The universe with no need of God

[devolved]

From this reluctance to simply follow the evidence where it leads, and instead prefer explanations either with no support whatsoever at best, and explanations logically impossible at worse, it is clear that such people are objecting not on intellectual grounds, but on existential grounds. Such objections are a matter of the heart, not the mind.

Again, name me one conclusive and consistent event that we observe that can be attributed to God and nothing else.

 

[anonymous person]

That's all great and "super-wise", but let's say I approach you with the similar example I gave on this thread.

Let's say that there's a milk-carton Genie in my fridge that's responsible for everything good in your life. And the fact that there's good in your life would validate it's existence.

Given your approach to interpreting reality... why wouldn't you believe me, and how can you say whether I'm wrong or I'm right?



No. Try answering the above question, and you'll see why atheists do what they do.

I would simply say you were wrong about the milk carton genie being the source of all that is good in my life.

My reason?

Because God is the source of all that is good in my life.

 

[devolved]

I would simply say you were wrong about the milk carton genie being the source of all that is good in my life.

My reason?

Because God is the source of all that is good in my life.

Well, I'd say that you think so because Genie created this world 5 minutes ago, including you with all of your thoughts and beliefs, which includes the belief in God ... because in his Genie infinite wisdom it saw that you couldn't live without such belief.

What says you. Which methodology would you imploy in order to tell whether Genie exists or not, and whether its claims are true? Genie demands faith. So, why won't you believe?

 

[anonymous person]

Well, I'd say that you think so because Genie created this world 5 minutes ago, including you with all of your thoughts and beliefs, which includes the belief in God ... because in his Genie infinite wisdom it saw that you couldn't live without such belief.

What says you. Which methodology would you imploy in order to tell whether Genie exists or not, and whether its claims are true? Genie demands faith. So, why won't you believe?

I would ask you why you thought that. I would ask you what evidence, what arguments, what good reasons do you have for thinking that.

 

[anonymous person]

Methodological naturalism is not applicable when it comes to investigating what the cause of the universe might be. Such a topic is not within the purview of such a methodology.

 

[anonymous person]

In addition, it is no jump or leap to use abductive reasoning. Scientists, forensic scientists for example, do just that when investigating a crime scene. They use inference to the best explanation and start with eliminating those explanations which are more obviously impossible/implausible, and by a process of crossing said explanations off their list, they arrive at a most plausible, best explanation for the data they have. The proponent of the Kalam does just that and is no more guilty of jumping to conclusions than the forensic scientist is when he gathers up all his evidence and draws conclusions from it. He has multiple lines of evidence converging on a single hypothesis which makes the most sense of the data available. Simply hand waving it away and dismissing this process as jumping to a conclusion simply does not due justice to such a process.

For more on this, visit my website at http://www.mereapologetics.com where I have a lengthy treatment on the Kalam.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

I don't think it will be productive to address all of this point by point, so I'll attempt an overarching answer that will attempt to point to the problem that you have.

1) Overall, you are appealing to a non-materialistic interpretation of reality, which is problematic because it's not a reality we observe.

Thus, if we don't observe that reality, it's very easy to squeeze in just about anything into that "unobservable realm" without any need to justify it, and then scream "Materialist" every time one asks for some evidence for what you are postulating.

When a Invisible reality remains shut and does not interact with Visible reality then it is irrelevant and thus fairly unbelievable, But when that invisible reality interacts with visible reality and induces modifications on it, then we can not deny it, we can rather express that such invisible reality is not subjected to our means of control and thus is superior to us.

Not everybody experiences same level of interaction with Invisible reality, and those who either don't feel it or deny to feel it would be committing a abuse if they attempt to censorship to thus who indeed feel it, as much as those who claim to have a more intensive relationship with The Invisible Reality and in fact they don't. Both extremes are equally abusive.

Again, you seem to misunderstand provisional methodological materialism. It doesn't postulate that nothing other than the observable matter exists. This methodology is based on observation and making least assumptions when it comes to explaining any given phenomenon. Hence, we begin with where we find ourselves in - in material reality. If there is a good evidence for non-material reality, then it would follow that such explanation is viable. If we don't find any evidence, then it can be a useful explanation, but it has not definitive ways as to how we can tell any difference.

The problem then is about the parameters to qualify a invisible reality as valid evidence of its existence. You may say the effects of such reality are despicable as visible expressions of the invisible reality, and then it is required to establish a criteria which would not disqualify a priori the invisible Reality which some may consider uncomfortable.

For example, if I listen to someone saying "an angel saved my kid in a car crash, by protecting him from injuries", there's no way that we can verify or test such claim, especially when it's an ad-hoc type of interpretation of any given event.

Right, You can't control the event to happen again to verify that any car accident will be intervened by angels, but the effects of such past event can speak by themselves through consistency of the testimony with itself and in the post event life effects on the witness.

2) From the above you say "Milk Cartoon Genius of your fridge ¿Needs milk, cartoon and Fridge to exist? ¿Yes? then he is not eternal. ¿No? so perhaps he is God and you don't know it."

And I can say... But it's only what we see in our reality as a milk carton in my fridge. But, the "invisible reality" of the milk carton Genie is that it doesn't really need any of that. It is eternal and is above our reality.

Good, then we are showing that you can through away the milk and the carton visible realities to analyse the invisible reality of your claimed genie, you just imply the milk and the carton to muck any possible invisible reality and to provoke aversion and rejection a priori, just like the flying spaghetti with meatballs.

Then once you finally talk of a invisible reality manifested through milk and cartoon, we have to analyze the claims of such entity, We then enter in Paranormal activity and analysis of spiritual entities. ¿Angels? ¿Demons? ¿Souls in pain? we have to study the nature of the genie of your fridge to emit a judgment.

Ad of course we will have to analyze your psychic stability to identify if you are a compulsive lier, a schizophrenic or a mentally healthy and honest person. that will credit or discredit your statement and your testimony.

So, you see. I framed the rationalization in a way that you can't tell a difference. Everything good in your life is because of milk carton Genie. So, whenever you ask a question, I can plug in an unverifiable excuse as an "explanation".

Hence, if we can't tell a difference, is there really a difference?

Your ignorance of Paranormal entities does not justify your denial and your mockery of their existence, it only mocks your ignorance and shows you as a perfidy renegade. As I said before, We can study the nature of entities through the consistency of your testimony, and your mental health, and then our veredict would be the your testimony show evidence of being trustworthy or pure product of a perturbed mind of someone who has very little to do of his life.

3) You make up stuff like "scientific Atheism" and you ascribe it some inherent need to deny God and make up alternative explanations. Likewise, you say that belief in God is a worldwide phenomenon.

Wrong, I said that denying a priori the existence of God is already an atheist dogma. you can go as deep as your possibilities allow you to go to identify the ultimate causes of everything, but you can't assume a priori that God is out of them.

If we find a remote Amazon or Aboriginal tribe that without any missionaries would have the same exact story, you would have a point.

Well in fact lost tribes which never had had contact with missionaries have been found and all of them have religions and believe in invisible reality, the problem there is not explaining them the existence of God to make them believers, but it is harder to explain them that there is only One God and many other spirits which are not God.

When Hernán Cortés arrived to México City the Aztecs had a very elaborated religion which had nothing to do with Abrahamic religions. the missionaries faced not the challenge of a Atheistic people which had to be convinced of the Existence of God, but the challenge of a very religious people which had already too many gods and goddesses.

Same with tribes in Papua New Guinea.

Instead, what we have is some tribes believe in ancestral spirits (an no Gods)... some in spirits of animals, some more developed cultures have anthropomorphic gods. There are some that have no concept of God at all (look up piraha tribe in Amazon).

Right invisible realities all of them which are manifestations of the sense of spirituality. Many of those religions also have their story of creation. in the case of Aztecs they had their god of creation, Ometeotl.

So, it all points to a local primitive attempts to explain reality by injecting "life-like" characteristics to otherwise natural events. Such is the history of religion.

The point was that the Assertion that Man is atheist a priori and then is taught religion, is not supported by any discovery of human tribes apart of any civilization. all human civilizations which have been discovered through history had religions, it is, spirituality.

 

[devolved]

I would ask you why you thought that. I would ask you what evidence, what arguments, what good reasons do you have for thinking that.

And I would feed you exactly the same justifications that you are using:

1) The good events in your life that Genie claimed to create as your memory is the reason why you should see that Genie's claims are true

2) Genie created everything 2 hours ago with all of the memories that you have. Since this world is so orderly, it all points to the wisdom of Genie who created everything for us to experience exactly the way we do, because we need to understand and learn certain things from this exact created version of reality.

3) Genie actually will reveal itself to you if you believe in his power and change your thinking into seeing that everything it says is true and right. And then it will reveal itself to you in many wonderful ways.

4) You need to have faith that all of this is true in order to experience the purpose that Genie has for you. And you need to buy a "Full Circle" organic brand of milk, but make sure it's 2% one and not the skim one. And then you place it into your fridge, and Genie will occupy the mild carton, and you can pray to the carton and see all sorts of miracles happen in your life, if it's in accordance with Genie's will for your life.

So, why would you deny this wonderful gift of experience? Genie created you and your pre-existing belief in God in order to reveal itself through this exact forum post. Why would you deny it? What reasons would you have to deny it? Go out and buy the milk (make sure it's 2%), and experience the joy of miraculous life.

 

[devolved]

In addition, it is no jump or leap to use abductive reasoning. Scientists, forensic scientists for example, do just that when investigating a crime scene. They use inference to the best explanation and start with eliminating those explanations which are more obviously impossible/implausible, and by a process of crossing said explanations off their list, they arrive at a most plausible, best explanation for the data they have.

When was the last time you've seen a forensic scientist conclude that a ghost must be responsible for a murder, just like a defendant would claim?

If such could be the case, it would forever change our legal system.

 

[devolved]

Methodological naturalism is not applicable when it comes to investigating what the cause of the universe might be. Such a topic is not within the purview of such a methodology.

That's why we don't pretend to understand. Instead we frame certain possibilities, and then claim that neither of these is conclusive. In short, we are honest when we say "we don't know, but here's what could be the case". Such explanations don't necessitate anything.

 

[devolved]

The problem then is about the parameters to qualify a invisible reality as valid evidence of its existence. You may say the effects of such reality are despicable as visible expressions of the invisible reality, and then it is required to establish a criteria which would not disqualify a priori the invisible Reality which some may consider uncomfortable.

I'm not sure what you mean by "despicable"... maybe it's typo, but it's not what I'd say.

You keep bringing back "disqualifying", and you keep ignoring the point. No one is "disqualifying" possible reality. We use certain criteria to determine that it's viable in our scope of our ability to tell any difference.

If there's no conclusive difference, then there is no practical difference. It doesn't invalidate or disqualify anything. We just can't tell the difference in any conclusive manner. You keep ignoring this point.

Right, You can't control the event to happen again to verify that any car accident will be intervened by angels, but the effects of such past event can speak by themselves through consistency of the testimony with itself and in the post event life effects on the witness

Witnesses have a whole score of problems, beginning with confirmation bias, ending with recollection of the events as dictated by these biases.

Of course a person who believes in angels will say that a life-saving coincidence is a result of angel's work. If YOU AND I can't tell a difference from a regular "non-angel" event, then angel explanation seems to be an extra since the only consistent variable we get is the belief of the believer.

Again, you miss the point and you are addressing something else. How can you personally tell a difference? If you can't, then why would you accept such claim as meaningful?

There are plenty of consistent stories about alien abduction. Does it speak to the reality of these claims? All of them have the same basic story. Do you thus land these stories automatic credibility?

If not, then you are not playing by your own rules.

Good, then we are showing that you can through away the milk and the carton visible realities to analyse the invisible reality of your claimed genie, you just imply the milk and the carton to muck any possible invisible reality and to provoke aversion and rejection a priori, just like the flying spaghetti with meatballs.

Then once you finally talk of a invisible reality manifested through milk and cartoon, we have to analyze the claims of such entity, We then enter in Paranormal activity and analysis of spiritual entities. ¿Angels? ¿Demons? ¿Souls in pain? we have to study the nature of the genie of your fridge to emit a judgment.

Ad of course we will have to analyze your psychic stability to identify if you are a compulsive lier, a schizophrenic or a mentally healthy and honest person. that will credit or discredit your statement and your testimony.

I don't claim psychic ability. The Genie created all of the people with their current beliefs and knowledge in reality exactly as we experience it now.

The only difference is that it created an explanation in my mind as a revelation for everyone else. Thus, because I have that explanation would mean that Genie is true, because there's no other way to explain it in the scope of the claim.

Hence, what would you compare in this case to discredit my testimony? What could you possibly point out as inconsistent?

Your ignorance of Paranormal entities does not justify your denial and your mockery of their existence, it only mocks your ignorance and shows you as a perfidy renegade. As I said before, We can study the nature of entities through the consistency of your testimony, and your mental health, and then our veredict would be the your testimony show evidence of being trustworthy or pure product of a perturbed mind of someone who has very little to do of his life.

What inconsistencies would there be to find though?

I claim that there is a Genie in my fridge, and that it's merely occupying it as a temporal space/time entity. I claim that all that's good in your life is attributed to the actions of such Genie. I also claim that it created everything not too long ago in the state that it is with all of the memories already pre-existing, hence that's how I know that it exists. It created the memory and knowledge in my mind, hence how I would claim to know that.

What could you possibly analyze to discredit such claim? What behavior could you analyze that would be inconsistent with such claim? Genie created everyone, including me and you to behave the way you do and experience reality.

How could you possibly tell the difference?

Wrong, I said that denying a priori the existence of God is already an atheist dogma. you can go as deep as your possibilities allow you to go to identify the ultimate causes of everything, but you can't assume a priori that God is out of them.

Atheism is not an a-priori denial. It's a position of suspended belief pending better evidence. It's not the same as saying that God doesn't exist.

You keep bringing up this point and it's not the case.

Well in fact lost tribes which never had had contact with missionaries have been found and all of them have religions and believe in invisible reality, the problem there is not explaining them the existence of God to make them believers, but it is harder to explain them that there is only One God and many other spirits which are not God.

When Hernán Cortés arrived to México City the Aztecs had a very elaborated religion which had nothing to do with Abrahamic religions. the missionaries faced not the challenge of a Atheistic people which had to be convinced of the Existence of God, but the challenge of a very religious people which had already too many gods and goddesses.

Same with tribes in Papua New Guinea.

Animism is not the same as god-concept you are describe. A lot of these tribes have a story like "a giant eagle laid an egg and out of it hatched the world" type of thing.

Right invisible realities all of them which are manifestations of the sense of spirituality. Many of those religions also have their story of creation. in the case of Aztecs they had their god of creation, Ometeotl.

Again, some civilizations do have gods, but it's not even remotely the same or in any way consistent with concept of Judeo-Christian God. There are more tribes with animism concepts than there are with theistic concepts.

The point was that the Assertion that Man is atheist a priori and then is taught religion, is not supported by any discovery of human tribes apart of any civilization. all human civilizations which have been discovered through history had religions, it is, spirituality.

Religion is a blanket label for ritualistic approach to "superhuman" controlling power. Animism is a form of fetishism, which would fall into category of "religion" but wouldn't be a form of theism.

Thus, all of such animism/fetishism cultures are atheistic, unless they actually conceive of a god or gods.

 

[anonymous person]

And I would feed you exactly the same justifications that you are using:

1) The good events in your life that Genie claimed to create as your memory is the reason why you should see that Genie's claims are true

2) Genie created everything 2 hours ago with all of the memories that you have. Since this world is so orderly, it all points to the wisdom of Genie who created everything for us to experience exactly the way we do, because we need to understand and learn certain things from this exact created version of reality.

3) Genie actually will reveal itself to you if you believe in his power and change your thinking into seeing that everything it says is true and right. And then it will reveal itself to you in many wonderful ways.

4) You need to have faith that all of this is true in order to experience the purpose that Genie has for you. And you need to buy a "Full Circle" organic brand of milk, but make sure it's 2% one and not the skim one. And then you place it into your fridge, and Genie will occupy the mild carton, and you can pray to the carton and see all sorts of miracles happen in your life, if it's in accordance with Genie's will for your life.

So, why would you deny this wonderful gift of experience? Genie created you and your pre-existing belief in God in order to reveal itself through this exact forum post. Why would you deny it? What reasons would you have to deny it? Go out and buy the milk (make sure it's 2%), and experience the joy of miraculous life.

I have never appealed to personal experience as a line of evidence when talking with someone about the veracity of the central truth claims of Christianity. I have presented arguments such as the Kalam, which is supported with philosophical and observational lines of evidence.

Seems you are attacking another strawman.

 

[anonymous person]

That's why we don't pretend to understand. Instead we frame certain possibilities, and then claim that neither of these is conclusive. In short, we are honest when we say "we don't know, but here's what could be the case". Such explanations don't necessitate anything.

But you're doing more than claiming ignorance when you reject a premise of the Kalam argument. You are rejecting one premise in favor of another of your own. This is not analogous to claiming ignorance.

In addition, nothing you have said refutes my statement about the inapplicability of methodological naturalism when it comes to the origin of the universe. You glossed over it by claiming ignorance.

 

[anonymous person]

When was the last time you've seen a forensic scientist conclude that a ghost must be responsible for a murder, just like a defendant would claim?

If such could be the case, it would forever change our legal system.

I have never seen a forensic scientist claim a ghost was responsible for a murder. A murder is not analogous to the coming into being of the universe by the way.

I have seen a nationally known homicide detective well versed in the methodology of forensic science claim that there is good evidence that God created the universe. Check out J. Warner Wallace's work. He was an atheist up until the age of 35 when he decided to take a critical look in to Christianity.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/gods-crime-scene-by-j-warner-wallace/

 

[devolved]

I have never appealed to personal experience as a line of evidence when talking with someone about the veracity of the central truth claims of Christianity. I have presented arguments such as the Kalam, which is supported with philosophical and observational lines of evidence.

Seems you are attacking another strawman.

When you appeal to Biblical revelation, you are making an appeal to personal experience of people. Hence it's not a straw-man. I've merely created a viable analogy to show you that there's nothing you can evaluate about my claim to tell a difference.

You are not getting all of the specific rhethoric about God from your conclusions about Kalam. You make another leap to say "The God from my Kalam conclusion jump wrote the Bible". Hence, your objection is overruled

I merely point that your claim is structured in a manner that would avoid any viable test to tell the difference.

 

[devolved]

But you're doing more than claiming ignorance when you reject a premise of the Kalam argument. You are rejecting one premise in favor of another of your own. This is not analogous to claiming ignorance.

In addition, nothing you have said refutes my statement about the inapplicability of methodological naturalism when it comes to the origin of the universe. You glossed over it by claiming ignorance.

I'm not asserting any premise . I'm rejecting yours. Rejecting yours doesn't mean that I must therefore replace it with anything else. I can honestly say that I don't know until there are good reasons to say that.

You are jumping to a conclusion based on a UNJUSTIFIABLE LINES OF REASONING.

You have yet to demonstrate how you went from "uncaused cause" to "that cause must be an immaterial mind". How do you justify such tremendous leap of a conclusion?

 

[anonymous person]

I'm not asserting any premise . I'm rejecting yours. Rejecting yours doesn't mean that I must therefore replace it with anything else. I can honestly say that I don't know until there are good reasons to say that.

You are jumping to a conclusion based on a UNJUSTIFIABLE LINES OF REASONING.

You have yet to demonstrate how you went from "uncaused cause" to "that cause must be an immaterial mind". How do you justify such tremendous leap of a conclusion?

Once again you are attacking a strawman.

If you affirm both premises of the Kalam, you affirm that the universe has a cause. That is where you begin in your conceptual analysis of the cause. Right off the bat you eliminate the logically contradictory hypothesis that the universe caused itself and since it has been eliminated, it necessarily follows that the cause must be immaterial, spaceless and timeless. So you are left with either an impersonal, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, enormously powerful cause or a personal, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, enormously powerful cause.

If the cause was some impersonal eternally existing force, then the sufficient conditions for the existence of the universe would be eternally existing and thus the universe would never have come into being 16 billion years ago. It would simply be eternally existing.

Thus you are left with only one option. An immaterial, personal, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful efficient cause of the universe.

Notice the step by step abductive process of reasoning here. This is not a jump to conclusions by any means my friend.

 

[devolved]

If you affirm both premises of the Kalam, you affirm that the universe has a cause. That is where you begin in your conceptual analysis of the cause.

No. You can't affirm that, because how we define "the Universe" as all matter/energy/space that exists. Hence you are jumping to your first conclusion here by begging the question that you suppose to support.

Universe is not a thing. It's a concept of collection of entities. That collection of entities follow causal patterns. You can't lump these together and say all must have "external cause". That's not how cause-effect relationships work.

Hence, you jump to the unjustified assumption #1

Right off the bat you eliminate the logically contradictory hypothesis that the universe caused itself and since it has been eliminated

There you jump to an unjustified assumption #2, again based on lumping everything into one large concept and claiming that it can't "cause itself".

For any viable cause-effect relationship to work, both cause and effect have to exist in some shape or form.

it necessarily follows that the cause must be immaterial, spaceless and timeless.

You jump into the unjustified assumption #3, by fudging the semantics of causality. Nowhere in semantics of causality EVER implied that something is caused into existence from nothing. IN EVERY CASE of causal relationship we have existing causes that impact existing caused to form some effect.

Nowhere in reality you have an example of a cause simply causing things out of nothing.

Hence you are making an unjustified assumption.

So you are left with either an impersonal, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, enormously powerful cause or a personal, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, enormously powerful cause.

No. You are not describing anything meaningful. When we describe something, we don't describe it by what it's not.

For example, we don't say... the president of the US is not Mexican, and he's not a plumber in order to define what president is.

We only describe non-existing things in the terms that you describe these - spaceless, timeless, immaterial. Hence, you are making unjustified assumption that such cause exist without showing how anything of the sort is possible.

If the cause was some impersonal eternally existing force, then the sufficient conditions for the existence of the universe would be eternally existing and thus the universe would never have come into being 16 billion years ago. It would simply be eternally existing.

Thus you are left with only one option. An immaterial, personal, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful efficient cause of the universe.

A force is a physical concept. You are postulating a "force" in a way that makes zero semantic sense. How can you describe anything that such force does apart from physical reality of the force?

Likewise, ANY KNOWN cause-effect relationship we know either has a monolithic entity splitting into many, or at least two existing entities interacting with each other.

You are saying something entirely different here. "To cause" doesn't mean what you think it does.

Thus, you are postulating yet another assumption that such "cause" can be a cause. How? What does it have to cause if there's nothing but it's own spaceless and immaterial existence? How does it cause anything?

Notice the step by step abductive process of reasoning here. This is not a jump to conclusions by any means my friend.

It sure seems like abductive reasoning , since you are abducting reason and hiding it in the dark closet.

 

[anonymous person]

No. You can't affirm that, because how we define "the Universe" as all matter/energy/space that exists. Hence you are jumping to your first conclusion here by begging the question that you suppose to support.

The Kalam Cosmological argument is a logically valid deductive modus ponens syllogism.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...AC6CD319C0276FEFD280AC6CD319C0276FE&FORM=VIRE

Universe is not a thing.

Really? This is a strange view indeed. I know of no scientist that would say the universe is nothing.

What do cosmologists spend their time studying and investigating then, if the universe is nothing?

It's a concept of collection of entities. That collection of entities follow causal patterns. You can't lump these together and say all must have "external cause". That's not how cause-effect relationships work.

That is not how cosmologists define "universe". Even if they did, you are still wrong, for a concept is not nothing, but something.

Hence, you jump to the unjustified assumption #1

Which is?

There you jump to an unjustified assumption #2, again based on lumping everything into one large concept and claiming that it can't "cause itself".

Nothing can cause itself to come into being. This notion is logically incoherent, whether you are speaking of the universe, or anything for that matter. If you want to dismiss an appeal to logic as an appeal to an "unjustified assumption" then that is fine. I appeal to logic, you dismiss it.

For any viable cause-effect relationship to work, both cause and effect have to exist in some shape or form.

I agree that an efficient cause must first exist in order to bring about an effect. But saying that it must be made of matter and have a shape and form is a philosophical presupposition which this argument shows is untenable and to presuppose that efficient causes must be material causes and then to use this view as a grounds for your rejoinder against an argument that shows the presupposition to be untenable is question begging.

You jump into the unjustified assumption #3, by fudging the semantics of causality. Nowhere in semantics of causality EVER implied that something is caused into existence from nothing. IN EVERY CASE of causal relationship we have existing causes that impact existing caused to form some effect.

LOL, I agree!

Nowhere in reality you have an example of a cause simply causing things out of nothing.

Nowhere in reality do we have universes coming into being either. The big bang was a unique event and comparing it to an effect we observe as the result of some material cause is to compare apples to oranges.

No. You are not describing anything meaningful. When we describe something, we don't describe it by what it's not.

Sure we do. If someone is broke, we say they are penniless. Much of what you have said is baseless. I can think of hundreds of adjectives that are used in meaningful sentences which describe what something is by conveying what it is not.

For example, we don't say... the president of the US is not Mexican, and he's not a plumber in order to define what president is.

The president is not the cause of the universe though.

We only describe non-existing things in the terms that you describe these - spaceless, timeless, immaterial. Hence, you are making unjustified assumption that such cause exist without showing how anything of the sort is possible.

Non-existent things have no description, there is nothing to describe. So to say we "describe non-existing things" is nonsensical.

A force is a physical concept. You are postulating a "force" in a way that makes zero semantic sense. How can you describe anything that such force does apart from physical reality of the force?

You can't. Now you see how silly it is to posit some eternally existing impersonal force as the cause of the universe.

 

[devolved]

The Kalam Cosmological argument is a logically valid deductive modus ponens syllogism.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...AC6CD319C0276FEFD280AC6CD319C0276FE&FORM=VIRE

For conclusion of the syllogism to be valid, every premise must be valid. For syllogism to be valid in respect to reality, the premises must reflect reality.

The premises of Kalam reflect the 11th century presuppositions of its author with respect to the scientific understanding of the day, which was incomplete. And that's what you are attempting to do with Kalam. You are casting the 11th century presuppositions about what Universe is on our present understanding of that concept.

Really? This is a strange view indeed. I know of no scientist that would say the universe is nothing. What do cosmologists spend their time studying and investigating then, if the universe is nothing?

This is where you need a bit more reading to do. Universe is a concept that we use as a communication tool. It's not a "thing", just like freedom and justice is not a thing.

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2011/08/23/139875744/defining-the-universe-harder-than-you-think

That is not how cosmologists define "universe". Even if they did, you are still wrong, for a concept is not nothing, but something.

Concept is not the same "something" that it points to. It's a model of something. In case of the Universe, it's not a definitive model that has limits. It's an "open ended" model that includes concepts that we may know very little about.

Thus, lumping all of that into a single "thing" and then treating it like it can have causal relationship as that "thing" is not and can't be justified.

When scientists say "Universe had a beginning" they are not using it in the same way you phrase Kalam. They have a set of possible models, and all of these models include "something" in the beginning.

Again, you have some reading to do:

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2011/08/23/139875744/defining-the-universe-harder-than-you-think

Nothing can cause itself to come into being. This notion is logically incoherent, whether you are speaking of the universe, or anything for that matter. If you want to dismiss an appeal to logic as an appeal to an "unjustified assumption" then that is fine. I appeal to logic, you dismiss it.

Logic is irrelevant when your premises don't reflect reality.

For example:

1) All people from planet Crypton can fly
2) Superman is from planet Crypton
3) Therefore Superman can fly

The above syllogism is logical. It doesn't reflect reality.

When you inject unjustified assumptions that don't reflect reality, your conclusions will not get you anywhere.

Hence, when you speak about "nothing can cause itself into existence" you are talking nonsense, because it's an incoherent statement that no one is ever posing in science.

1) Universe is not a thing. It's a collection of things.
2) When we are talking about causes in philosophy or science... there are four typical causes recognized:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

Something can cause itself into being something else in terms of being efficient cause and when we are talking about aggregate concept of something. For example, a US as a country can cause itself into splitting into independent states, when we are talking about the aggregate concept "USA" and independent entities inside it that would perform the mechanism of cause-effect relationship.

Thus, your "Universe can't cause itself into being" is missing the point of:

1) What a Universe is - everything that we define as "existence".
2) What would the efficient causal relationship be in such case - the underlying structure of the aggregate causing the progression into something else.

When scientists say "Universe had a beginning" they say it in the same kind of breath as "electrons spin". It's a conceptual language that describe certain dynamics of the model of reality. It's not the same as the model in terms of the literal meaning. It doesn't mean that there was literally nothing. It was just a different kind of something.

Nowhere in reality do we have universes coming into being either. The big bang was a unique event and comparing it to an effect we observe as the result of some material cause is to compare apples to oranges.

What else can you compare to? I'm just curious. Are you attempting to circularly inject something that you've yet to justify as an Orange in this discussion?

Sure we do. If someone is broke, we say they are penniless. Much of what you have said is baseless. I can think of hundreds of adjectives that are used in meaningful sentences which describe what something is by conveying what it is not.

You are shifting the context to known things from unknown things.

We know someone is penniless, because it's a verifiable evaluation of reality. We can look at someone's bank account, etc. It's a specific adjective that refers to a specific state.

What you are doing is attempting to describe the unknown from the position of opposite of the reality that we observe... and you are defining that unknown in a way that we generally define things that doesn't exist.

Spaceless, timeless, and immaterial denote lack of reality. For example, darkeness is not a concept that exists in reality. It's a concept that's contingent on our idea of visible light. Thus, it's a concept that communicates absence of the visible light.

The same with "nothing". Nothing is not a coherent concept when we attempt to find it in reality. It's a contingent concept that communicates certain lack of things. It depends on "things" to even make sense, hence it's not a concept that can be logically applied to everything. Without something, nothing wouldn't make sense.

Hence, you are merely replacing material cause with God, and then you claim that God is an exception to every logical stipulation that you are claiming is necessary. And you don't explain as to how that can be possible. You merely say that it's necessary, but you are not showing as to why that necessity has to translate to a God instead of what we already have.

The president is not the cause of the universe though.

That wasn't my point. My point was that we don't describe non-specific things in terms of which they are not. We end up with non-description.

Saying that some cause (non-specific) is immaterial (non-description), timeless (non-description) and spaceless (non-description)....

You are not describing anything in particular. So, changing a label to "God" doesn't really help in this instance.

Non-existent things have no description, there is nothing to describe. So to say we "describe non-existing things" is nonsensical.

Non-existing things can exist as imaginary concepts. These wouldn't exist in reality, but would exist as concepts in one's imagination of reality.

You can't. Now you see how silly it is to posit some eternally existing impersonal force as the cause of the universe.

Again, you are fudging the definition of the Universe here. Universe is defined as everything that exists. It's an ever-shifting concept that communicates both known and unknown existence, including the things that we can't observe or observe indirectly (black holes, dark matter, etc).

Thus saying whatever Universe can or can't cause is quite pointless. We don't yet know what was "before", and that's the honest and current status that we supply with some conceptual hypothesis, of which God is one of. But Kalam is a poor justification of God concept as a logical necessity, because it simply doesn't flow as a logical necessity as it fails to justify the premises it makes.

I can go premise by premise if you'd like.