-expressible? I am arguing through the principles of causality that creationism is equally un-expressible.

i wasn't. i just knew you weren't a mindreader, and that my "creationist" is really thought out. still not where i would like it though.

If it makes you feel better, I don't presume everyone that disagrees with me to be an idiot.

well, you're still wrong. strawman.

I have addressed this multiple times above.

and arguing that something cannot exist necessarily makes no sense unless the argument relies on the necessity of reason. so, you're wrong again..... and it just so happens that's another form of the objection three posts ago that you keep avoiding.

And I am saying it is nonsense to say that something MUST exist necessarily and support this argument with the necessity of reason. Causality has been observed as a major force, and it has still been shown to be subverted in some cases cited by Wiccan_Child in post 685. However, to say that something exists necessarily is ridiculous unless there is proof to support such assertions, and I am arguing that both creationism and the OP's suggestion are equally valid hypotheses BECAUSE they are equally irrational. Both involve the necessity of something, either God or the universe, and both have no proof to support their claims. Additionally, both do not follow the prevailing logic that causality is absolute. In fact, the OP's suggestion implies that the universe could have simply "been" there in the same fashion that a God would have simply "been" there, without the necessity of causality.

i wasn't really defending my creationism, whatever you think it is... if you haven't noticed, i've been restating the same objection in different ways the entire time, and every time you never give an answer. even if creationism is equally absurd (which it isn't), that still doesn't answer my initial objection.

I have repeatedly answered this objection, but let me make it absolutely clear what you and I have been saying.

Your objection in post 669 was that creationism adheres to modal logic, but the OP's does not, and thus the OP's argument is inexpressible and irrational.
I have objected that your creationism does not adhere to modal logic either because it argues that God simply appeared in the same way that the OP's argument says the universe simply appeared, making both proposals equally inexpressible and irrational.

you also said that you didn't understand my "creationist" argument (which implied the same objection) anyway.... so what are you talking about?

I am talking about your belief that God must exist necessarily, explained in post 677.

let me ask, are you interested in finding the truth in propositions or just in proving other people wrong?

There is absolutely no way as of now to say what caused the universe. I am interested right now in proving all proposed origins of the universe equally irrational and inexpressible.

because so far, you've completely ignored my objections and the op and just concentrated on attacking strawmen arguments that "i never proposed". ....

I HAVE answered your objections. I do not see how I am creating straw man arguments; specific examples would be nice.

and now you're telling me what i believe. did i not say that this would turn into an "i told you so"?

I am telling you what I am perceiving you to believe through reading your posts. What do you mean, an "I told you so"?

look, you can pm me if you don't understand something. i might come across as a head-basher, but that's not really me. truth is, i'd much rather discuss ideas than argue them.

Discussing and arguing are pretty much the same thing here. Anyways, thank you for the offer, but I would prefer to keep all discourse public.

 

[daniel777]

I am telling you what I am perceiving you to believe through reading your posts. What do you mean, an "I told you so"?

i mean that you're ignoring my initial objections and keep posting off topic strawmen. have a nice day.



first post restated for reference:

here is their basic argument.
1. outside of the universe, the laws of this universe do not apply.
2. causality is bound to this universe and means nothing outside of it.
3. the universe came from nothing.

the most basic objection anyone could make to this is "if the laws of the universe do not apply outside of the universe, then what are you talking about? do you have some transcendent knowledge that precedes logic? even if you do, why are you trying to express it with logic and language, since, by definition, that is impossible? you have no argument if you can't properly express what you mean.".... and there are other equally serious objections that could be raised. this objections only shows that the argument is absurd, and since they're trying to express it through logic, there are better arguments that show the impossibility of any possibility of the absurd in or "out" of this universe..... and the people supporting this also need to explain what it means by "outside of the universe", same objection listed above.

also, i think causality is something that has to exist as necessarily true in all possible worlds. . . . . and actually, it does if logic is going to make any sense at all; so there's no point in arguing against it unless you plan to argue for the absurd. some people choose to do that, like in this thread, but i don't see the logic in trying to construct an argument for the possibility of the absurd when "because i said so" (which, i think we're all beginning to see after a near 70 pages) would be an equally valid proposition logically.




----
also, like i've said again and again, whether or not "creationism" is failed by the same objection (which it isn't) is irrelevant because it still doesn't answer the objection. it's doubly irrelevant in that .... i never actually told you what i believe. why do you keep calling it "my creationism"?... really...

have objected that your creationism does not adhere to modal logic either because it argues that God simply appeared in the same way that the OP's argument says the universe simply appeared, making both proposals equally inexpressible and irrational.

no it doesn't... and again, they're two different objections. 1. something can never come from nothing ; 2. something must always come from something.

and you've already misquoted me again, because i made very clear that most everyone who holds creationism thinks that God never "came" or "appeared".

there are arguments that argue against necessary truths, and most would still fall under the same objection.... also, "something must come from something" isn't one of them, unless you choose to hold that necessarily.

again... have a nice day. i'm tired of you telling me what i believe and ignoring everything i say.

 

[roflcopter101]

here is their basic argument.
1. outside of the universe, the laws of this universe do not apply.
2. causality is bound to this universe and means nothing outside of it.
3. the universe came from nothing.

the most basic objection anyone could make to this is "if the laws of the universe do not apply outside of the universe, then what are you talking about? do you have some transcendent knowledge that precedes logic? even if you do, why are you trying to express it with logic and language, since, by definition, that is impossible? you have no argument if you can't properly express what you mean.".... and there are other equally serious objections that could be raised. this objections only shows that the argument is absurd, and since they're trying to express it through logic, there are better arguments that show the impossibility of any possibility of the absurd in or "out" of this universe..... and the people supporting this also need to explain what it means by "outside of the universe", same objection listed above.

also, i think causality is something that has to exist as necessarily true in all possible worlds. . . . . and actually, it does if logic is going to make any sense at all; so there's no point in arguing against it unless you plan to argue for the absurd. some people choose to do that, like in this thread, but i don't see the logic in trying to construct an argument for the possibility of the absurd when "because i said so" (which, i think we're all beginning to see after a near 70 pages) would be an equally valid proposition logically.

I have repeatedly addressed this already. Your objection is perfectly valid. The concept proposed by the OP is subject to the problems you highlight. Over the past three pages, I have also argued that these problems apply to creationism. Thus, if creationism is to be considered a valid theory on the origin of the universe, so must the OP's theory. They are both equally ridiculous.

also, like i've said again and again, whether or not "creationism" is failed by the same objection (which it isn't) is irrelevant because it still doesn't answer the objection. it's doubly irrelevant in that .... i never actually told you what i believe.

Same as above.

i mean that you're ignoring my initial objections and keep posting off topic strawmen. have a nice day.

You too.

 

[quatona]

so, by definition, your premise is beyond the capacity of logic and language to fully express. so, you have no proposition.

And that doesn't apply to creationism?

not in the same way, no... because creationism doesn't go against the foundations of modal logic. creationists can say what they mean, and they can express it logically. however, the idea that something comes from nothing, even if that occurs in another world, is absurd.... since, if something comes from nothing, there's no way anyone could know it or know how to properly express it.

here is their basic argument.
1. outside of the universe, the laws of this universe do not apply.
2. causality is bound to this universe and means nothing outside of it.
3. the universe came from nothing.

the most basic objection anyone could make to this is "if the laws of the universe do not apply outside of the universe, then what are you talking about? do you have some transcendent knowledge that precedes logic? even if you do, why are you trying to express it with logic and language, since, by definition, that is impossible? you have no argument if you can't properly express what you mean.".... and there are other equally serious objections that could be raised. this objections only shows that the argument is absurd, and since they're trying to express it through logic, there are better arguments that show the impossibility of any possibility of the absurd in or "out" of this universe..... and the people supporting this also need to explain what it means by "outside of the universe", same objection listed above.

also, i think causality is something that has to exist as necessarily true in all possible worlds. . . . . and actually, it does if logic is going to make any sense at all; so there's no point in arguing against it unless you plan to argue for the absurd. some people choose to do that, like in this thread, but i don't see the logic in trying to construct an argument for the possibility of the absurd when "because i said so" (which, i think we're all beginning to see after a near 70 pages) would be an equally valid proposition logically.

Last thing first:

also, i think causality is something that has to exist as necessarily true in all possible worlds. . . . .

An argument that starts from the premise "Everything needs to have a cause." and ends with the conclusion "...therefore there needs to be an uncaused cause" is illogical because the conclusion violates the premise. So it clearly "goes against the foundations of logic" - modal or whatever.

here is their basic argument.
1. outside of the universe, the laws of this universe do not apply.
2. causality is bound to this universe and means nothing outside of it.
3. the universe came from nothing.

I don&#180;t know whom the "their" is referring to - there was no plural or mentioning of a group in the previous sentence that it could be understood to refer to.
Personally, I don&#180;t know anyone who says "the unverse came from nothing", and I certainly don&#180;t ("came from" is children&#180;s language rather than a terminology used in philosophy or metaphysics, to begin with. So I&#180;ll ignore this strawman altogether.

I can speak only for myself, and your paraphrasing does not correctly represent my position.

Either the laws we observe within the universe apply to the universe itself or they don&#180;t. I give allowance to the latter, but I am not postulating it.

If working from the premise that the laws we observe within the universe apply to the universe itself, we have to exclude a lot of ideas concerning the origin of the universe. Within the universe we don&#180;t observe something simply popping into existence, we don&#180;t observe something creating itself, we don&#180;t observe any entities capable of creating something, we don&#180;t observe "self-existent" entities, we don&#180;t observe "spirit" producing matter etc. etc.
All we observe is evolution/transformation of that which exists (matter/energy), and when it comes to causality we don&#180;t observe causes for something to be created where there was nothing before, but we observe causes for transformation of that which already existed.
The only possible logical conclusion under this premise is that the universe has always existed.

If, however we allow for the idea that there is an "outside" to the universe and that in this "outside" in which the universe exists the laws observed within the universe don&#180;t apply, the door is open to ideas like thinks popping into existence or being created "ex nihilo", ideas like "uncaused causes", entities existing "outside time/space/logic/whatever", "spirit" producing matter, etc. A bunch of equally valid wild guesses, operating with the idea of a creator-god or without it - with god adding nothing "necessary" whatsoever, because everything necessary that can be attributed to a god could as well be attributed to the universe, in the first place.
Thus, under this premise, the proposition "creator-god" is not necessary but - at best - unparsimonous.

I like to think that the forte of my position compared to "creationism" is that it does not make the assumption that the laws observed within the universe do not apply to the universe itself.
Another forte is that it does not - like your argument - reject a lot of notions with reference to their assumption that the laws withing the universe do not apply to the universe itself, and then jumps to a conclusion that is based on this very assumption itself.

 

[daniel777]

An argument that starts from the premise "Everything needs to have a cause." and ends with the conclusion "...therefore there needs to be an uncaused cause" is illogical because the conclusion violates the premise. So it clearly "goes against the foundations of logic" - modal or whatever.

hey quatona. i remember you too. and, you're right.

i was referring more to the necessity of the relationship of causality than the necessity of the actual principle of causality. in other words, i meant that all causes must have effects, and all effects must have causes, by definition. i didn't mean to say that "everything needs a cause".

I don&#180;t know whom the "their" is referring to - there was no plural or mentioning of a group in the previous sentence that it could be understood to refer to.
Personally, I don&#180;t know anyone who says "the unverse came from nothing", and I certainly don&#180;t ("came from" is children&#180;s language rather than a terminology used in philosophy or metaphysics, to begin with. So I&#180;ll ignore this strawman altogether.

"their" is referring to the op and most of the arguments supporting it.

I can speak only for myself, and your paraphrasing does not correctly represent my position.

then obviously i wasn't talking about your position.

Either the laws we observe within the universe apply to the universe itself or they don&#180;t. I give allowance to the latter, but I am not postulating it.

ok

If working from the premise that the laws we observe within the universe apply to the universe itself, we have to exclude a lot of ideas concerning the origin of the universe. Within the universe we don&#180;t observe something simply popping into existence, we don&#180;t observe something creating itself, we don&#180;t observe any entities capable of creating something, we don&#180;t observe "self-existent" entities, we don&#180;t observe "spirit" producing matter etc. etc.
All we observe is evolution/transformation of that which exists (matter/energy), and when it comes to causality we don&#180;t observe causes for something to be created where there was nothing before, but we observe causes for transformation of that which already existed.
The only possible logical conclusion under this premise is that the universe has always existed.

under the very loose definition of "universe" i'm seeing so far, i agree.

If, however we allow for the idea that there is an "outside" to the universe and that in this "outside" in which the universe exists the laws observed within the universe don&#180;t apply, the door is open to ideas like thinks popping into existence or being created "ex nihilo", ideas like "uncaused causes", entities existing "outside time/space/logic/whatever", "spirit" producing matter, etc. A bunch of equally valid wild guesses, operating with the idea of a creator-god or without it - with god adding nothing "necessary" whatsoever, because everything necessary that can be attributed to a god could as well be attributed to the universe, in the first place.
Thus, under this premise, the proposition "creator-god" is not necessary but - at best - unparsimonous.

i don't agree that there is an "outside" of the universe. for reference.

I like to think that the forte of my position compared to "creationism" is that it does not make the assumption that the laws observed within the universe do not apply to the universe itself.

how does creationism do that? i don't see how positing a deity contradicts the laws of the universe? do you mean to say that logically God cannot exist? or is it something else with creationism?

Another forte is that it does not - like your argument - reject a lot of notions with reference to their assumption that the laws withing the universe do not apply to the universe itself, and then jumps to a conclusion that is based on this very assumption itself.

yes, and you were right. i should have explained what i meant better. i didn't mean it as based on the same assumption.

 

[allhart]

Disprove to me the existence of Cthulu, and I will disprove to you the existence of God. You should care about logic (and by extension my logic) because you probably use that more when you cross the street. If you follow the Bible when you cross the street, then that's fine by me.



And I argue that it also takes less mental effort.



The concept of a supernatural God is irrational in many aspects.
If God knows everything that we will do in our lifetimes, how would there be free will?
Where did God come from?
Would God be able to create a stone so heavy that it couldn't lift it?
What distinguishes religious episodes from mental sickness?
Why would we care about a God that allows suffering?
If God is morally perfect, the could it know/experience/exhibit evil?

The only thing which God cannot do is the logically impossible, since his nature is also ultimate rationality, therefore; God cannot create square circles, married bachelors or force people to freely do things.

So when it comes to the rock, God cannot make a rock so large (or heavy) that he can't lift it. To do so would be a contradiction between God's power and his rationality.


If God were able to commit illogical, self contradictions then he could create a rock so heavy that he couldn't pick it up...


...and then he could pick it up!

 

[quatona]

hey quatona. i remember you too. and, you're right.

Greetings and thanks for considering my thoughts.

i was referring more to the necessity of the relationship of causality than the necessity of the actual principle of causality. in other words, i meant that all causes must have effects, and all effects must have causes, by definition. i didn't mean to say that "everything needs a cause".

I see, and probably I was simply assuming that when talking about causes, uncaused causes, first causes and such you were just repeating the standard PRATTs of mainstream creationism. Sorry for this assumption.
Of course, "effect" and "cause" are defined in relation to each other, and postulating the opposite for for some "possible world" would simply mean to scramble language. So no disagreement there.

But now that you have explained to me what you actually meant I am completely lost as to what your argument actually is. I was under the impression that you were positing that for metaphysics to be logical the assumption of a god was necessary, and that this necessity was in some way derived from causality.
Could you explain whether or not my impression is correct - and in case it is correct how your argument goes exactly, and in case it is incorrect what your actual argument was that I must have been missing completely.

how does creationism do that? i don't see how positing a deity contradicts the laws of the universe?

Well, "creationism" does not only posit some sort of deity, but more specifically a creator-entity. Since we don´t observe creation within the universe (but only transformation/evolution of matter/energy), and our observations have resulted in the acknowledgement of the law that matter/energy is preserved (instead of being produced ex nihilo and/or ceasing ad nihilum), such a creator-entity that produces matter/energy where there wasn´t matter/energy before would of course go against the laws observed within the universe.

do you mean to say that logically God cannot exist?

Not exactly. I was being more precise:
Under the premise that the laws observed within the universe apply to "outside the universe" as well, the existence of creator-entity that produced the universe where there was nothing before is logically impossible.

 

[roflcopter101]

The only thing which God cannot do is the logically impossible, since his nature is also ultimate rationality, therefore; God cannot create square circles, married bachelors or force people to freely do things.

So when it comes to the rock, God cannot make a rock so large (or heavy) that he can't lift it. To do so would be a contradiction between God's power and his rationality.


If God were able to commit illogical, self contradictions then he could create a rock so heavy that he couldn't pick it up...


...and then he could pick it up!

Then wouldn't that make God not omnipotent?

 

[DeathMagus]

Then wouldn't that make God not omnipotent?

No.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No.

To be fair, there's a lot of people that define omnipotence as anything at all, even that which is logically impossible.

When beginning a discussion with a Christian, I'll often ask them if their god can make a square circle. If they say yes, I'll say "I'm sorry, but I can't talk to you. You're too stupid to understand what I'm saying." Well, that's what I'm thinking at least...

 

[allhart]

Then wouldn't that make God not omnipotent?

Something to point out here. Why would God want to go against his will! Aren't you being subjective to the attributes of God and not following the facts objectively?
We all can second guess everything, but what is this that you can't even logically except the logic of God? In my objective observation of your approach to God is you are subjective towards God in all things and are in it to disprove God no matter the case presented to you! You are in it for the argument sake! As they say, narrow minded! 1. having or showing a prejudiced mind, as persons or opinions; biased. 2. not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind. 3. extremely conservative and morally self-righteous.

God isn't irrational. God is always heading towards reality, not from it! Jesus is the image of the invisible God. For God was pleased to have his fullness dwell in Jesus!
Also how do you protect a chained lion, let him loose, right? Well all us Christians have to do is let the living word of God loose, the Bible! The Manuscripts, archeology and prophecy speaks for itself!

 

[roflcopter101]

Something to point out here. Why would God want to go against his will! Aren't you being subjective to the attributes of God and not following the facts objectively?

The problem isn't if it WANTS to go against its will, it's whether God CAN go against its will. If God has the ability to do anything, anything includes the power to go against its will.

We all can second guess everything, but what is this that you can't even logically except the logic of God?

My problem is that God is not a logical concept.

In my objective observation of your approach to God is you are subjective towards God in all things and are in it to disprove God no matter the case presented to you!

Then disprove Cthulu!

You are in it for the argument sake!

Isn't everyone?

As they say, narrow minded! 1. having or showing a prejudiced mind, as persons or opinions; biased. 2. not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind. 3. extremely conservative and morally self-righteous.

I respectfully disagree. If someone has a different view from you and is expressing this view solidly, that is not narrow-mindedness, that is moral resoluteness. I do not consider you narrow minded, even if you think that of me.

God isn't irrational. God is always heading towards reality, not from it! Jesus is the image of the invisible God. For God was pleased to have his fullness dwell in Jesus!

Then what caused God to appear? If it did not have a cause, then the principle of causality has been violated; one of the fundamental assumptions of our universe would be ignored without good proof if God simply WAS.

Also how do you protect a chained lion, let him loose, right? Well all us Christians have to do is let the living word of God loose, the Bible! The Manuscripts, archeology and prophecy speaks for itself!

And my problem is that this chained lion is illogical, irrelevant, harmful towards overall human progress, and generally annoying.

 

[JediMobius]

Does this imply that the universe has the powers and characteristics typically associated with God, specifically omni-everythingness and caring about what goes on in the vicinity of a small unregarded yellow sun far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy?

It would not be the God I know, so no it would not be identical in character, but omni-present and omnipotent at least, if not omniscient, for how could it create itself if it were not God?

 

[JediMobius]

Some things have a cause, but not everything. For the rest, there is no 'how'.

Like what? (Not quantum vacuum fluctuations - I address those further down.)

I agree that nothing begets nothing. The absence of anything itself is not a thing, 'it' cannot do anything, because it's not anything. However, the absence of anything also means that there is an absence of anything which would inhibit something else spontaneously coming into being (e.g., virtual particles).

That's self-contradicting. As we've established and agreed, the absence of anything cannot do anything. Therefor, it doesn't matter that there's nothing to prevent anything from happening, nothing will happen.

Ahem:

"the arbitrarily small disturbance comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations."

Which are random, spontaneous, uncaused events.

Prove that they are un-caused events. I argue that their cause is rooted in the uncertainty principle. They may not have any direct cause, but indirect cause is still cause.

"A radioactive nucleus (or any excited system in quantum mechanics) is unstable, and can thus spontaneously stabilize to a less-excited system."

The system can spontaneously decay. It doesn't have a prior cause: it just happens.

Spontaneous doesn't mean without cause.

Moreover, while radioactive decay can be triggered by supplying its activation energy (that's why we can trigger the radioactive decay of a Uranium-238 atom, even though it wouldn't normally decay for years to come), that isn't the only way for it to happen. In U[sup]238[/sup], the radiation (specifically, an alpha particle) tunnels out of the nucleus, effectively ignoring the fact that it ordinarily 'requires' energy to leave the nucleus. Quantum tunnelling is a spontaneous, random event that arises soley from the fact that there exists a finite possibility that it might happen.

What is this finite possibility that it might happen? That's the epitome of redundancy. There is a finite possibility that it's possible. Well, there's a possibility that anything's possible. That's hardly scientific.

Perhaps no cause has been discovered (doesn't mean it's not there). Quite plausibly, the cause has to do with the uncertainty principle, where pairs of physical properties cannot be known to arbitrary precision. Or, the universe operates according to some law that because something might happen, it eventually will. Either is an indirect cause, but a cause nonetheless.

Much like how, in the absence of anything, there is a finite possibility that something could spontaneously come into being.

Comparing how something works in a physical universe with laws to govern it is nonparallel to non-existence.

I don't understand your question. There is only 'existence'. Something either exists, or it doesn't. What you were talking about ('self-existence' and 'observed existence') are two ways we deduce that something exists. In other words, they're to do with epistemology: the study of knowledge. Specifically, the ways in which we can know whether something exists or whether a given statement is true.

I can see two ways to determine this: logical deduction ("I think, therefore I am"), and empirical observation ("I see it, therefore it exists").

My question is this: Can something be said to exist without a conscious entity to observe it?

Because only physical entities exist.

Then the internet does not exist. The hardware in the computers and servers does, but the software doesn't, because software is not a physical entity. We can maybe see the 1's and 0's on the disk, but those aren't even physically 1's and 0's. My thoughts and feelings do not exist. Thoughts aren't neurons firing, thoughts are intangible - not physical entities. The physical neurons and pathways in the brain are just messages or physical representations of thoughts and feelings.

Which is why mathematics is not a 'thing': it doesn't exist.

Mathematics exists in much the same way that the internet does, or the way your operating system exists. Intangible things are still things that exist.