"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[quatona]

Not "a God", God.
There is only one God by definition, but which one is It?

You can phrase the topic you want to derail this thread towards any way you like.

 

[quatona]

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause;

1. 
   
   

Is problematic in several ways.
a. We don´t observe things beginning to exist. We observe that which already exists changing.
b. Even if we observed stuff coming into existence from nothing within the universe (so that your premise would at least have some ground) our observations only refer to the state of affairs within the universe. If you want to extrapolate from that to the coming into being of universes you have huge problems, in that there´s no hypothesis without extraordinary aspects - including "a spiritual being breathed matter into existence".

Premise rejected.

 

[The Cadet]

Than you're not capable of logical thought.

And neither are Sean Carroll and the numerous other physicists who equally are unsure of the answer? No, I'm sorry, but your intuitions do not somehow become irrefutable fact. We know cause and effect from our everyday lives. However, things like Hawking radiation demonstrate clearly that sometimes, there simply is no cause for things. This is a bizarre result, but a lot of things are bizarre when we approach the very small and the very high-energy.

Right now, you're trying to intuit things about the universe before and during the phase where it was the smallest and had the highest energy. And I'm sorry, but that simply isn't rational at all.

Allright, but isn't an effect without a cause contradictory, a logical fallacy?

Only if you define effect as such, at which point it's worth examining whether what we're talking about even is an "effect".

 

[anonymous person]

I don't know. If someone were to make the claim either way, I would ask them for their evidence. What I personally believe? Honestly, I'd rather not say, as my opinion is essentially void.

You have stated that you don't know if the beginning of the universe requires an efficient cause.

You also stated you have no well formulated position on the issue.

But you claim that Hieronymous and I are wrong about there being a cause of the universe if it begins to exist.

If you don't know, then you can't say we are wrong.

So which is it?

Just for kicks....



Can you give me a list of things that come into being from nothing without any causal conditions whatsoever?

 

[quatona]

You have stated that you don't know if the beginning of the universe requires an efficient cause.

You also stated you have no well formulated position on the issue.

But you claim that Hieronymous and I are wrong about there being a cause of the universe if it begins to exist.

I haven´t seen him claiming that. He contradicted your idea that it needs to have a cause.

Can you give me a list of things that come into being from nothing without any causal conditions whatsoever?

No, that´s because I can´t give you a list of things that begin to exist, in the first place. That´s why I reject the premise "Things that begin to exist have a cause" as a completely baseless claim.

 

[anonymous person]

Except you haven´t found any who would touch this request - based on your definition "greatest conceivable being" - with a ten foot pole.

Whether or not anyone would touch the request based on defining God as the greatest conceivable being is not going to keep me from talking to people who think there are good arguments against the existence of God.

You see, I am not committed to defending the conceptualization of God as being the greatest conceivable being, nor do I make a habit of using Anselm's Ontological argument as a proof for God's existence.

I am interested in speaking to two different types of people.

1. The people who think there are disproofs of God's existence.
2. The people who think there is evidence that, although not disproof of God, nonetheless makes theism untenable.

These people in arguing against the existence of God affirm at least these basic propositions:

1. There is cognitive meaning behind religious language.
2. Truth about God, if God exists, can be known.

Obviously someone like Van Buren or Ayer would not argue against the existence of God for they term itself to them was meaningless. It would be like arguing against the existence of hsdkjfa.

A cursory review of the history and evolution of atheistic thought among philosophers will show that atheists like Van Buren and Ayer are a very small minority. That is one reason why I asked what I did. I really did not expect too many people here to be semantic atheists.

And I was right. In fact, I had several atheists actually provide arguments against the existence of God in thread I made. I don't know if you were unaware or aware of that fact.

 

[The Cadet]

But you claim that Hieronymous and I are wrong about there being a cause of the universe if it begins to exist.

No. I claim you are unsupported. There's a difference. I don't know if you're wrong. What I can say is that I have absolutely no reason to believe that you're right. And if you're going to bring those arguments in here, I'd like to know that you're actually correct.

Can you give me a list of things that come into being from nothing without any causal conditions whatsoever?

No, I can't. The best I can offer is Hawking radiation, which has no apparent cause.

Can you give me a list of things that we've been able to document coming into being at all?

 

[quatona]

Whether or not anyone would touch the request based on defining God as the greatest conceivable being is not going to keep me from talking to people who think there are good arguments against the existence of God.

You are free to talk to whomever you want.

You see, I am not committed to defending the conceptualization of God as being the greatest conceivable being,

I know you are not committed to bring anything of substance to the table when it comes to defining your keyterms.

I am interested in speaking to two different types of people.

1. The people who think there are disproofs of God's existence.
2. The people who think there is evidence that, although not disproof of God, nonetheless makes theism untenable.

Yeah, you were also interested in speaking to the kind of people who defended the terrible argument against the existence of God that you invented yourself.

A cursory review of the history and evolution of atheistic thought among philosophers will show that atheists like Van Buren and Ayer are a very small minority.

Maybe...but the rest of the philosophers have to face the objection "but not what I/we/my denomination/my religion/my theology/my god concept calls 'God', once they start arguing against the existence of God.
IOW, even before they start they have been trapped by theists like you who not only want to shift the burden of argument, but even the burden of defining the theists' keyterms.

I really did not expect too many people here to be semantic atheists.

I haven´t heard that phrase before.
By "semantic atheist" - do you mean those people who would like to know what it is that they are asked to argue against before they give it a try?

And I was right. In fact, I had several atheists actually provide arguments against the existence of God in thread I made. I don't know if you were unaware or aware of that fact.

I was aware of that fact. I was also aware how you persistently used the trap you had set up for them.

 

[anonymous person]

I haven´t seen him claiming that. He contradicted your idea that it needs to have a cause.

He said he did not know.

Claiming not to know if the universe requires a cause if it begins to exist does not count as contradicting the claim that it does anymore than me claiming not to know if Darwinian Evolution is the best naturalistic theory for the evolution of life on earth contradicts the claim that it is.

Claiming ignorance would contradict the idea that he is not ignorant when it comes to the issue. But since I have never claimed he is not ignorant when it comes to the issue, to say he has contradicted what I have said is groundless.

He either affirms I am wrong or that I am right or that he does not know if I am wrong or right about the universe requiring a cause if it comes into being.

He definitely is not affirming I am right.

If he does not know, then he really has no stake in the conversation.

But since he is defending and arguing quite vigorously for his views and against those that contradict them, he thinks I am wrong.

No, that´s because I can´t give you a list of things that begin to exist, in the first place. That´s why I reject the premise "Things that begin to exist have a cause" as a completely baseless claim.

Your position is self refuting.

The proposition: "I can't give you a list of things that begin to exist", is itself, something that began to exist. It did not exist prior to you typing it and in so doing, appearing on this forum in this thread in your post.

Your computer you are using came into being at some point in the finite past. Your house. Your car. You. This planet. Our sun around which it revolves. Our galaxy. All of these things began to exist.

 

[durangodawood]

I too claim we dont know that the universe needs a prior cause in order to exist.

 

[quatona]

He said he did not know.

Claiming not to know if the universe requires a cause if it begins to exist does not count as contradicting the claim that it does anymore than me claiming not to know if Darwinian Evolution is the best naturalistic theory for the evolution of life on earth contradicts the claim that it is.

Exactly: You misrepresented him.

Claiming ignorance would contradict the idea that he is not ignorant when it comes to the issue. But since I have never claimed he is not ignorant when it comes to the issue, to say he has contradicted what I have said is groundless.

He either affirms I am wrong or that I am right or that he does not know if I am wrong or right about the universe requiring a cause if it comes into being.

He definitely is not affirming I am right.

If he does not know, then he really has no stake in the conversation.

But since he is defending and arguing quite vigorously for his views and against those that contradict them, he thinks I am wrong.

If you claim that X needs a cause, you are the one to support that claim. Until you have done that successfully, it is rejected as a premise for further discussion.

Your position is self refuting.

The proposition: "I can't give you a list of things that begin to exist", is itself, something that began to exist. It did not exist prior to you typing it and in so doing, appearing on this forum in this thread in your post.

Except that this is not "the beginning to exist" that is the point of the discussion. The point of the discussion is the beginning of matter, of anything. So your equivocation doesn´t fly.

Your computer you are using came into being at some point in the finite past. Your house. Your car. You. This planet. Our sun around which it revolves. Our galaxy. All of these things began to exist.

No, everything they are made of, had existed before. It´s transformated, rearranged...that´s what we mean when we say "began to exist" in regards to stuff within the universe.
Thus, if you want to defend that the universe came into existence by means of rearrangement/transformation of already existing matter your premise is applicable. If you want to defend another idea (e.g. that matter and energy were created from nothing) it isn´t.

 

[anonymous person]

I too claim we dont know that the universe needs a prior cause in order to exist.

Good.

It is no part of the Kalam proponent's case that you need to know this either. Rather, that you take his premises to be more plausible than their negations. A far more modest aim.

 

[Hoghead1]

Reading through these posts, here are some thoughts I wish to share. I f anyone is interested in further exploring them, let me know. I think a too-limited definition of God has been presented, that is, God as uncaused, immutable, timeless, etc. I assume that God is in fact caused. Now, to start with, I agree that there is a givenness to God, that God has characteristics that he or she did not decide and were not decided and imposed on God by others. I think God starts out purely unconscious and merely potential. However, God is in the grip of the creative advance. There is no creativity without God, yet creativity drives God. To do what? To self-actualize as a personality and become self-conscious. God, tehn, is a social-relational being, as personality always arises out of social interactions. Now both consciousness and personality require complexity. Hence, God moves from total homogeneity into maximum complexity achieved via creation. Mind and matter are one. So for God to achieve complexity and consciousness, God must become a complex entity and that means God self-actualizes as the universe. Now, I don't think there ever as a time when God was purely unconscious, merely potential. I think that God is eternally creative, so that there never was a time without some sort of universe. Before this one, another and so on, ad inifinitum. I am not at all bothered by an infinite regress here. Because God is continually creating himself or herself, God is continually changing. And go is also continually changing, since God, as a social-relational being, is continually arising out of his or her relationships with creation. God is both supreme cause and also effect.
What existed before this universe, before the Big Bang? Another universe that apparently shrunk down into the point of singularity. This universe was not created out of nothing, but out of a preceding one.
One of the arguments I would advanced for the existence of God is that there has to be potentiality before actuality. All actuality is the actualization of a preexisting potential. Now creative potentials cannot exist in an of themselves. Potentials are helpless to do anything. Entities actualize potentials; they do not actualize themselves. Potentials cannot exist alone, anymore than imaginative ideas can exist without an imagination. I hold it is counterintuitive to assume that just imaginative or creative ideas exist without being on some imagination. So there must have been some sort of transcendental imagination already in place before creation and that means God.
I am no sure how you were fitting the ontological argument into the discussion of whether the universe has a cause or not. I like to use a variation of Anselm's argument that goes like this: I have yet to find anyone, any atheist, who can say it is absolutely rationally impossible for there to be a God. However, doubtful one may be about God, there is always soma possibility, however, slim that God exists. Since I view actuality as a perfection at least equal to potentiality, if not greater, I am therefore compelled to assume God does exist.
Regarding causality, it can be a troublesome concept in science, for, as Hume observed, we have no actual experience of causality, at least not a sensory experience. However, I at least find it largely counterintuitive to assume events just happen, that there is no cause. That is tantamount to saying reality consists solely of monads, totally disconnected from one another. However, my experience of reality and what I have learned from science suggests that reality is relational, that all events are interrelated. Nothing happens in isolation. Everything has a cause. I also hold that any speculation as to what went on before the universe should be based on what we do know to be the case with reality. I think that all knowing is analogous knowing, that we must generalize from the familiar to the unfamiliar. So either we should skip thinking at all about what went on before, which is difficult, as we are geared to speculate beyond the given, or assume there is some uniformity between the preuniverse conditions and we do know about reality, which means there as in fact a cause for it.
Regarding Hawking radiation, I do not understand how he can possibly say it is uncaused, but that is another story.
I'll stop for now and wait to see if anyone is interested in picking up on any of my ideas.
understand why he feels there is no cause for this. But that is another issue.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Amazing isn't it?

How we argue for what is greater without really realizing it?

You've done the very thing some here say is either meaningless or pointless or purely a matter of opinion that cannot be established objectively.

Still waiting for you to tell us the objective criteria by which you established those "facts"...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

All of this can be excised with your answer to a simple question.

If the universe begins to exist, does this require a cause?

Yes or no?

Define your terms. Remember your debate with cjlr?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The proposition: "I can't give you a list of things that begin to exist", is itself, something that began to exist. It did not exist prior to you typing it and in so doing, appearing on this forum in this thread in your post.

Your computer you are using came into being at some point in the finite past. Your house. Your car. You. This planet. Our sun around which it revolves. Our galaxy. All of these things began to exist.

Yes, they all began to exist from something, ex materia. That's not quite what you mean when you say that the universe "began to exist" though, is it?

 

[The Cadet]

Your computer you are using came into being at some point in the finite past. Your house. Your car. You. This planet. Our sun around which it revolves. Our galaxy. All of these things began to exist.

This is a fallacious conflation Kalam makes. My computer did not just spring into being from material that did not exist beforehand. Nothing therein is anything more than a rearrangement of existing atoms. Is this what you're positing the universe is? A rearrangement of existing atoms? We're talking about two completely different kinds of "begin to exist". And when the Kalam claims the universe "begins to exist", it's talking about the creation of matter where there was none before - something we do not observe with any regularity (and in the few cases we do observe it, there's no detectable cause).

 

[Ana the Ist]

You have stated that you don't know if the beginning of the universe requires an efficient cause.

You also stated you have no well formulated position on the issue.

But you claim that Hieronymous and I are wrong about there being a cause of the universe if it begins to exist.

If you don't know, then you can't say we are wrong.

So which is it?

Just for kicks....



Can you give me a list of things that come into being from nothing without any causal conditions whatsoever?

Why do you need a list? Won't a simple example suffice?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

 

[Ana the Ist]

You have stated that you don't know if the beginning of the universe requires an efficient cause.

You also stated you have no well formulated position on the issue.

But you claim that Hieronymous and I are wrong about there being a cause of the universe if it begins to exist.

If you don't know, then you can't say we are wrong.

So which is it?

Just for kicks....



Can you give me a list of things that come into being from nothing without any causal conditions whatsoever?

Then there's this theory...

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

 

[Hieronymus]

1. 
   

Is problematic in several ways.

Only to intimidated atheists it is.
Get over it.

a. We don´t observe things beginning to exist. We observe that which already exists changing.

So your bicycle has always existed before it existed?

b. Even if we observed stuff coming into existence from nothing within the universe (so that your premise would at least have some ground) our observations only refer to the state of affairs within the universe. If you want to extrapolate from that to the coming into being of universes you have huge problems, in that there´s no hypothesis without extraordinary aspects - including "a spiritual being breathed matter into existence".

Premise rejected.

It's clear you reject it.
But nothing comes from nothing.