"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[ToddNotTodd]

Who did I quote?

Ah, so the sentence "How we argue for what is greater without really realizing it?" only applies to you and Archaeopteryx. Although since he was actually asking a question rather than giving a positive statement, your phrase really only applies to you.

 

[Hieronymus]

At a certain point, we're just playing word games.

It's not a game to me.

If having a cause is baked into the definition of "effect", then I'm going to have to ask you to demonstrate that the universe is an effect.

Well, even atheïsts (in the field) agree the universe had a start, for numerous reasons (i choose not to mention here, not only because i'm too lazy to look it up...)
It can't have created itself, something can not cause itself.

You don't just get to smuggle your premises into the definitions of the words you're using like that.

I'm very sorry that words do not always mean what you want them to mean.

I think I'd like to see you demonstrate that point.

Well, i'm not gonna.
I'm sorry.
It's not my expertise, it's a whole subject all together.
Maybe i'm wrong, but i assume you believe in "the Big Bang", so you should be familiar with the idea of a beginning of the universe.

Well why don't you show me where my logic breaks down? Here's the traditional structure of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
   Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.
   
4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful; Therefore:
5. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful...

...has to exist, or at least had to have existed.

That bit in premise 1? It sets up a dichotomy beween two sets - "things that begin to exist" and "things that do not begin to exist".

We've been through this already, haven't we?
The Original Cause is singular.
I think you call it 'a singularity'.

And it sets out a condition for the former set.

No, the Thing that does not begin to exist, doesn't just set out conditions, that Thing creates by It's Will.
Will implies a person (conscious and intelligent), so in stead of "It" we say "He".

However, your claim is that the latter set contains just one object - god. If that's the case, then a simple logical reformulation can take place:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause -> (Because we set this up as a true dichotomy, we can replace the term with its inverse)
1. Everything except things that do not begin to exist has a cause -> (Because there is only one thing that did not begin to exist, we can generalize)
1. Everything except god has a cause

At which point your argument becomes circular and thus a meaningless tautology.

Why? How?
The Original Cause CAN NOT have a cause by definition.
If it were caused, it would not be the original cause, but an effect form the true original cause, or a secondary cause at least.

Another word for Original Cause is indeed "God", it's a synonym.
This doesn't answer the question who exactly is God, only that God is the Original Cause, because they're synonymous.

If there is a problem with my reasoning, please explain the problem, don't just hand-wave it away.

I'm not sure where you see the circle in this reasoning.
Is it perhaps too logical?

Yes, actually, this is heavily implied by quantum physics.

No, i think you have misunderstood that.
Because the quantum-matrix is not nothing, it's something, it has properties.

 

[anonymous person]

Ah, so the sentence "How we argue for what is greater without really realizing it?" only applies to you and Archaeopteryx. Although since he was actually asking a question rather than giving a positive statement, your phrase really only applies to you.

You disagree with me on all of these things.

This is good for this is how it should be.

 

[The Cadet]

We've been through this already, haven't we?

Yes, and you apparently have no idea what a "set" means in logic and mathematics. Let me explain: when I speak of a "set" of "objects", I am referring to set theory. This is a subject that requires a little doing to understand, and I'm a little tipsy, so I'll let you peruse the wikipedia article, but it does not matter if there is only one object in the set (or even no objects - the "empty set" is a very useful mathematical tool), it is still proper to refer to it as a "set". So this:

The Original Cause is singular.
I think you call it 'a singularity'.

Is a completely meaningless objection.

Why? How?
The Original Cause CAN NOT have a cause by definition.

See, this is what I mean by "playing word games". You can define things until you're blue in the face. I can define "Flibbertygibbets" to mean "An entity that demonstrates the nonexistence of god". But at some point, we have to show some connection between our logical constructs and reality. So let's look at what you've defined:
- Effects, by definition, have causes
- An original cause which cannot have a cause
I don't think that second definition applies to anything that actually exists or ever existed. I don't think the first definition meshes well with reality, given things like Hawking radiation.

I'm not sure where you see the circle in this reasoning.

Premise one: everything except god has a cause.
[...]
Conclusion: god exists

In the first premise you've already stated that god exists.

 

[Hieronymus]

What are you even doing here?
O, wait...

 

[anonymous person]

Yes, and you apparently have no idea what a "set" means in logic and mathematics. Let me explain: when I speak of a "set" of "objects", I am referring to set theory. This is a subject that requires a little doing to understand, and I'm a little tipsy, so I'll let you peruse the wikipedia article, but it does not matter if there is only one object in the set (or even no objects - the "empty set" is a very useful mathematical tool), it is still proper to refer to it as a "set". So this:



Is a completely meaningless objection.



See, this is what I mean by "playing word games". You can define things until you're blue in the face. I can define "Flibbertygibbets" to mean "An entity that demonstrates the nonexistence of god". But at some point, we have to show some connection between our logical constructs and reality. So let's look at what you've defined:
- Effects, by definition, have causes
- An original cause which cannot have a cause
I don't think that second definition applies to anything that actually exists or ever existed. I don't think the first definition meshes well with reality, given things like Hawking radiation.



Premise one: everything except god has a cause.
[...]
Conclusion: god exists

In the first premise you've already stated that god exists.

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?

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes, and you apparently have no idea what a "set" means in logic and mathematics. Let me explain: when I speak of a "set" of "objects", I am referring to set theory. This is a subject that requires a little doing to understand, and I'm a little tipsy, so I'll let you peruse the wikipedia article, but it does not matter if there is only one object in the set (or even no objects - the "empty set" is a very useful mathematical tool), it is still proper to refer to it as a "set". So this:

--- ramblings of Hyronymus ---

Is a completely meaningless objection.

Thanks for explaining.
English is not my mother-tongue.
We (Netherlands EU) say "verzameling", meaning 'collection', which can be empty too, which can also overlap other 'collections'.

See, this is what I mean by "playing word games". You can define things until you're blue in the face. I can define "Flibbertygibbets" to mean "An entity that demonstrates the nonexistence of god". But at some point, we have to show some connection between our logical constructs and reality. So let's look at what you've defined:
- Effects, by definition, have causes
- An original cause which cannot have a cause
I don't think that second definition applies to anything that actually exists or ever existed. I don't think the first definition meshes well with reality, given things like Hawking radiation.

Well, i have tried.
But you don't seemto understand the meaning of 'original'.
We could call it "first" if that helps.
Nothing precedes the first, or it wouldn't be the first.
There, that should do it.

Premise one: everything except god has a cause.
[...]
Conclusion: god exists

In the first premise you've already stated that god exists.

No, you did.
I didn't use that as a premise.

 

[The Cadet]

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

Yes or no?

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. That said, as a complete layman with very little understanding of advanced theoretical physics, I find Sean Carroll's model of a universe expanding infinitely backwards in time an interesting way to answer "no", and I find the evidence implying that the net mass and energy of the universe might be zero, combined with things like Hawking radiation that show that effects need not have causes a strong hint to the possibility that no cause was necessary. But again, my main answer still is "I don't know". I don't have a well-formulated position on this issue.

Well, i have tried.
But you don't seemto understand the meaning of 'original'.
We could call it "first" if that helps.
Nothing precedes the first, or it wouldn't be the first.
There, that should do it.

So... what if this definition is meaningless? Like, what if defining an "original cause" is like defining a "largest number"? After all, the necessity of an original cause is based on the premise that everything that beings to exist has a cause. But why is this necessarily the case? And why does only this original cause get the buck the "begins to exist" condition?

No, you did.
I didn't use that as a premise.

Is the original premise or your argument not "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"? Have you not explicitly stated that, by definition, god is the only thing that does not begin to exist? Is it not then a fair reformulation of the premise to say that "Everything (except god, because god is the only thing that does not begin to exist) has a cause"?

 

[Hieronymus]

I don't know.

Than you're not capable of logical thought.
Or perhaps you suffer from severe relativism.
But i will end the discussion with you, it's no use.
Have a nice day, and thanks for explaining the 'sets'.

 

[durangodawood]

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?

We dont know.
Is it excised now?

 

[Hieronymus]

Every start has a cause.
It's apparentlytoo

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?

This apparently is very complicated stuff for some people.
Ironically people who say their opinions are based on science and logic seem to have a very hard time with this question.

 

[durangodawood]

This apparently is very complicated stuff for some people.
Ironically people who say their opinions are based on science and logic seem to have a very hard time with this question.

Not so.
I had an easy time with the question.
See above.

 

[Hieronymus]

Easy to avoid...

 

[durangodawood]

Easy to avoid...

Impossible to know (yet).
Therefore easy to answer.

 

[Hieronymus]

I meant evade... (i think)

But i spoke too soon, because i didn't understand your last sentence:

Is it excised now?

My apologies.

 

[Hieronymus]

Impossible to know (yet).
Therefore easy to answer.

Well... No, sorry..
I mean, is it really impossible to know if anything that started to exist had a cause?
Is there even an alternative?
I don't think so.

 

[durangodawood]

I meant evade... (i think)

But i spoke too soon, because i didn't understand your last sentence:

"Excised" comment applies to post #406.
Its not critical to the conversation.

I guess I'm not comfortable making absolute pronouncements about aspects of reality that are so far removed from the scale of ordinary human experience.

 

[Hieronymus]

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

 

[durangodawood]

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

Yes, for sure.
But its wrong to call an un-caused thing an "effect".
Just call it a.... thing. If you call it an "effect", then that very term is prejudicing the discussion.

 

[quatona]

Great.

Now I can turn my attention to those who think there are good arguments against the existence of God and talk with them.

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