The universe with no need of God

[anonymous person]

Tell me why you reject premise 1 which states:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

 

[devolved]

Tell me why you reject premise 1 which states:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

The semantics of "begins to exist" is problematic, because whatever "begins to exist" in our reality is always of compound nature, or fractured nature.

So you are dealing with beginning of concepts that point to some re-arrangement of already existing stuff.

For example. If I gave you a bucket of legos and you build a car from the pieces... that car as a conceptual entity "begins to exist". BUT every piece that makes that car up didn't begin to exist. A mere arrangement of the car begins to exist... and we label that arrangement conceptually. If someone take a gas torch and slices the car into pieces, then car ceices to exist as an arrangement. BUT the parts that make up the car are all still there.

So your semantics of "begins to exist" is a conceptual semantics. It's not dealing with actual matter beginning to exist.

You then go on and switch semantics to "everything from nothing" .... which is not a justified context of that semantics.
The premise is not false in proper semantics of concepts. But when you bait and switch it to semantics of matter that builds up these concepts.... you are not doing so justifiably. Because you have no example of Matter beginning to exist in premise 2 , and you are appealing to composite arrangement in premise 1.

The only examples of matter beginning to exist that we have are virtual particles in QM, or transition state between energy and matter. The virtual particles appear to have indeterminate cause... or no cause we can observe.

It may be forgivable for Kalam in 11th century... who didn't have a solid physical sciences framework to rely on, and may have been making an observation, although fudging conceptual with physical.

What would be rationalization for you doing the same in 21st century?

 

[anonymous person]

The semantics of "begins to exist" is problematic, because whatever "begins to exist" in our reality is always of compound nature, or fractured nature.

So you are dealing with beginning of concepts that point to some re-arrangement of already existing stuff.

For example. If I gave you a bucket of legos and you build a car from the pieces... that car as a conceptual entity "begins to exist". BUT every piece that makes that car up didn't begin to exist. A mere arrangement of the car begins to exist... and we label that arrangement conceptually. If someone take a gas torch and slices the car into pieces, then car ceices to exist as an arrangement. BUT the parts that make up the car are all still there.

So your semantics of "begins to exist" is a conceptual semantics. It's not dealing with actual matter beginning to exist.

You then go on and switch semantics to "everything from nothing" .... which is not a justified context of that semantics.
The premise is not false in proper semantics of concepts. But when you bait and switch it to semantics of matter that builds up these concepts.... you are not doing so justifiably. Because you have no example of Matter beginning to exist in premise 2 , and you are appealing to composite arrangement in premise 1.

The only examples of matter beginning to exist that we have are virtual particles in QM, or transition state between energy and matter. The virtual particles appear to have indeterminate cause... or no cause we can observe.

It may be forgivable for Kalam in 11th century... who didn't have a solid physical sciences framework to rely on, and may have been making an observation, although fudging conceptual with physical.

What would be rationalization for you doing the same in 21st century?

My rationale would be that something cannot come from nothing.

My rationale would be that the causal principle is not a physical law, but a metaphysical principle.

My rationale would be that the causal principle is one of the pillars of modern science.

My rationale is that the causal principle is always verified in our experience and never falsified.

My rationale is that stuff just doesn't pop into thin air without any causal conditions whatsoever.

My rationale would be that regardless of whether or not it is the 11th century or the 21st century, from nothing, nothing comes.

You surely agree with all of the above correct?

 

[devolved]

I'd like to point out that you haven't addressed what I've pointed out as a bait and switch problem with your scenario. So, please address it.

1) You are first talking about "beginning to exist" as an arrangement
2) You are then switching the context to the pieces of that arrangement beginning to exist, and you are doing so without any justification using the observation from #1 to imply that pieces must also began to exist ... when you are talking about mere re-arrangement.

So, which one are you talking about when you say "begin to exist" in either case? Are you talking about re-arrangement of existing stuff, or what other option do you have? If you pose the other option, then you are essentially propose an "ex-nihilo" scenario that you then say is logically impossible.

Please address this one first.

My rationale would be that something cannot come from nothing.

AND YET, you then say that God cause nothing to become something . Which one is it? Can something come from nothing, or not? Try to be consistent in your arguments.

I actually agree that something can't come from nothing, and I stay consistent. I propose that there always was something. We can't conclusively tell what it is from what we currently observe, and that's current scientific consensus.

My rationale would be that the causal principle is not a physical law, but a metaphysical principle.

What is a metaphysical principle, and how would you known that when all you can observe is physical reality? What rational do you have for proposing causality as a "metaphysical principle" since we only observe physical reality?

My rationale would be that the causal principle is one of the pillars of modern science.

Sure. Modern PHYSICAL science. Not modern "metaphysical science". Modern physical science deals with explaining causal activity of matter existing now, and building models about explaining the earliest stages of that causal activity. It can't say anything of what came prior to that beyond some conceptual model. You are reading into something that science doesn't say.

My rationale is that the causal principle is always verified in our experience and never falsified.

Not really. I agree that it's never falsified, and not sure that we ever can. But in case of virtual particles, we can't verify such principle to be the case. So, we can't always verify it. We can imply it via generalization, but we can't always verify it.

My rationale is that stuff just doesn't pop into thin air without any causal conditions whatsoever.

My rational is that there isn't example of stuff "Popping into air" at all. We have no viable example of "ex-nihilo". Even with virtual particles, there may be a case that these borrow energy from the environment and it's not enough to make it into a particle, so they only exist for a very short blip of a time.

You then ignore the common sense observation and say "things can pop into air, as long as these are caused to do so" when you have zero evidence that such can be the case.

My rationale would be that regardless of whether or not it is the 11th century or the 21st century, from nothing, nothing comes.

Again, I agree. Science agrees. You seem to think that it doesn't.

Science proposes that there always was something, based on what we actually observe about causality.

You think that at some point of time there was nothing. No space, no matter and no energy in any form. So, you place God in that middle of that nowhere, and you assume that God must have cause everything from nothing.

How? You haven't justified it. You merely deemed it necessary to validate your own presupposition.

Kalam is not a scientific argument. Kalam is apologetics argument. It's an attempt to defend God's existence by twisting words. It's not an attempt to observe the reality and see where it naturally leads to.

In science, when we don't know something we actually say "we don't know yet, but here are several possibilities based on observable data". That's what we do in science.

For example, when we observe quantum entanglement, there are over 17! potential interpretations. And none of the interpretations holds over 50% consensus among all theoretical physicists.

That's what science is in terms of what we don't know yet. It's a collective of competing ideas about what could be as various conceptual models.

You surely agree with all of the above correct?

I don't agree with every premise above, although there is some overlap in agreement.

You haven't answered my question though.

What is your justification for switching the context of "begins to exist" from arrangement of something to "ex-nihilo"? I'd love to know your rational for that apart from scattered statements above that don't address this question specifically.

Please answer specifically, because if you can't even get past the very first premise, then how are you planning to get through the rest of the argument?

 

[devolved]

In fact, I'll make it very simple for you.

1) In terms of observable reality that you describe in the premise #1. What do you mean by "beginning to exist"? Do you mean?

a) Re-arrangement of existing pieces into something else

or

b) Ex-nihilo type of event

2) In terms of going to the premise #2 what do you mean by "began to exist"?

a) Re-arrangement of the existing pieces

or

b) Ex-nihilo type of event


If your answer to #1 is A, and #2 is B, then you are switching context and talking about apples in #1 and oranges in #2 and then claiming that it's a viable and consistent syllogism because #1 and #2 are comparable, when these are apples and oranges.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In fact, I'll make it very simple for you.

1) In terms of observable reality that you describe in the premise #1. What do you mean by "beginning to exist"? Do you mean?

a) Re-arrangement of existing pieces into something else

or

b) Ex-nihilo type of event

2) In terms of going to the premise #2 what do you mean by "began to exist"?

a) Re-arrangement of the existing pieces

or

b) Ex-nihilo type of event


If your answer to #1 is A, and #2 is B, then you are switching context and talking about apples in #1 and oranges in #2 and then claiming that it's a viable and consistent syllogism because #1 and #2 are comparable, when these are apples and oranges.

That's a great way of exposing the flaw in the argument.

You could also simply demand a rigorous definition of causality, and that will debunk the Kalam argument.

If we go with Aristotle's definition of causality, then for every cause there is an efficient cause and a material cause. The efficient cause is the thing that does the acting, and the material cause is the thing that gets acted on. So for example, if a sculptor makes a statue, then the sculptor (or his act of chiseling) is the efficient cause and the marble block is the material cause. Every instance of causality that we know of conforms to this. But if the Big Bang truly came from nothing, then what did God act on? Did he act on himself? Certainly not. Did he act on nothing? You cannot act on nothing. You can't do anything to nothing. What else was there lying around for God to act on? The apologist must insist that God didn't need to act on anything. But if that's the case, what did he do? If he didn't act on anything, then he did not do anything. If God did not do anything, then he is not the cause of the Big Bang. If we take the apologist's argument to its logical conclusion, then, from God's perspective, the universe came out of nothing for no reason. Thus the Kalam argument shuts itself down.

Another method of defining causality is something I'll reiterate from the OP:

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot have been brought about via causality.




I think the Kalam Cosmological Argument is just another dead issue because no apologist has ever refuted anything I've said here.

 

[dcalling]

In fact, I'll make it very simple for you.

1) In terms of observable reality that you describe in the premise #1. What do you mean by "beginning to exist"? Do you mean?

a) Re-arrangement of existing pieces into something else

or

b) Ex-nihilo type of event

2) In terms of going to the premise #2 what do you mean by "began to exist"?

a) Re-arrangement of the existing pieces

or

b) Ex-nihilo type of event


If your answer to #1 is A, and #2 is B, then you are switching context and talking about apples in #1 and oranges in #2 and then claiming that it's a viable and consistent syllogism because #1 and #2 are comparable, when these are apples and oranges.

Or it can be said that "Everything that exists has a cause".

In another thread, me and another were having a discussion, about the statement of a CERN scientist. He is an atheist, and is amazed about how the parameters of the universe is so properly adjusted, and that even if you change the parameters just a little bit, the universe as we know it won't exist. But he refuse to acknowledge that there is a God, and instead, proposed a multiverse theory. My argument is it take a greater leap of faith to believe in such theory then to believe in God.

 

[dcalling]

That's a great way of exposing the flaw in the argument.

You could also simply demand a rigorous definition of causality, and that will debunk the Kalam argument.

If we go with Aristotle's definition of causality, then for every cause there is an efficient cause and a material cause. The efficient cause is the thing that does the acting, and the material cause is the thing that gets acted on. So for example, if a sculptor makes a statue, then the sculptor (or his act of chiseling) is the efficient cause and the marble block is the material cause. Every instance of causality that we know of conforms to this. But if the Big Bang truly came from nothing, then what did God act on? Did he act on himself? Certainly not. Did he act on nothing? You cannot act on nothing. You can't do anything to nothing. What else was there lying around for God to act on? The apologist must insist that God didn't need to act on anything. But if that's the case, what did he do? If he didn't act on anything, then he did not do anything. If God did not do anything, then he is not the cause of the Big Bang. If we take the apologist's argument to its logical conclusion, then, from God's perspective, the universe came out of nothing for no reason. Thus the Kalam argument shuts itself down.

Another method of defining causality is something I'll reiterate from the OP:

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot have been brought about via causality.




I think the Kalam Cosmological Argument is just another dead issue because no apologist has ever refuted anything I've said here.

Here is one example, in physics there is a value (don't know the English term for it but I am sure you know what I am talking about), that keeps increasing, everything is going from orderly to chaos, all the energy are going from concentrated to state of dispersion. So how did everything come into been?

 

[devolved]

Or it can be said that "Everything that exists has a cause".

Does God exist?

In another thread, me and another were having a discussion, about the statement of a CERN scientist. He is an atheist, and is amazed about how the parameters of the universe is so properly adjusted, and that even if you change the parameters just a little bit, the universe as we know it won't exist. But he refuse to acknowledge that there is a God, and instead, proposed a multiverse theory. My argument is it take a greater leap of faith to believe in such theory then to believe in God.

You seem to pushing a subjective opinion as an argument without providing any rationale for doing so.

 

[devolved]

Here is one example, in physics there is a value (don't know the English term for it but I am sure you know what I am talking about), that keeps increasing, everything is going from orderly to chaos, all the energy are going from concentrated to state of dispersion. So how did everything come into been?

Why would you present example of something you clearly don't understand?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Here is one example, in physics there is a value (don't know the English term for it but I am sure you know what I am talking about), that keeps increasing, everything is going from orderly to chaos, all the energy are going from concentrated to state of dispersion. So how did everything come into been?

I believe you are referring to entropy and the fact that entropy was initially at a minimum and is asymptotically approaching its maximum.

Entropy is a measure of time, at least in one model, and its minimum denotes the t=0 event. You seem to be asking how the t=0 event occurred. I think I explained my position on that in the OP.

 

[dcalling]

Does God exist?

God is the cause of God

You seem to pushing a subjective opinion as an argument without providing any rationale for doing so.

The existence (or non-existance) of God can't be proved with any rationale.

 

[dcalling]

I believe you are referring to entropy and the fact that entropy was initially at a minimum and is asymptotically approaching its maximum.

Entropy is a measure of time, at least in one model, and its minimum denotes the t=0 event. You seem to be asking how the t=0 event occurred. I think I explained my position on that in the OP.

Time always exists, just like God. Where is t=0? There is no t=0 just like there is no t=-1.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Time always exists, just like God. Where is t=0? There is no t=0 just like there is no t=-1.

You're even more confused about cosmology than you are about evolution. Theists and atheists alike agree on a t=0 event. Your rejection of a t=0 event is nonsensical, and worse than that, such a state of affairs would make your deity unnecessary even by the reckoning of theists. The interval (0, infinity) is isomorphic to (-infinity, infinity) and you already volunteer the assertion that time exists independent of God. This sets the stage for the classical (and defunct) model of an eternal universe. Hence theists love to accept the t=0 event, as [0, infinity) is not isomorphic to these two.

 

[dcalling]

You're even more confused about cosmology than you are about evolution. Theists and atheists alike agree on a t=0 event. Your rejection of a t=0 event is nonsensical, and worse than that, such a state of affairs would make your deity unnecessary even by the reckoning of theists. The interval (0, infinity) is isomorphic to (-infinity, infinity) and you already volunteer the assertion that time exists independent of God. This sets the stage for the classical (and defunct) model of an eternal universe. Hence theists love to accept the t=0 event, as [0, infinity) is not isomorphic to these two.

What is your definition of t=0 event? Does time exist before t=0 event?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What is your definition of t=0 event?

The beginning of the universe.

Does time exist before t=0 event?

No.

Please read the OP. These questions were already addressed there.

 

[dcalling]

The beginning of the universe.



No.

Please read the OP. These questions were already addressed there.

How do you define the "begining"?

 

[devolved]

God is the cause of God

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

The existence (or non-existance) of God can't be proved with any rationale.

I understand that there's a temptation to hide God in "unprovable", but we are not talking about "proving". When we are talking about "proof" or "proving", we are rather talking about evidence support, and not something that's a 100% without a doubt conclusive.

In the scope of our experience, our experience is what matters when it comes to deriving as to what may or may not exist within the scope of our experience. What exists outside of the scope of our experience is very much like the things that don't exist.

For example, is there intelligent alien life on other planets? Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know. It's not in the scope of our experience currently, so it's fun to consider possibilities in sci-fi movies and fiction, but when it comes to our everyday life decisions... we don't really care that much.

Similar thing with God concept. If God exists, then it should be in the scope of our experience to be relevant, and it should be viable in some conclusive manner. Otheriwise... why should anyone care. Most of the tales about God are structured in a matter that's "I promise you it was so in the past" and "I promise you it will be so in the future". There are some vague "I promise you, God healed my cancer" type of things today, but it's rather inconclusive.

So, if we replace such claims of God with any other claims, let's say ancient aliens... "I promise you ancient aliens visited this planet" and "I promise you they will come back in the future".... why should anyone believe to the point of altering their everyday life and culture to revolve around 1st century morality?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

How do you define the "begining"?

Can you just tell me what your position is and where you want to take this line of questioning? You seem to reject certain things which are not supposed to be a point in question. Your position is so alien that I need you to spell it out for me.

 

[dcalling]

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



I understand that there's a temptation to hide God in "unprovable", but we are not talking about "proving". When we are talking about "proof" or "proving", we are rather talking about evidence support, and not something that's a 100% without a doubt conclusive.

In the scope of our experience, our experience is what matters when it comes to deriving as to what may or may not exist within the scope of our experience. What exists outside of the scope of our experience is very much like the things that don't exist.

For example, is there intelligent alien life on other planets? Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know. It's not in the scope of our experience currently, so it's fun to consider possibilities in sci-fi movies and fiction, but when it comes to our everyday life decisions... we don't really care that much.

Similar thing with God concept. If God exists, then it should be in the scope of our experience to be relevant, and it should be viable in some conclusive manner. Otheriwise... why should anyone care. Most of the tales about God are structured in a matter that's "I promise you it was so in the past" and "I promise you it will be so in the future". There are some vague "I promise you, God healed my cancer" type of things today, but it's rather inconclusive.

So, if we replace such claims of God with any other claims, let's say ancient aliens... "I promise you ancient aliens visited this planet" and "I promise you they will come back in the future".... why should anyone believe to the point of altering their everyday life and culture to revolve around 1st century morality?

In my initial interests to computers back a long time ago, I found it is impossible to design a computer that has real creativity, that can have feelings. If we can't do it nature can't evolve it, so there must be something that is not material to this world, that is my initial concept of God. Then I read about how one should "Love your neighbor as yourself", that we are all sinners and only God can save us, if we all held such views this world will be a much better place, and that concept is not just 1st century, it is eternal.