Creation Ex Nihilo- Without God

[ElijahW]

Again, you are misrepresenting my position. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

Before I repeat it again:

Yes, please elaborate on your position and how I have misrepresented it.

Where has it been scientifically established that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

The problem with this question is "the instantiation" is God. What you need to be arguing for is that the universe never had an instantiation. "Scientifically" is another word you would need to clarify because if you are asking for empirical evidence then you should reconsider if that expectation is reasonable.

 

[Davian]

...

The problem with this question is "the instantiation" is God.

So, state how that fits in your cosmological argument. What you are saying is not reflected on the page that you linked to.

What you need to be arguing for is that the universe never had an instantiation.

I do not agree that the universe never had an instantiation.

"Scientifically" is another word you would need to clarify because if you are asking for empirical evidence then you should reconsider if that expectation is reasonable.

I do not think that the expectation of empirical evidence is reasonable, and have already said so in this thread.

However, that is not the point of the question, and this question applies to the cosmological argument you linked to:

Where has it been scientifically established that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

 

[Davian]

How about basic physics? Every action has an equal but opposite reaction, and every event has a 'cause'. Even radioactivity turns out to be influenced by external events. Assuming there actually was a "bang" there was by definition a 'cause' of that event, no?

No, not from what I understand. Did you not read the OP?

 

[Davian]

I really cannot appreciate this part of your argument quite frankly. According to mainstream theory, inflation was a 'cause' was it not?

Michael, you are giving me the impression that you do not know inflationary theory.

 

[Michael]

Michael, you are giving me the impression that you do not know inflationary theory.

You are really giving me the impression that you're avoiding answering my direct and basic questions because you either don't know the answer, or you don't like the implications of what you think the answer might be, or how it affects your position.

 

[Michael]

No, not from what I understand. Did you not read the OP?

Yes and I also explained to Illuminaghty why VP's do not arise from 'nothing'. Did you miss our whole conversation on VP's and kinetic energy?

 

[ElijahW]

So you are again refusing to put your understanding of the cosmos forward or how I misrepresented it. Why do you refuse to explain what should be such an important point?

So, state how that fits in your cosmological argument. What you are saying is not reflected on the page that you linked to.

The page I linked to was put there at your request, for an as of yet unseen reason because you haven’t put forward an argument against it.

I do not agree that the universe never had an instantiation.

What does that necessarily mean about the understanding of the cosmos if it didn’t have an instantiation?

I do not think that the expectation of empirical evidence is reasonable, and have already said so in this thread.

However, that is not the point of the question, and this question applies to the cosmological argument you linked to:

Where has it been scientifically established that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

You would need to explain what you mean by "scientifically" if you don’t mean proven with empirical evidence.

 

[Davian]

You are really giving me the impression that you're avoiding answering my direct and basic questions because you either don't know the answer, or you don't like the implications of what you think the answer might be, or how it affects your position.

Or I was just highlighting the gaps in your knowledge of the thing you are criticizing. I have responded in the appropriate thread.

 

[Davian]

Yes and I also explained to Illuminaghty why VP's do not arise from 'nothing'. Did you miss our whole conversation on VP's and kinetic energy?

No, I skipped over it.

 

[Davian]

So you are again refusing to put your understanding of the cosmos forward or how I misrepresented it. Why do you refuse to explain what should be such an important point?

I have not refused. Do not misrepresent what I have said. I said, I am not going to repeat myself on that subject until you have answered some questions.

The page I linked to was put there at your request, for an as of yet unseen reason because you haven’t put forward an argument against it.

And I won't forward an argument against it until you answer my question.

And, to repeat myself, what you have posted is not consistent with the linked page, so you will have to post the entire argument here for clarification.

What does that necessarily mean about the understanding of the cosmos if it didn’t have an instantiation?

I don't know. I did not say that.

You would need to explain what you mean by "scientifically" if you don’t mean proven with empirical evidence.

No, in this context, "scientifically" means supported with empirical evidence.

So, where has it been scientifically established that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

"I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

 

[Michael]

No, I skipped over it.

The fact you skipped over it is why you think I didn't address Guth's nonsense and why you think that I didn't already scold Guth unmercifully for his empirical blasphemy. The universe is full of *net positive* energy. That net positive energy I feel on my skin every day has always existed in some for or another, including inflaton fields and Higgs fields if you're intent on evoking inflaton fields as a real field. There's no 'free lunch' at all. It's a mythological claim that the universe contains a zero net amount of energy. That's ridiculous in fact. It's like a religion that begins: Never mind the sunshine on your skin, that isn't really heat you feel, it's zero net energy".

 

[ElijahW]

I have not refused. Do not misrepresent what I have said. I said, I am not going to repeat myself on that subject until you have answered some questions.
And I won't forward an argument against it until you answer my question.

You are continuing to refuse how I have misrepresented your understanding of the cosmos while continuing to say don’t misrepresent what you say. Impressive cycle you have going on.

And, to repeat myself, what you have posted is not consistent with the linked page, so you will have to post the entire argument here for clarification.

I don’t need to clarify anything. You need to explain why you wanted a link to that page.

I don't know. I did not say that.

From you: “I do not agree that the universe never had an instantiation.”

Does your understanding of the universe have an instantiation or not? The sentence is confusing; because with the don't/never it seems like you could be saying you believe in a God/instantiation.

No, in this context, "scientifically" means supported with empirical evidence.

So, where has it been scientifically established that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

"I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

So, I asked if by scientific you mean empirical, and you say no, but when I ask what you mean by scientific you mean empirical? Which is it?

If you are asking about a time machine again, then the answer is still no we don’t have one, because you would need one for material evidence of a past event.

 

[Davian]

You are continuing to refuse how I have misrepresented your understanding of the cosmos while continuing to say don’t misrepresent what you say. Impressive cycle you have going on.

Let's not make this about your posting behaviour.

I don’t need to clarify anything. You need to explain why you wanted a link to that page.

You don't need to clarify anything. You may withdraw your claim.

However, in fairness to you, I will not presume to know what you are thinking or which variation of the cosmological argument you are referring to.

You said, ""the instantiation" is God". As this does not match the CA on the page that you linked to, you will need to post the full argument here before we can proceed.

<snip irrelevant comments>

So, I asked if by scientific you mean empirical, and you say no, but when I ask what you mean by scientific you mean empirical? Which is it?

By scientific I mean testable, demonstrable, falsifiable.

If you are asking about a time machine again, then the answer is still no we don’t have one, because you would need one for material evidence of a past event.

I know we don't have one. I asking, how can you make a robust cosmological argument without one?

 

[ElijahW]

Let's not make this about your posting behaviour.

For sure. But let’s be clear that there is no reason for me to think I committed a straw man fallacy if you can’t explain how.

You don't need to clarify anything. You may withdraw your claim.

However, in fairness to you, I will not presume to know what you are thinking or which variation of the cosmological argument you are referring to.

You said, ""the instantiation" is God". As this does not match the CA on the page that you linked to, you will need to post the full argument here before we can proceed.

I’m not sure what you are arguing against or why you asked for the cosmological argument.

Are you hoping to make an argument against the logic behind the cosmological argument?

Or are you arguing that the first cause shouldn’t be understood as God?

And by “God”, I should assume you are working with the superstitious understanding of God only?

By scientific I mean testable, demonstrable, falsifiable.

So you are asking for physical evidence of a non physical thing? Is that reasonable?

I know we don't have one. I asking, how can you make a robust cosmological argument without one?

You don’t make a robust one but you make an honest one about what you believe, after considering the options. The belief in God may come easy, once you consider what the alternative is. The universe being around for an infinite amount of time is a difficult thing to imagine so the universe having a beginning may be the only rational choice when compared to that. You haven’t ever actually considered if you believe in God because you didn’t know what you were choosing from. You thought/think “God” was/is limited to a superstitious understanding and that is an easy concept to reject, but when it is between the universe having a beginning or not, then I'm not sure where your beliefs would be.

 

[Davian]

...

I’m not sure what you are arguing against or why you asked for the cosmological argument.

Are you hoping to make an argument against the logic behind the cosmological argument?

Or are you arguing that the first cause shouldn’t be understood as God?

And by “God”, I should assume you are working with the superstitious understanding of God only?

As I said, in fairness to you, I will not presume to know what you are thinking or which variation of the cosmological argument you are referring to.

You said, ""the instantiation" is God". As this does not match the CA on the page that you linked to, you will need to post the full argument here before we can proceed.

So you are asking for physical evidence of a non physical thing? Is that reasonable?

I did not say that. I just ask that whatever you present to be, in some way, testable, demonstrable, and falsifiable.

You don’t make a robust one but you make an honest one about what you believe, after considering the options. <snip>

Then present your CA, or withdraw.

 

[ElijahW]

As I said, in fairness to you, I will not presume to know what you are thinking or which variation of the cosmological argument you are referring to.

You said, ""the instantiation" is God". As this does not match the CA on the page that you linked to, you will need to post the full argument here before we can proceed.

I still don&#8217;t know what you are talking about. You need to be willing to answer the questions asked of you, if you wish to have a conversation.

I did not say that. I just ask that whatever you present to be, in some way, testable, demonstrable, and falsifiable.

Testable means physical. You are asking for something that is impossible of the thing in question.

Then present your CA, or withdraw.

I can&#8217;t withdraw anything since it was you that wanted to discuss it. If you have nothing to comment about it then it can be removed from discussion as being just another red herring from you.

 

[Davian]

I still don’t know what you are talking about.

You providing clarification for your claim.

You need to be willing to answer the questions asked of you, if you wish to have a conversation.

I am willing, once you have provided that clarification. What are you waiting for?

Testable means physical. You are asking for something that is impossible of the thing in question.

Nonsense. How did you determine that? How can you show me, or anyone, that what you claim is of any significance?

I can’t withdraw anything since it was you that wanted to discuss it.

In post #42, you claimed: "With God being an unknowable first cause, the only rational way to argue against God is to argue that the universe didn’t have a first cause because the universe has always existed."

If you have nothing to comment about it then it can be removed from discussion as being just another red herring from you.

If you cannot provide something further to comment about, specifically the cosmological argument that you referred to in post #68 , then your claim can be dismissed, as you continue to be evasive about it.

 

[ElijahW]

You providing clarification for your claim.

I am willing, once you have provided that clarification. What are you waiting for?

I don’t know what you complaint is or what you think the claim is you are complaining about. You do you realize that right? I have no understanding of what you are trying to say right now.

Nonsense. How did you determine that? How can you show me, or anyone, that what you claim is of any significance?

You can’t “show” anyone a non physical thing but you understand that what you can be shown is limited to what changes, (physical things). If there are aspects of the universe that are constant, (non physical things) you have no ability to test for them. Looking for physical proof of non physical things is another dead giveaway that a person isn’t familiar with this subject.

In post #42, you claimed: "With God being an unknowable first cause, the only rational way to argue against God is to argue that the universe didn’t have a first cause because the universe has always existed."

Ok. Now please explain thoroughly as you can what your issue is with that statement.

If you cannot provide something further to comment about, specifically the cosmological argument that you referred to in post #68 , then your claim can be dismissed, as you continue to be evasive about it.

There is no way I can dismiss it because I have no understanding of what your point is. Maybe I agree with you but I don’t understand at all what your criticism is of that post or cosmological argument.

 

[Davian]

I don’t know what you complaint is or what you think the claim is you are complaining about. You do you realize that right? I have no understanding of what you are trying to say right now.

You can’t “show” anyone a non physical thing but you understand that what you can be shown is limited to what changes, (physical things). If there are aspects of the universe that are constant, (non physical things) you have no ability to test for them. Looking for physical proof of non physical things is another dead giveaway that a person isn’t familiar with this subject.

Ok. Now please explain thoroughly as you can what your issue is with that statement.

There is no way I can dismiss it because I have no understanding of what your point is. Maybe I agree with you but I don’t understand at all what your criticism is of that post or cosmological argument.

Dismissed it is then.

 

[ElijahW]

Dismissed it is then.

Thank you. I assume we can call the conversation since you don't seem to have any argument to make against what I have said?