The universe with no need of God

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can't say "before" is undefined, there is definitely something in "before" right?

It is undefined at the start of time. There is no "before the start".
Just like there is no "north of the north pole".

You can't go further then the edge.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, my point is just iterate through a list of possible ways of something (and add some randomness to it) is not intelligence. Nature might got more of the ways because of time, but it can't compare to us who create with our own will at all.

And in any case, we have no model for feelings to exist neighter self awareness. Long before computers scientists has come up very complex models for all kinds of algorithms, and many only saw use after we got computers. But none has come up with anything such as self awareness. As an engineer to another engineer, you are trying to deceive yourself if you can't see that one. No matter how many lines of code are there, no matter how complex the state machine is, it does not have self awareness nor feelings.

Argument from ignorance.

There were a lot of things we didn't understand yesterday, but wich are understood today.

Pointing to something we don't understand today, to then say "so therefor....", is nothing but an argument from ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But the problems is before I was born, there is still time.

Because before you were born, the universe existed.

You are arguing that before big bang there is no time.

Because time is a property of the space time continuum.
When that continuum doesn't exist, neither does its properties.
Seems kind of obvious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why is that not in dispute? Which scientist has proven that time does not exist before the big bang?

If you are relating to Einstein's theory of relativity that mass slows down time, it is just a slow down, not stopped. I am very curious about what evidence you have on "Time does not exist before the Big Bang"

For the same reason that the space of the universe doesn't exist, when the universe itself doesn't exist.

It's called the space-time continuum. Time is a thing that exists within the universe.
If X is a property of Y... and you remove Y from existence... what happens to its property X, do you think?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Others have rightly identified the false assumptions on the main portion of your post, I would like to deal with your issues in the footnote portion.

"Footnote: I will refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument here so it cannot be said that I'm ignoring it.

The argument asserts that there must have been a cause for the t=0 event. The problem is lies in the definition of causality:

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."



Certainly an educated person would recognize something is wrong with this formulation as it not only denies God as having a causal role but attempts to create an argument that excludes all possible causation whatsoever.

P1 system~region in space (since the standard model suggest space is created by the Big Bang, it is impossible to have a system outside of this universe).

P2 State ~ arrangement of matter and energy (same objection as P1 no Big Bang = no matter, energy, and otherwise existing things).

Causality therefore couldn't have happened at all by anything.


So let's look at the Kalam Cosmological argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.

2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Notice how obvious the first premise is.

"It is based on the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come out of nothing. Hence, any argument for the principle is apt to be less obvious than the principle itself. Even the great skeptic David Hume admitted that he never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something might come into existence without a cause; he only denied that one could prove the obviously true causal principle.29 With regard to the universe, if originally there were absolutely nothing-no God, no space, no time-, then how could the universe possibly come to exist? The truth of the principle ex nihilo, nihil fit is so obvious that I think we are justified in foregoing an elaborate defense of the argument's first premiss." (See link below)

For over 2300 years we have had a description of causation offered to us by Aristotle:

· Efficient causation, which is the cause that brings into being its effect – the productive cause of some thing.

· Material causation, which is the stuff out of which some thing is made.

· Formal causation, which is a sort of pattern or information content of the effect.

· Final causation, which is the end or the goal or purpose for which some thing is created.

By equivocating efficient cause with material cause the OP destroys causation of the universe altogether as a possibility (oops).

A simple fallacy which does serious worldview damage if not caught early.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe#ixzz4M2UeVmS4

Hope this helps.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument fails miserably. It uses equivocation. Observe:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.

Now I'll make insertions for clarity:

1. Based on observation, whatever begins to exist has a material and efficient cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist out of nothing with no material cause.

Premises 1 and 2 are unrelated. You implied this yourself in citing Aristotle.

 

[Uber Genius]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument fails miserably. It uses equivocation. Observe:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.

Now I'll make insertions for clarity:

1. Based on observation, whatever begins to exist has a material and efficient cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist out of nothing with no material cause.

Hmm
Spoken as someone ignorant of the Kalam its defense. Logic in general and fallacy (this is so ironic as to cause me to laugh out loud). You misrepresent the Kalam as using equivocation which it doesn't, then restated it (actually producing the fallacy of equivocation) making your bastardized version fallacious bit not doing any injury to the. Kalam. Which continues to be successfully defended according to the top atheist philosophers, for the last 37 years!!!

Why should we let you demand a "material cause" to a universe, when by definition the beginning of which demand no existence of material causes?

Very tricky, but no a problem to any who have completed even a philosophy 101 coarse at their local junior college.

Premises 1 and 2 are unrelated.

mo·dus po·nens
ˌmōdəs ˈpōnenz/
noun
the rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.

Everything that begins to exist = P
Has a cause = Q

The universe begins to exist - fulfills P
Therefore - It has a cause Q

Strange that you would describe one of the most basic forms of logical argument as, "unrelated!"

This lack of basic knowledge about logic may explain the statement, "The Kalam argument is no good."

Apparently on this type of thinking, "all dogs are mammals, a German Shepard is a type of dog therefore a. German Shepard is a mammal is "unrelated," at best.

More to the point, the. Kalam has been conceived traditionally (al-Ghazali) that if the universe never began to exist, then there has been an infinite number of past events prior to today. But, he argued, an infinite number of things cannot exist. Ghazali recognized that a potentially infinite number of things could exist, but he denied that an actually infinite number of things could exist.

Most arguments in support of premise 1 are focused on the impossibility of an actual infinite number of preceding events.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles-the-kalam-cosmological-argument#ixzz4MKNLvBLK

William Lane Craig (author of the modern version) defends that premise with the following three arguments:

1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don’t bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the unuiverse. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.

William. Lane Craig has been defending it since 1979.

World-class Atheists philosophers (unlike the New Atheists), like Michael Martin claim, "Craig's revised argument is "among the most sophisticated and well argued in contemporary theological philosophy."

Another top atheist philosopher, Quinten Smith says, "a count of the articles in the philosophy journals shows that more articles have been published about Craig’s defense of the Kalam argument than have been published about any other philosopher’s contemporary formulation of an argument for God’s existence."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles-the-kalam-cosmological-argument#ixzz4MKJs60io

More study, less propaganda.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hmm
Spoken as someone ignorant of the Kalam its defense. Logic in general and fallacy (this is so ironic as to cause me to laugh out loud). You misrepresent the Kalam as using equivocation which it doesn't, then restated it (actually producing the fallacy of equivocation) making your bastardized version fallacious bit not doing any injury to the. Kalam. Which continues to be successfully defended according to the top atheist philosophers, for the last 37 years!!!

Nice intro.

Why should we let you demand a "material cause" to a universe, when by definition the beginning of which demand no existence of material causes?

To expose your equivocation.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause(a).

2. The universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause(b).

Cause(a) is creatio ex materia. Cause(b) is creatio ex nihilo. They are not the same thing and therefore you are equivocating.

Do you suggest that because everything that begins to exist is created ex materia, it follows that the universe was created ex nihilo?

I see a non sequitur that only vanishes when you equivocate, and I see an argument that vanishes when you eliminate the fallacies.

Very tricky, but no a problem to any who have completed even a philosophy 101 coarse at their local junior college.

What is a philosophy coarse? Is it rough philosophy? Sounds brutal, I'm in.

mo·dus po·nens
ˌmōdəs ˈpōnenz/
noun
the rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.

Everything that begins to exist = P
Has a cause = Q

The universe begins to exist - fulfills P
Therefore - It has a cause Q

Strange that you would describe one of the most basic forms of logical argument as, "unrelated!"

This lack of basic knowledge about logic may explain the statement, "The Kalam argument is no good."

Apparently on this type of thinking, "all dogs are mammals, a German Shepard is a type of dog therefore a. German Shepard is a mammal is "unrelated," at best.

Your argument is more like, "Cars need at least one window. A window is a computer operating system with a graphical user interface. Therefore, cars need at least one computer operating system with a graphical user interface."

More to the point, the. Kalam has been conceived traditionally (al-Ghazali) that if the universe never began to exist, then there has been an infinite number of past events prior to today. But, he argued, an infinite number of things cannot exist. Ghazali recognized that a potentially infinite number of things could exist, but he denied that an actually infinite number of things could exist.

He denied it? So what?

Disproving the existence of a physical infinite is proving a negative. You can't prove a negative in reality. You can only prove a negative in logic and mathematics.

Why did you tell me to take a brutal philosophy "coarse" if you think we can prove negative claims about reality? I think it's quite clear who's lacking in education.

Most arguments in support of premise 1 are focused on the impossibility of an actual infinite number of preceding events.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles-the-kalam-cosmological-argument#ixzz4MKNLvBLK

Ok so most of your arguments are based on the assumption that you can prove a negative. Oh, do go on...

William Lane Craig (author of the modern version) defends that premise with the following three arguments:

1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

I haven't examined nothingness so I don't know how it behaves. But I know there are no rules governing nothingness. I know that if the rule, "Out of nothing, nothing comes," is in place then we already don't have nothingness.

Why don't Eskimos pop into existence? Because the vacuum of space is not nothing. Consider the universe and all that potentially exists beyond it. Those are places that are nothingness and thus the analysis of nothingness does not apply in said realities.

2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don’t bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!

S p a c e

i s

n o t

n o t h i n g

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the unuiverse. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.

Common experience has nothing to do with nothingness. Any entity that exists, in this universe or elsewhere, deity or otherwise, has had no dealings with nothingness.

William. Lane Craig has been defending it since 1979.

Then it must be true?

World-class Atheists philosophers (unlike the New Atheists), like Michael Martin claim, "Craig's revised argument is "among the most sophisticated and well argued in contemporary theological philosophy."

Another top atheist philosopher, Quinten Smith says, "a count of the articles in the philosophy journals shows that more articles have been published about Craig’s defense of the Kalam argument than have been published about any other philosopher’s contemporary formulation of an argument for God’s existence."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles-the-kalam-cosmological-argument#ixzz4MKJs60io

More study, less propaganda.

So essentially one of those atheists says it's the theist's best argument and the other says it's their most used argument. So...? I think fine tuning is the theist's best argument. Does that make me a theist?

 

[Mediaeval]

Not to interrupt the exchange between brothers NV and UG, but I noticed that the OP and all 19 pages of subsequent responses assumed philosophical realism as opposed to idealism. As a result, the thread got under way and continued without ever proving or otherwise establishing that the universe under discussion has an objective existence, independent of mind. Without that, the assumption of realism is arbitrary. Granted, it is usually acceptable to make some assumptions for argument’s sake, but this thread is about ultimate reality where basal assumptions make all the difference. Also not addressed directly (though once it was obliquely) is the foundational question of whether or not knowledge is possible on this subject (not to mention other subjects).

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Not to interrupt the exchange between brothers NV and UG, but I noticed that the OP and all 19 pages of subsequent responses assumed philosophical realism as opposed to idealism. As a result, the thread got under way and continued without ever proving or otherwise establishing that the universe under discussion has an objective existence, independent of mind. Without that, the assumption of realism is arbitrary. Granted, it is usually acceptable to make some assumptions for argument’s sake, but this thread is about ultimate reality where basal assumptions make all the difference. Also not addressed directly (though once it was obliquely) is the foundational question of whether or not knowledge is possible on this subject (not to mention other subjects).

When I say that I'm a nihilist, I mean that I find epistemology to be vacuous. I'm not the type of nihilist that denies or questions existence.

 

[dcalling]

For the same reason that the space of the universe doesn't exist, when the universe itself doesn't exist.

It's called the space-time continuum. Time is a thing that exists within the universe.
If X is a property of Y... and you remove Y from existence... what happens to its property X, do you think?

So here is the question, if time does not exist (i.e. everything is at absolute still), what caused time to come into existence?

 

[anonymous person]

So here is the question, if time does not exist (i.e. everything is at absolute still), what caused time to come into existence?

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So here is the question, if time does not exist (i.e. everything is at absolute still), what caused time to come into existence?

First of all, "caused" would be the wrong word to use, as that word has temporal implications. It requires time.

Secondly, I don't know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

In the beginning, the TagliatelliMonster layed a cosmic egg. TagliatelliMonster's handbook to the universe 1:1.

That statement has the exact same explanatory power as yours.

 

[anonymous person]

In the beginning, the TagliatelliMonster layed a cosmic egg. TagliatelliMonster's handbook to the universe 1:1.

That statement has the exact same explanatory power as yours.

Maybe you could explain why you think this?

 

[dcalling]

First of all, "caused" would be the wrong word to use, as that word has temporal implications. It requires time.

Secondly, I don't know.

I know, but remember I believed God by faith? So to me caused is the correct word to use, just like you believe there must be some unknown reason time starts and can't even be described by word

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe you could explain why you think this?

Because it's just an unverifiable, unjustifiable, unfalsifiable assertion which clarifies nothing and in fact only raises even more questions then it answers (it answers none, by the way).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know, but remember I believed God by faith?

So? I don't care what you believe "by faith".
Since it makes no difference at all... That's kind of the thing with "faith". The undetectable and the non-existant look very much alike, you know.

So to me caused is the correct word to use

It's self-contradictory though.
If time doesn't exist, then no things take place that require time to exist.

Just like I can't be married, if I'm a bachelor.

just like you believe there must be some unknown reason time starts and can't even be described by word

What a weird thing to say....
When I don't know or understand something, I just say that I don't know or understand something. That's fine.
It's called being honest.

 

[rjs330]

In the beginning, the TagliatelliMonster layed a cosmic egg. TagliatelliMonster's handbook to the universe 1:1.

That statement has the exact same explanatory power as yours.

Interesting. I've never heard of that book. Can you get it on Amazon?

 

[rjs330]

Because it's just an unverifiable, unjustifiable, unfalsifiable assertion which clarifies nothing and in fact only raises even more questions then it answers (it answers none, by the way).

Actually it answers everything. But it does take someone with an open heart.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Psalms 19:1 ESV
http://bible.com/59/psa.19.1.ESV

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Interesting. I've never heard of that book. Can you get it on Amazon?

Good job missing the point.