The Causal God Gambit

[remez]

Big Bang cosmology doesn't tell us what was the nature of the origin of the universe, which is the point of contention. It tells us the universe has been expanding for a certain time, but that's not the same as "the universe had a beginning" as in "began from absolute nothingness and with an outside cause."

Make your case that a past eternal material universe is more plausible.

BGV doesn't help because it assumes classical spacetime.

Make your case that there is a better approach. I’m tired of wild unnamed speculations being offered as defeaters. Simply inferring their existence does not make your case. Name your better approach and defend it. Until you can convince me that one of your speculations is more plausible I’ll reasonably go with the science we have.

Guth himself doesn't believe the universe had a beginning and believes it's eternal.

I know. He is a brilliant man. But for that speculation he is believing against the science without evidence to support that belief. I’m skeptical. For now it is far more reasonable to stick with the science.

 

[remez]

I'm not asserting that the SBBM alone proves God exists.

That is something you keep saying and then judging because it fails therefore the KCA does not have any evidence. That is not the way any argument works.

I'm just stating the The SBBM is exhibit D in a larger case/argument the provides a verdict that God exists.
SBBM is just one piece of evidence in a trail of evidence and reasoning to reach a conclusion.
Thus the SBBM is empirical evidence that supports p2.
I'm not saying one piece of evidence makes the whole case.
Now.......
Remember the context here....
You said these arguments for God's existence did not have any empirical evidence.
I think I have made my case that not only do they provide evidence for support, they rely upon them.

Then present the argument. Noone has presented such a valid argument so be my guest.

The context of the thread was the KCA and LCA. Several pages ago you directly asserted they had no empirical evidence. Just how could you reasonably make that assertion if you did not even know the arguments on the table?

 

[bilby]

P1 - Whatever begins to exist has a cause

This is questionable - the First Law of Thermodynamics says that NOTHING begins to exist ex-nihilo; As we have zero experience of things beginning to exist, we cannot reasonably assert that (if such a thing happened) it would need a cause.

P2 - The universe began to exist

This too is questionable - The word 'universe' has a number of distinctly different meanings, and it is equivocation between these that allows this premise to appear superficially reasonable.

'Universe' can mean 'everything that exists or ever existed'; OR it can mean 'Everything that existed since the Big Bang'; OR it can mean 'those things that exist within our ability to detect'.

It's like the word 'atom' - 'atom' literally means the smallest indivisible part of matter; but it got used to mean something we THOUGHT fit that description, and when it turned out we were wrong, the name had stuck, and we needed a new name for the smallest indivisible part of matter (we ended up with 'quark' for this; It remains to be seen if we will need still further new words in the future).

The word that means what 'universe' used to mean - 'everything that exists or ever existed' is multiverse; This concept includes many universes - theorized but not (yet) detected. They may be sisters of our universe; or daughters, or parents. In sum, they include whatever existed prior to the Big Bang - so the Big Bang may be evidence that the universe began to exist; but it is the multiverse we are actually interested in here, and there is NO evidence that it has a beginning.

So we have no reason to accept that EITHER of these premises is true. The argument fails.

 

[blastula]

Make your case that a past eternal material universe is more plausible.

Sorry, conjecture posing as evidence is the theists' specialty, not mine. I do know that actual cosmologists do have past eternal models, but I have no idea which is more likely. Neither possibility is evidence for theism, anyway.

BGV doesn't help because it assumes classical spacetime.

Make your case that there is a better approach. I’m tired of wild unnamed speculations being offered as defeaters. Simply inferring their existence does not make your case. Name your better approach and defend it.

Better approach than what? Than your mere conjecture and false representation? Using BGV to support the premise is fallacious. All it tells us is "maybe" there was a finite beginning, not that it was likely nor definitely. And even if it did more than that, it still wouldn't help theism.

Until you can convince me that one of your speculations is more plausible I’ll reasonably go with the science we have.

I don't care what you go with. Reality doesn't care. I do care that you misrepresent the science here though.

Guth himself doesn't believe the universe had a beginning and believes it's eternal.

I know. He is a brilliant man. But for that speculation he is believing against the science without evidence to support that belief. I’m skeptical. For now it is far more reasonable to stick with the science.

You are just playing pretend about the science.

 

[abaddon]

abaddon's, Juma and bigfield's last posts finally made me realize that is where we might be talking past one another... You folks were conflating 3 and 1 and by the same reasoning conflating choices 1 and 2 as well. Which lead CC to set up his gambit as a straw man and your assertions that there is no evidence for god's existence.
so...
Hopefully that clears up what I NOW see as our major source of confusion here..

Agree or disagree?

For my part, I never assumed a theist who comes here to argue EoG doesn't have his reasons and evidence, or is necessarily Bible-thumping.

My post about the cultural history of the idea of God was exactly what I said. If you were born in a culture with no concept of God as a part of it, you wouldn't study nature and ever arrive at God as an explanation. The idea “God” exists because of a long lineage in many (not all) cultures/languages and for no other reason. You'd arrive at "cause" but there's no reason that's God. As highly speculative as the multiverse theory is, still it's not so dependent on "let me define my terms" like theism is, and has some math and physics to support it as a plausible contender. More-so than the ancient "spirits" stuff which culminated eventually in a "God", that only culturally associates with "cause".

That's not the same as saying that theists don't think their God hypothesis through (however poorly). I wasn't siding with or against the notion of presuppositionalism. I'm just working out how anyone gets from "cause" to God... If you have a better explanation, you should skip the shit about straw men and scientism and just get to the plausibility of the God Hypothesis. How wrong you think other people are about anything doesn't make God plausible, only a positive argument for EoG will do.

 

[Juma]

post 103

Yes they did. "God" was already there as an cultural alternative.
And besides: why would it matter how they became theists? They didnt became theists on purely rational reasons.

now.............

That is not what presuppositional means.
None of the atheists were PS.
It would be illogical to think so.

I didnt say it did. I explained why they did. They all became theist because they wanted to.
Their personal reasons to believe has nothing to do with this discussion.

So when you said ...

Yes they did. "God" was already there as an cultural alternative.

..... It seemed to me that because they understood God as a possible choice that made them presuppositional.
Presuppositional simply means that they assumed God's existence w/o evidence not that they considered God as a choice.
I know of no atheist that would assume God's existence w/o evidence. That was my point. If an atheist converts to theism it is certainly is not because they were presuppositional.

As i stated. The real reason people go from atheism to theism is never a rational reason. In most cases it is a lie: they never where atheists and in the rest the real reason was an irrational feeling of "there must be something out there", or "there must be a purpose" etc. Combine this with an christian culture and you have your presuposed god.

 

[Juma]

Then present the argument. Noone has presented such a valid argument so be my guest.

The context of the thread was the KCA and LCA. Several pages ago you directly asserted they had no empirical evidence. Just how could you reasonably make that assertion if you did not even know the arguments on the table?

I know these bogus arguments. They are both invalid so thats why I asked for a VALID argument. (Both depends on ignoring the fact that god also meeds to be explained/caused)

 

[Kharakov]

It doesn't address anything prior to this universe's existence.

Yes....?????...I agree. That's why I'm NOT asserting that the SBBM ALONE proves God exists.
I don't get your point there because you seem like you are trying to disagree with me.

That would be too difficult.

If a precursor universe gave arise to our universe, it isn't necessarily detectable from within our universe.

A precursor universe would have to be material. Right?
Also this would, if wild speculation could be true, only kick the can down the road and not solve the need for a cause.

Need? Why does the universe need a cause, or a precursor universe, or an eternal existing framework that harbors consciousnesses of various forms?

 

[atrib]

...none of the theists in this thread is going to provide any empirical evidence to support their position.

Exhibit 'A'
The universe began to exist.
In 2013, The European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years.

Now, shall we believe this evidence or not?
Shall young Earth creationists mimick their atheist counterparts and scream...
"THATS NOT #¥$@!! EVIDENCE"

That is evidence that the universe began to exist about 14 billion years ago. Not evidence that Jesus' clone daddy is the creator of the universe.

 

[atrib]

Folks are dog-piling on remez about natural theology and saying it's not evidence based.
Well the existence of a thing which (science says) came into existence 13.8 B years ago is what gives rise to the line of enquiry as to causation.
The first and second premise of the cosmological argument are theistically neutral.

Now all you have to do is demonstrate that the existence of the universe was caused by Biblegod. Go ahead, I am waiting.

 

[remez]

P1 - Whatever begins to exist has a cause

This is questionable - the First Law of Thermodynamics says that NOTHING begins to exist ex-nihilo; As we have zero experience of things beginning to exist, we cannot reasonably assert that (if such a thing happened) it would need a cause.

Simple error in logic. You have constructed whats known as a faulty inference.....since matter and energy are neither being created or destroyed then we can infer that matter and energy are eternal.

The LoC (law of Conservation) is a physical law of nature, thus it governs within nature. SBBM indicates that nature had a beginning. If your faulty inference is correct then Why don't cosmologists consider this physical law of nature a violation of the SBBM? Really...that is a serious question....Because that is what you are suggesting here. Note also that this is a religiously neutral question.

Thus your faulty inference does not affect the plausibility of p1.

But nice try.

P2 - The universe began to exist

This too is questionable - The word 'universe' has a number of distinctly different meanings, and it is equivocation between these that allows this premise to appear superficially reasonable.

By universe I mean.....the traditional......The universe is all of physical reality.

from wiki....
The Universe is all of time and space and its contents. It includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy. The size of the entire Universe is unknown.

oxford..
the universe All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.

Both good with me.

So we have no reason to accept that EITHER of these premises is true. The argument fails.

You have failed on both accounts to defeat either premise.
Your offered defeaters are for more implausible then the premises themselves.
The argument stands valid.
The best you can claim is that the argument is not compelling.

 

[remez]

Big Bang cosmology doesn't tell us what was the nature of the origin of the universe, which is the point of contention. It tells us the universe has been expanding for a certain time, but that's not the same as "the universe had a beginning" as in "began from absolute nothingness and with an outside cause."

Make your case that a past eternal material universe is more plausible

I do know that actual cosmologists do have past eternal models, but I have no idea which is more likely.

Thanks.
I really enjoyed that.

 

[remez]

For my part, I never assumed a theist who comes here to argue EoG doesn't have his reasons and evidence, or is necessarily Bible-thumping.

Respectfully, I concur that you have been fair to the statement.

My post about the cultural history of the idea of God was exactly what I said.

Yes, but indirectly you helped me understand the (Post 111) 3 and 1 conflation. I'm not saying you committed such. Sorry if I made it sound that way. I just meant that your insights helped me refocus from epistemology to definition.

If you were born in a culture with no concept of God as a part of it, you wouldn't study nature and ever arrive at God as an explanation. You'd arrive at "cause" but there's no reason that's God.

I disagree..... There is definitely reason and that is what these arguments are attempting to provide.
They show that you can have good reason to believe that God exists by reasoning from nature. Back before the science supported them (debatable of course) these arguments were only supported by observation of nature and philosophy. A philosophy that reasoned from nature to God's existence w/o biblical support. Remember the LCA and KCA only identify the need for a necessary being and a first cause. The FTA only concludes that design is the reason for the observed fine-tuning.

As highly speculative as the multiverse theory is, still it's not so dependent on "let me define my terms" like theism is, and has some math and physics to support it as a plausible contender.

If I'm reading you correctly you are trying to say that MV is more plausible than theism with it's math and science support. Fine. That is obviously an assertion to examine.

First I would actually direct the plausibility question directly at the science here. Because the science here is theistically neutral.

So I would assert that the SBBM more plausibly indicates that the universe began to exist, then it's alternative that it is eternal. Therefore the MV is already trying to address a less plausible outcome anyway. Further the BGV renders the MV finite. Why? you might ask.... I would say the same thing Vilenkin did, but he says it so much better so here..........
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/begin...ow.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

I can see no way that any reasonable person would consider that the MV is more plausible than the more plausible indication of the SBBM, that the universe began to exist. Note that was just about the science.

Further, since MV (if it ever were shown to be more plausible) is also more plausibly finite in the past then eternal, it would still have a cause.

Further (FTA concerns) the fine-tuning of that MV would be reasonably far more fine-tuned than just our universe needing explanation for it's fine-tuning.

So that is some of my case against the MV being a more plausible solution.

But by all means you certainly can make your case. I really would like to hear your case. Convince me that MV is more plausible. It is your duty at this point to defend your offered defeater. Your defeater does not invalidate the KCA by default.

If you have a better explanation, you should skip the shit about straw men and scientism and just get to the plausibility of the God Hypothesis.

The straw man concern was directly addressing the OP, thus very reasonable to present.

Scientism is and epistemological method that directly influences plausibly, thus very reasonable to address.

The "God hypothesis" is your generic term meaning what? Given that the context of the thread from the beginning was the NT arguments for God's existence. The LCA, KCA and FTA. These I have directly addressed. So as I see it..... that is exactly what I have been doing. So what is your concern here?

How wrong you think other people are about anything doesn't make God plausible, only a positive argument for EoG will do.

Really?
Please be fair and reasonable. The actual arguments (LCA, KCA and FTA) are themselves positive. If one is defending an argument as I have been doing. Remonstrated above with your MV hypothesis. One must address all defeaters to the argument. Thus I reasonably should show why your possible defeater is deficient. Shouldn't I? Or I'm I just suppose to say "Oh my.....you win. My argument less plausible than your offered defeater."?

Further ....it is now your duty to defend your MV hypothesis as a defeater addressing the "negative" concerns I raised against it. If you can't reasonably show your MV more plausible than the science it is up against, then why should I abandon my reasoning?

 

[remez]

I know these bogus arguments.

You maybe able to quote them. But you obviously don't understand them.
To assert that the KCA infers that the SBBM proves God's existence is way off the mark.

They are both invalid so thats why I asked for a VALID argument.

Hollow proclamation....For you have not provided any case that they are invalid. What you have provided thus far are your objections to what you think the arguments are saying. You are simply defeating what you think is the reasoning. You have repeatedly demonstrated you don't understand the reasoning of the argument. Here is another example............

(Both depends on ignoring the fact that god also meeds to be explained/caused)

The arguments clearly presents the cases that God is explained and does not have a cause. To claim that your issue was ignored, clearly demonstrates that you just didn't understand the arguments to begin with.

 

[remez]

If a precursor universe gave arise to our universe, it isn't necessarily detectable from within our universe.

A precursor universe would have to be material. Right?
Also this would, if wild speculation could be true, only kick the can down the road and not solve the need for a cause.

Need? Why does the universe need a cause, or a precursor universe, or an eternal existing framework that harbors consciousnesses of various forms?

Need? Why does the universe need a cause,

Do you know the argument? Your question seems odd?

or a precursor universe,

What evidence do you have for this precursor universe?

or an eternal existing framework that harbors consciousnesses of various forms?

What?

 

[bilby]

Simple error in logic. You have constructed whats known as a faulty inference.....since matter and energy are neither being created or destroyed then we can infer that matter and energy are eternal.

The LoC (law of Conservation) is a physical law of nature, thus it governs within nature. SBBM indicates that nature had a beginning. If your faulty inference is correct then Why don't cosmologists consider this physical law of nature a violation of the SBBM? Really...that is a serious question....Because that is what you are suggesting here. Note also that this is a religiously neutral question.

Thus your faulty inference does not affect the plausibility of p1.

But nice try.

Oh, but it does - you have missed the important bit: "we have zero experience of things beginning to exist". It is unjustified to claim a cause for 'things beginning to exist', as we have NO experience of such an event, other than the Big Bang - and to assume a cause for that event would be question begging.

Thus your dismissal of my point fails. Unless you can provide a number of examples of things beginning to exist, ex nihilo, and the demonstrable causes for those beginnings, to establish that un-caused beginnings are less common than caused beginnings. (Even then, you really need to show that un-caused beginnings are not just uncommon, but impossible - but I will settle for a demonstration that there are known caused beginnings, to at least grant the plausibility, if not the factuality, of P1).

But nice try.

P2 - The universe began to exist

This too is questionable - The word 'universe' has a number of distinctly different meanings, and it is equivocation between these that allows this premise to appear superficially reasonable.

By universe I mean.....the traditional......The universe is all of physical reality.

from wiki....
The Universe is all of time and space and its contents. It includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy. The size of the entire Universe is unknown.

oxford..
the universe All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.

Both good with me.

I guess they are good with anyone, once he has snipped out the part of my argument where I explain why they are no good.

It's like the word 'atom' - 'atom' literally means the smallest indivisible part of matter; but it got used to mean something we THOUGHT fit that description, and when it turned out we were wrong, the name had stuck, and we needed a new name for the smallest indivisible part of matter (we ended up with 'quark' for this; It remains to be seen if we will need still further new words in the future).

The word that means what 'universe' used to mean - 'everything that exists or ever existed' is multiverse; This concept includes many universes - theorized but not (yet) detected. They may be sisters of our universe; or daughters, or parents. In sum, they include whatever existed prior to the Big Bang - so the Big Bang may be evidence that the universe began to exist; but it is the multiverse we are actually interested in here, and there is NO evidence that it has a beginning.

Do you care to address that, or are you happier with your continuing equivocation that the limited definition of 'universe' and the broader definition (that is also called 'multiverse') be treated as the same thing, despite one being a mere subset of the other?

So we have no reason to accept that EITHER of these premises is true. The argument fails.

You have failed on both accounts to defeat either premise.

Not at all. You have dismissed my arguments without adequately rebutting either of them.

Your offered defeaters are for more implausible then the premises themselves.

Why?

The argument stands valid.

Nope.

The best you can claim is that the argument is not compelling.

I can, and do, claim much more than that. Both P1 and P2 are unsupported; The argument is worthless, unless and until you can show them both to be true.

 

[Kharakov]

If a precursor universe gave arise to our universe, it isn't necessarily detectable from within our universe.

A precursor universe would have to be material. Right?
Also this would, if wild speculation could be true, only kick the can down the road and not solve the need for a cause.

Need? Why does the universe need a cause, or a precursor universe, or an eternal existing framework that harbors consciousnesses of various forms?

Need? Why does the universe need a cause,

Do you know the argument?

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, this conversation began to exist, therefore this conversation has a cause (probably a burrito).

or a precursor universe,

What evidence do you have for this precursor universe?

The same evidence you have for God.

or an eternal existing framework that harbors consciousnesses of various forms?

What?

Why would an eternally existing framework that preserves causality need a cause?

 

[Juma]

The arguments clearly presents the cases that God is explained and does not have a cause.

Lol... no they dont: They presume that there is something that doesnt have to be explained/caused and then out of the blue identifies this to be the god of abraham...

What they utterly fail to show is why the universe itself cannot be this unexplained/uncaused thing.

As usual you are free to provide a version of the KCA that doesnt...

 

[Lion IRC]

or a precursor universe,

What evidence do you have for this precursor universe?

The same evidence you have for God.

If you have the same evidence then God = Precursor = God

 

[blastula]

No.