The Causal God Gambit

[blastula]

remez, instead of trying to conjure your god by (fallaciously) appealing to the science of events billions of years ago, why don't you just prove it by appealing to an event occurring in the present day, since you do believe your god acts in the world. It should be way easier, if in fact your god does exist.

 

[Juma]

.

That is a curious question. Your question hints at a categorical error. It is like asking how much does love weigh?

You seem to be forcing some form of scientism into your assertions that these arguments have no evidence. Thus in order to defend your assertions you need to defend the epistemological foundation they are founded on. Because if your assertions are based upon a self-refuting epistemology than your assertions are meaningless. You don't just get to assume by default your epistemology is more plausible than mine. Need we explore that?
so..............
How do you measure a logical construct? ......with reason of course.

You don't measure a logical construct with meters, liters and grams. You examine the logic with reason.

It is not I that use "necessary" and "contingent" when referring to supposedly real objects.
KCA does.

they are dreamt up by theologicians...

Your oversimplified pejorative is lazy and immature.
Do you realize just who Leibniz was in history?
And...........
Your simplification of reasoning to dreaming speaks volumes.
It is statements like that which demonstrate your lack of understanding of the topic at hand and hint at a self-refuting epistemological foundation.

So you have fallen so low that you arguments by authority now? "Leibniz was so smart, he cannot be wrong"... of course he could be wrong, especially in this which is a religious question, not a scientific.

There is no indication that there are rules that dictate how universes work. We can only observe the universe we happen to have formed in.

Yes there is...and the most plausible "rule" is the SBBM which most plausibly indicates that there are no other universes.
It seems like you are arguing for the solution...... that it’s simply turtles all the way down.

The SBBM is no rule. its an observation. its an observation of how THIS universe works.

It was your terminology. So..........
What did you mean by "rules"?
and
Do "observations" make predictions?

"Rules" are what theories describe. As in "the laws of gravity" etc.

observations doesnt make predictions... humans make predictions: Humans makes hypoteses. Humans makes predictions from the hypoteses. Human tests if the prediction is correct by making observations. if observation matches the human increases the trust in the hypotesis. If the hypotesis doesnt results in any predictions that contradicts observation it it is called a theory.

 

[Juma]

If the universe includes any eternally existing causal factors that give birth to 4+ dimensional spacetimes, the universe doesn't begin to exist.


Why?

Because the more plausible case as it stands right now is that our complete physical universe began to exist. And you seem to be just trying to alter the traditional definition to escape the theistic implications by simply filling your Planck gap with an assumed natural cause.
But..........
Lets go with your hypothesis for now. Even though it is already for more implausible. Lets say for the sake of investigation, that our present universe is part of some MV. It still does not affect the outcome of the KCA whatsoever. Make your case as to why the MV hypothesis would alter the outcome. All the MV models I have studied just don't get you and eternal past. That is what I have meant by it only kicks the can down the road. So lets journey down the road.

Which of these more implausible models is it that you see can get you an eternal past?
And How?

Please explain in your own words why you believe that an eternal past is ruled out?
Then please explain how an eternal god is more plausible..

:-D

 

[Juma]

wow.
There was a lot in that last post to comment on.


- your reasoning needs to remain consistent. Much of what you believe about the material physical world you do not see. Electrons, quarks, numbers etc.

- If you are purporting a strict materialism and/or scientism then that needs a philosophical defense for you can not hold that belief strictly on an empirical basis. You reason to it and it is that self-refuting reasoning is what you are using to deny my philosophical position.

We can see no sign of anything that can be called supernatural.

Does reasoning count? For we do have very plausible signs that the universe/nature began to exist. Therefore it follows that if the universe/nature wholly began to exist then its cause is logically external to the universe/nature itself. AKA supernatural.

Further... reasoning has to count. Do you actually see electrons, quarts, branes, other universes, etc. or do you reason they exist?
I ask because your strict sense of empiricism if consistently applied would render these useful entities as unreasonable.

To claim all comes from a supernatural being is thus questionable.

- Of course it is. But based on reasoning from what we see there is good evidence that something must be necessary. And also based on good reasoning and evidence it is not the universe/nature or part of the universe/nature itself. Thus it's cause must be external to the universe/nature itself. AKA supernatural.

- remember at this point we are only trying to establish is the universe/nature is necessary. If not then by reason there must be something that is.

The problems that God has, his goodness and existence of evil et al, calls this God thing into question logically speaking.

- That's a different debate altogether. I don't see the conflict you purport.

- But I did like your logically speaking notion there. It is something that can be reached using logic even though we can't observe all parts of it. Consistency remember.

To avoid all of that, one has to drop any claims revelation are true, leaving a much lessor species of God, that has no evidence for it's bare existence.

- I'm not avoiding it. It is simply a different topic.

- That is your conclusion to the logic. I find it to be completely faulty but again that is a different topic. Right here all that is on the table is .... if the universe is not necessary then what must be the characteristics of that something that is the explanation of our contingent universe. No need to name what it is, just what are those characteristics?

The idea of an eternal, infinite Universe is not illogical nor impossible and physics strongly hints to date this is the actual state of reality,

- Actually that is not the case. The physics far far far more plausibly infers that the universe is not eternal in whole or part. Are they still looking for a natural cause? Of course. But as it stands now.....it is not as plausible in principal that they will find one. Meaning if all of nature began to exist then nature can not be its own cause.

The idea that there is a God that somehow has always existed, is personal, having will and intelligence and personhood, and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent cannot be said to have any realistic underlying rational explanation for being all of that.

It logically matches the characteristics of what must be the necessary cause of the contingent universe.

It's a hypothesis derived from crude mythology that moved from crude mythology to a crude sort of perfect being theology, full of propositions and nothing much more.

- Nice example of a genetic fallacy.

- Your reasoning here displays a lack of understanding to a great degree. It would be like me challenging evolution with... Oh Yeah if evolution were true then why are there still monkeys existing today?

It's not like anybody has shown any true evidence for God.

You're kidding.......There is a hole in the bucket Dear Liza. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzm9urjQbWU

Just what is it you are trying to do right now......refute some arguments offered as evidence for God's existence. Arguments that are supported with an abundance of science.
again...........

It's not like anybody has shown any true evidence for God.

It not like anybody has shown this evidence for God is not true.

The modern day physics and cosmology has evidence to support cosmology's basic claims claims.

I completely agree.

That same evidence infers that most plausibly the universe in part or whole is not necessary. "Something" else is.
That same evidence most plausibly infers that the entire universe began to exist, therefore it has a cause external to itself.
That same evidence most plausibly infers that all of nature began to exist, therefore it has a cause that is external to nature. AKA supernatural.

So where is the problem?

That there is no evidence of an intelligent agent.
Furthermore: how do you explain the existence of a creator if you need a creator to explain why anything exist?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the universe includes any eternally existing causal factors that give birth to 4+ dimensional spacetimes, the universe doesn't begin to exist.


Why?

Because the more plausible case as it stands right now is that our complete physical universe began to exist. And you seem to be just trying to alter the traditional definition to escape the theistic implications by simply filling your Planck gap with an assumed natural cause.
But..........
Lets go with your hypothesis for now. Even though it is already for more implausible. Lets say for the sake of investigation, that our present universe is part of some MV. It still does not affect the outcome of the KCA whatsoever.

Oh goodness, not the KCA again.

1) words
2) more words
3) smug words

*poof*

Proved that god exists!

It is incredible that people think that a verbal logic argument carries any weight at all in the real world.

1) I think I know what I'm talking about.
2) Therefore, what I think is likely correct.
3) Therefore I am right.

*bam*

Proved a creator again!

 

[Kharakov]

If the universe includes any eternally existing causal factors that give birth to 4+ dimensional spacetimes, the universe doesn't begin to exist.

IMO your alternative......sounds like a nature of the gaps faith...... to me.

Why?

Because the more plausible case as it stands right now is that our complete physical universe began to exist.

No, what is plausible is tracing a single branch of spacetime back to the BB. BBTheory says nothing about what came before the expansion of the spacetime branch we live within.

And you seem to be just trying to alter the traditional definition to escape the theistic implications by simply filling your Planck gap with an assumed natural cause.

If the cause is natural, it includes whatever consciousness and will are (even if it wasn't completely organized consciousness/will).

Lets say for the sake of investigation, that our present universe is part of some MV. It still does not affect the outcome of the KCA whatsoever.

Some versions of multiverse theory are eternal- only the branches (this universe for example) have beginnings. Some are cyclical- the MV produces universes that produce universes that reproduce the originating universe- this goes on eternally (so someone with your exact same characteristics will live again and again).

So I don't see how eternal universe theories fit in with the KCA. This universe, in one of the cyclical theories, is one that would exist again and again throughout eternity. In some of the theories, it exists in numerous locations in an overarching spacetime (like each individual proton is an exact copy of the same universe, in another universe, they would be copies of another universe, etc.).

Make your case as to why the MV hypothesis would alter the outcome. All the MV models I have studied just don't get you and eternal past. That is what I have meant by it only kicks the can down the road. So lets journey down the road.

 Multiverse#Cyclic_theories

Which of these more implausible models is it that you see can get you an eternal past?

Ehh... they are technically more plausible, not less plausible, because it is illogical to assume something can come into existence without some form of eternal substance/being/something causing it to appear.

And How?

What goes around, really goes around.

 

[atrib]

I repeat.

Simple error in logic. You have constructed what’s known as a faulty inference.....since matter and energy are neither being created nor 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.

You bringing your God into this did not help you here.

As expected, you did not respond to anything I said in my post. So I repeat:

1. If we assume energy cannot be created or destroyed, a supernatural entity cannot create or destroy energy. Therefore, the energy we observe within our universe existed prior to the initiation of the Bib Bang, and a supernatural creator is not needed to explain anything.

2. If the universe began to exist 14 billion years ago, and the visible universe is all there is (as you claimed), then a supernatural creator could NOT have existed prior to this event. Nothing could have existed prior to this event. If you claim god is required to explain the origins of the visible universe, this god would have had to exist in some form of space-time continuum prior to the event, and have had access to energy in order to initiate the event. No matter how you twist the argument, you cannot escape this conclusion.

Stop dancing around and address these points.

Why couldn't the universe be the result of natural forces that we do not currently understand?

Here is a no brane-er ...................

HONESTLY which is more plausible the universe began to exist or that it is eternal?

I don't have enough data to answer that question. Neither do you. What differentiates us is the fact that you are biased towards an answer found in a 2,000 year old book which describes a mythological creator, while I am not. Isn't that the reason you keep repeating your baseless arguments over an over? Be honest.

 

[atrib]

wow.
There was a lot in that last post to comment on.


- your reasoning needs to remain consistent. Much of what you believe about the material physical world you do not see. Electrons, quarks, numbers etc.

- If you are purporting a strict materialism and/or scientism then that needs a philosophical defense for you can not hold that belief strictly on an empirical basis. You reason to it and it is that self-refuting reasoning is what you are using to deny my philosophical position.


Does reasoning count? For we do have very plausible signs that the universe/nature began to exist. Therefore it follows that if the universe/nature wholly began to exist then its cause is logically external to the universe/nature itself. AKA supernatural.

Further... reasoning has to count. Do you actually see electrons, quarts, branes, other universes, etc. or do you reason they exist?
I ask because your strict sense of empiricism if consistently applied would render these useful entities as unreasonable.

To claim all comes from a supernatural being is thus questionable.

- Of course it is. But based on reasoning from what we see there is good evidence that something must be necessary. And also based on good reasoning and evidence it is not the universe/nature or part of the universe/nature itself. Thus it's cause must be external to the universe/nature itself. AKA supernatural.

- remember at this point we are only trying to establish is the universe/nature is necessary. If not then by reason there must be something that is.

The problems that God has, his goodness and existence of evil et al, calls this God thing into question logically speaking.

- That's a different debate altogether. I don't see the conflict you purport.

- But I did like your logically speaking notion there. It is something that can be reached using logic even though we can't observe all parts of it. Consistency remember.

To avoid all of that, one has to drop any claims revelation are true, leaving a much lessor species of God, that has no evidence for it's bare existence.

- I'm not avoiding it. It is simply a different topic.

- That is your conclusion to the logic. I find it to be completely faulty but again that is a different topic. Right here all that is on the table is .... if the universe is not necessary then what must be the characteristics of that something that is the explanation of our contingent universe. No need to name what it is, just what are those characteristics?

The idea of an eternal, infinite Universe is not illogical nor impossible and physics strongly hints to date this is the actual state of reality,

- Actually that is not the case. The physics far far far more plausibly infers that the universe is not eternal in whole or part. Are they still looking for a natural cause? Of course. But as it stands now.....it is not as plausible in principal that they will find one. Meaning if all of nature began to exist then nature can not be its own cause.

The idea that there is a God that somehow has always existed, is personal, having will and intelligence and personhood, and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent cannot be said to have any realistic underlying rational explanation for being all of that.

It logically matches the characteristics of what must be the necessary cause of the contingent universe.

It's a hypothesis derived from crude mythology that moved from crude mythology to a crude sort of perfect being theology, full of propositions and nothing much more.

- Nice example of a genetic fallacy.

- Your reasoning here displays a lack of understanding to a great degree. It would be like me challenging evolution with... Oh Yeah if evolution were true then why are there still monkeys existing today?

It's not like anybody has shown any true evidence for God.

You're kidding.......There is a hole in the bucket Dear Liza. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzm9urjQbWU

Just what is it you are trying to do right now......refute some arguments offered as evidence for God's existence. Arguments that are supported with an abundance of science.
again...........

It's not like anybody has shown any true evidence for God.

It not like anybody has shown this evidence for God is not true.

The modern day physics and cosmology has evidence to support cosmology's basic claims claims.

I completely agree.

That same evidence infers that most plausibly the universe in part or whole is not necessary. "Something" else is.
That same evidence most plausibly infers that the entire universe began to exist, therefore it has a cause external to itself.
That same evidence most plausibly infers that all of nature began to exist, therefore it has a cause that is external to nature. AKA supernatural.

So where is the problem?

That there is no evidence of an intelligent agent.
Furthermore: how do you explain the existence of a creator if you need a creator to explain why anything exist?

His creator is special. His creator can magically create matter and energy. His creator does not need spacetime to exist. He read about his creator in an old book, and he is certain his creator is real.

 

[bilby]

Why couldn't the universe be the result of natural forces that we do not currently understand?

Here is a no brane-er ...................

HONESTLY which is more plausible the universe began to exist or that it is eternal?

I don't have enough data to answer that question. Neither do you. What differentiates us is the fact that you are biased towards an answer found in a 2,000 year old book which describes a mythological creator, while I am not. Isn't that the reason you keep repeating your baseless arguments over an over? Be honest.

'Plausible' is a meaningless word in the context of this debate.

The options we have to choose from are:

1) The universe is eternal; or
2) The universe is not eternal

If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, the universe has always existed.
If we instead plump for 2 (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 1) then:

2a) The universe began to exist from nothing; or
2b) Something existed before the universe, and that thing caused the universe to begin to exist.

If we accept 2a, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, the universe began from nothing.
If we instead plump for 2b (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 2a) then we have an unknown entity, 'X' that caused the universe to begin to exist.

What can we say about 'X'? Well, we are interested in origins, so lets try this:

The options we have to choose from are:

1) X is eternal; or
2) X is not eternal

If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, X has always existed.
If we instead plump for 2 (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 1) then:

2a) X began to exist from nothing; or
2b) Something existed before X, and that thing caused X to begin to exist.

If we accept 2a, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, X began from nothing.
If we instead plump for 2b (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 2a) then we have an unknown entity, 'Y' that caused X to begin to exist.

What can we say about 'Y'? Well, we are interested in origins, so lets try replacing X with Y in this algorithm, and go back to step 1

Either this leads us to:

A) An endless loop of eternal causes for causes; Or
B) We end at something that began to exist from nothing; Or
C) We end at something that is eternal and has always existed.

At this point, the religious mind discards A and B, declares that C is implausible or unacceptable as an explanation for the universe, and invokes an un-evidenced intelligence which (for no obvious reason) they claim C is perfectly acceptable to explain.

The only 'reason' to discard A and B; and the only 'reason' to declare that C cannot apply to anything we observe, but does apply to their favourite imaginary friend, is that they want it to be so.

But there's no reason to do this. All three possibilities A, B and C are open as candidates for truth, and there are no scientific grounds to discard any of them, other then the rule of parsimony. That rule tells us to discount option 2b in the original argument, unless and until we have solid evidence to justify adding a new entity to our consideration; and leaves us to choose one of two equally parsimonious choices:

1) The universe is eternal; or
2a) The universe began to exist from nothing

These are the options that are 'plausible' if we apply logic and the rule of parsimony to our discussion. Anything else is less plausible, and anyone who wants to argue otherwise needs to explain what the error in this logic is; or why they want to discard the rules of logic; or why they feel justified in making an unparsimonious claim.

The KCA is basically an exercise in 'smoke and mirrors' to conceal the lack of parsimony required to arrive at a preferred conclusion.

 

[Learner]

'Plausible' is a meaningless word in the context of this debate.

I don't know, because without 'plausible' this would then mean you have factual observable evidence which can be demonstrated. Your burden for change

The options we have to choose from are:

1) The universe is eternal; or
2) The universe is not eternal

If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, the universe has always existed.
If we instead plump for 2 (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 1)

So if we accept 1) then life and natural law has also always existed in this theory. We still seem to be alone so far after all this time. Alas no evidence.

then:
2a) The universe began to exist from nothing; or
2b) Something existed before the universe, and that thing caused the universe to begin to exist.

If we accept 2a, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, the universe began from nothing.
If we instead plump for 2b (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 2a) then we have an unknown entity, 'X' that caused the universe to begin to exist.

What can we say about 'X'? Well, we are interested in origins, so lets try this:

The options we have to choose from are:

1) X is eternal; or
2) X is not eternal

If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, X has always existed.
If we instead plump for 2 (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 1)

You didn't factor in whether the creator could have been X from this point , having at least few more options in the tailored to fit logic.

 

[bilby]

I don't know, because without 'plausible' this would then mean you have factual observable evidence which can be demonstrated. Your burden for change

No, it just means that what we have is just possible or impossible. There's no 'plausible'.

The options we have to choose from are:

1) The universe is eternal; or
2) The universe is not eternal

If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, the universe has always existed.
If we instead plump for 2 (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 1)

So if we accept 1) then life and natural law has also always existed in this theory. We still seem to be alone so far after all this time. Alas no evidence.

There is no connection between the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life. The universe can have existed eternally and only recently generated life - that's not only possible, it's what we have observed.

Equally, a universe that has existed for the eternal past could quite possibly have had our current natural law only since the Big Bang. We don't know. But there's no justification for you to conflate 'life' or 'natural law' with 'universe'. They are three very different things.

then:
2a) The universe began to exist from nothing; or
2b) Something existed before the universe, and that thing caused the universe to begin to exist.

If we accept 2a, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, the universe began from nothing.
If we instead plump for 2b (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 2a) then we have an unknown entity, 'X' that caused the universe to begin to exist.

What can we say about 'X'? Well, we are interested in origins, so lets try this:

The options we have to choose from are:

1) X is eternal; or
2) X is not eternal

If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, X has always existed.
If we instead plump for 2 (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 1)

You didn't factor in whether the creator could have been X from this point , having at least few more options in the logic.

I didn't need to. X can be ANYTHING - including (but not limited to) anything you slap the moniker 'the creator' onto. adding that name changes nothing, and generates no unexplored options. So I didn't include it. "Sire, je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse." - Pierre-Simon Laplace

 

[Learner]

No, it just means that what we have is just possible or impossible. There's no 'plausible'.

Ok

There is no connection between the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life. The universe can have existed eternally and only recently generated life - that's not only possible, it's what we have observed.

Equally, a universe that has existed for the eternal past could quite possibly have had our current natural law only since the Big Bang. We don't know. But there's no justification for you to conflate 'life' or 'natural law' with 'universe'. They are three very different things.

Theres no conflation here. I am curious with both concepts since its 'not really known'these concepts for the likes of Dawkins/Atheists shouldn't be depended on.(not that you were )

I didn't need to. X can be ANYTHING - including anything you slap the moniker 'the creator' onto. adding that name changes nothing, and generates no unexplored options. So I didn't include it. "Sire, je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse." - Pierre-Simon Laplace

The creator or rather the creator-not-neccessary was part of the equation.

 

[remez]

remez, instead of trying to conjure your god by (fallaciously) appealing to the science

This part of your statement demonstrates your insincerity. You had a chance to make a case as to where I was wrong earlier. All you did back there was snipe something unreasonable to which I addressed your reasoning. You (Post 124) simply ran away. And now you are sniping something new. Are you simply going to run away again?

why don't you just prove it by appealing to an event occurring in the present day, since you do believe your god acts in the world. It should be way easier, if in fact your god does exist.

Did the universe stop expanding? Did chemistry cease to exist? etc. FTA?

Just in case.......Have a Merry Christmas.

 

[remez]

It is not I that use "necessary" and "contingent" when referring to supposedly real objects.
KCA does.

The KCA does not.

Yes those terms are part of the logical structure of the PSR. Your last reply hinted that the logic is wrong based on naturalist materialism. So if you are going to assert that the logic is wrong from that perspective then we need to investigate the reasonableness of that perspective in this context. Because the PSR is not founded on naturalist materialism. That is the way debates over this material operate. You are not correct by default.

they are dreamt up by theologicians...

Your oversimplified pejorative is lazy and immature.
Do you realize just who Leibniz was in history?
And...........
Your simplification of reasoning to dreaming speaks volumes.
It is statements like that which demonstrate your lack of understanding of the topic at hand and hint at a self-refuting epistemological foundation.

So you have fallen so low that you arguments by authority now? "Leibniz was so smart, he cannot be wrong"... of course he could be wrong, especially in this which is a religious question, not a scientific.

Please. You're way out of context there. Your pejorative (offered as logical support to your position) was a gross oversimplification of dreaming theologians. I provided context to counter your gross oversimplification only.

Lets go with your hypothesis for now. Even though it is already for more implausible. Lets say for the sake of investigation, that our present universe is part of some MV. It still does not affect the outcome of the KCA whatsoever. Make your case as to why the MV hypothesis would alter the outcome. All the MV models I have studied just don't get you and eternal past. That is what I have meant by it only kicks the can down the road. So lets journey down the road.

Which of these more implausible models is it that you see can get you an eternal past?
And How?

Please explain in your own words why you believe that an eternal past is ruled out?
Then please explain how an eternal god is more plausible..

Part 1
There are a good many scenarios. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
So which MV scenario are you interested in? And how does it specifically refute or rebut the LCA or KCA?
I'm ready.

Part 2
As to why an eternal God......The LCA reasons out this way......If all of physical reality needs an external cause than logically that cause would have to be a non-physical cause. Logically there are only two things we know that fit that description. Abstract objects (like numbers, sets) and unembodied minds. But abstract objects can't cause anything. So the only viable candidate for a nonphysical cause seems to be a transcendent non-physical personal cause.
review...

Among the pool of explanatory options considered

a) the universe existing by the necessity of its own nature
b) physical things causing the universe
c) abstract objects causing the universe
d) a transcendent personal cause of the universe

Choice d) is by far the most plausible explanation.

Can you provide better reasoning as to why there is a better choice?

Furthermore: how do you explain the existence of a creator if you need a creator to explain why anything exist?

There are two ways to read that statement.....

1) Your question logically answers itself doesn't it?
Think about it
If you conclude that you NEED a creator to explain the existence of anything then a Creator must exist.
But that sounds more like realm of ID reasoning or a venture into the realm of reasoning for the FTA.

2) Now if your concern was more to what is the "explanation" of the creator that is more in the realm of LCA reasoning.
But the LCA does not presume a conclusion of a creator.
It seeks to pride evidence that God is the necessary explanation of the universe.
God is the reasoned conclusion from all of the alternatives, not a presumed conclusion.

 

[remez]

Oh goodness, not the KCA again.

1) words
2) more words
3) smug words

*poof*

Proved that god exists!

It is incredible that people think that a verbal logic argument carries any weight at all in the real world.

1) I think I know what I'm talking about.
2) Therefore, what I think is likely correct.
3) Therefore I am right.

*bam*

Proved a creator again!

Oh goodness, not another KCA mocker again.

1) bad reasoning
2) straw man fallacies
3) mockery offered as reasoning

"poof"

Proved that god does not exist.

It's incredible that people think that a verbal logic argument is mutually exclusive from the real world.

1) He thinks he knows what he is talking about.
2) Therefore, what he thinks is likely correct.
3) Therefore he is right.

*bam*

Proved no creator again.

 

[remez]

This statement...your first....

Because the more plausible case as it stands right now is that our complete physical universe began to exist.

No, what is plausible is tracing a single branch of spacetime back to the BB. BBTheory says nothing about what came before the expansion of the spacetime branch we live within.

And your last statement.....

Which of these more implausible models is it that you see can get you an eternal past?

Ehh... they are technically more plausible, not less plausible, because it is illogical to assume something can come into existence without some form of eternal substance/being/something causing it to appear.

....really touch upon the same subject. So I'll address them together.

One of the most significant features of a good model or theory is that it can make accurate predictions. The SBBM most plausibly predicts that our universe in whole began to exist. Many of today's top cosmologists attest to that outcome. The BGV theorem almost solidifies it. Thus any model attempting to extend a material existence beyond the singularity is less plausible. Before you object...well that would also eliminate God....hold on I'll address that in a moment.

As to your last statement.... observe how you are special pleading for a natural materialistic cause. Now searching for one, as many cosmologists are attempting to do, and special pleading for one are two different issues. The search is absolutely fine and I enthusiastically support it, but the special pleading is a logical fallacy.

Now the God that theism is asserting is the conclusion to these arguments is non-physical, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, the omni-etc's and the efficient cause of the universe. These attributes of God predate the arguments themselves so this is not a case of special pleading. That charge has been recently leveled against theists only in the light of recent scientific discoveries. To make that claim one has to irrationally ignore history. You can do so if you desire but that would diminish the economy of your rationality.

Some versions of multiverse theory are eternal- only the branches (this universe for example) have beginnings. Some are cyclical- the MV produces universes that produce universes that reproduce the originating universe- this goes on eternally (so someone with your exact same characteristics will live again and again).

So I don't see how eternal universe theories fit in with the KCA. This universe, in one of the cyclical theories, is one that would exist again and again throughout eternity. In some of the theories, it exists in numerous locations in an overarching spacetime (like each individual proton is an exact copy of the same universe, in another universe, they would be copies of another universe, etc.).

You did not provide a particular model so I can not address specifically. So I'll attempt to address generally.... Positing causally disconnected and/or connected universes will not alter the outcome of the arguments. Here is why.

The possibility of other causally disconnected universes is completely irrelevant to the soundness of the KCA. Lets imagine, for the sake of investigation, that there are other universes causally disconnected from our universe. They are for that exact reason irrelevant to the conclusion. Specifically they can't be the cause of the universe inferred in the KCA's conclusion. Therefore the skeptic can't avoid God by metaphysically positing that other disconnected universes could possibly exist.
But.............
If the skeptic posits that these other universes are causally connected to ours, then they are comprised by the universe delivering us right back to Vilenkin's argument that there is no tenable model of the universe, so defined, which does not have a beginning in the finite past.

That was brief, but then again you were not specific.

 

[remez]

As expected, you did not respond to anything I said in my post. So I repeat:

1. If we assume energy cannot be created or destroyed, a supernatural entity cannot create or destroy energy. Therefore, the energy we observe within our universe existed prior to the initiation of the Bib Bang, and a supernatural creator is not needed to explain anything.

I directly addressed it. Your "therefore" is a faulty inference. The LoC governs within the universe. It is a subset of the universe. I do assume it is true within the universe. To extend it's governance beyond the universe is nonsensical. If the universe had an absolute beginning than so do the laws that govern within our universe.

Further your attempted faulty inference also begs the question for a material cause.

2. If the universe began to exist 14 billion years ago, and the visible universe is all there is (as you claimed), then a supernatural creator could NOT have existed prior to this event. Nothing could have existed prior to this event. If you claim god is required to explain the origins of the visible universe, this god would have had to exist in some form of space-time continuum prior to the event,

Only if you beg the question for a material cause. Which seems unreasonable because there was no material prior to material being created.

I don't have enough data to answer that question. Neither do you.

"We simply don't know" is a cop out as I see it.
Here is why.
Most of what we choose to believe..... we believe w/o certainty. We almost know nothing with certainty. And that is what you are really saying....you don't know with certainty. You seem to be arbitrarily employing your skepticism here with the weak notion that we don’t know with certainty.

So reasonably MOST of what we believe depends on the PLAUSIBILITY its true.

So in the context of the science of cosmology............which is far more PLAUSIBLE;

The universe, all of physical reality, to include all matter, all energy all space and all time began to exist, and is not eternal.
or
the universe or part of it is eternal in some way?

What differentiates us is the fact that you are biased towards an answer found in a 2,000 year old book which describes a mythological creator, while I am not.

No you're just begging the question for a material cause against the more plausible understanding that the material universe had a beginning.
Further, your depiction of my position is a classic genetic fallacy.
Really, you can do better than that.

 

[remez]

Why couldn't the universe be the result of natural forces that we do not currently understand?

Here is a no brane-er ...................

HONESTLY which is more plausible the universe began to exist or that it is eternal?

I don't have enough data to answer that question. Neither do you. What differentiates us is the fact that you are biased towards an answer found in a 2,000 year old book which describes a mythological creator, while I am not. Isn't that the reason you keep repeating your baseless arguments over an over? Be honest.

'Plausible' is a meaningless word in the context of this debate.

The options we have to choose from are:

1) The universe is eternal; or
2) The universe is not eternal

If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, the universe has always existed.
If we instead plump for 2 (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 1) then:

2a) The universe began to exist from nothing; or
2b) Something existed before the universe, and that thing caused the universe to begin to exist.

If we accept 2a, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, the universe began from nothing.
If we instead plump for 2b (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 2a) then we have an unknown entity, 'X' that caused the universe to begin to exist.

What can we say about 'X'? Well, we are interested in origins, so lets try this:

The options we have to choose from are:

1) X is eternal; or
2) X is not eternal

If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, X has always existed.
If we instead plump for 2 (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 1) then:

2a) X began to exist from nothing; or
2b) Something existed before X, and that thing caused X to begin to exist.

If we accept 2a, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, X began from nothing.
If we instead plump for 2b (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 2a) then we have an unknown entity, 'Y' that caused X to begin to exist.

What can we say about 'Y'? Well, we are interested in origins, so lets try replacing X with Y in this algorithm, and go back to step 1

Either this leads us to:

A) An endless loop of eternal causes for causes; Or
B) We end at something that began to exist from nothing; Or
C) We end at something that is eternal and has always existed.

At this point, the religious mind discards A and B, declares that C is implausible or unacceptable as an explanation for the universe, and invokes an un-evidenced intelligence which (for no obvious reason) they claim C is perfectly acceptable to explain.

The only 'reason' to discard A and B; and the only 'reason' to declare that C cannot apply to anything we observe, but does apply to their favourite imaginary friend, is that they want it to be so.

But there's no reason to do this. All three possibilities A, B and C are open as candidates for truth, and there are no scientific grounds to discard any of them, other then the rule of parsimony. That rule tells us to discount option 2b in the original argument, unless and until we have solid evidence to justify adding a new entity to our consideration; and leaves us to choose one of two equally parsimonious choices:

1) The universe is eternal; or
2a) The universe began to exist from nothing

These are the options that are 'plausible' if we apply logic and the rule of parsimony to our discussion. Anything else is less plausible, and anyone who wants to argue otherwise needs to explain what the error in this logic is; or why they want to discard the rules of logic; or why they feel justified in making an unparsimonious claim.

The KCA is basically an exercise in 'smoke and mirrors' to conceal the lack of parsimony required to arrive at a preferred conclusion.

Did you proof read that?
Here is your conclusion.....

These are the options that are 'plausible' if we apply logic and the rule of parsimony to our discussion. Anything else is less plausible, and anyone who wants to argue otherwise needs to explain what the error in this logic is; or why they want to discard the rules of logic; or why they feel justified in making an unparsimonious claim.

But this was your opening.............

'Plausible' is a meaningless word in the context of this debate.

 

[blastula]

remez, instead of trying to conjure your god by (fallaciously) appealing to the science of events billions of years ago

This part of your statement demonstrates your insincerity. You had a chance to make a case as to where I was wrong earlier. All you did back there was snipe something unreasonable to which I addressed your reasoning. You (Post 124) simply ran away. And now you are sniping something new. Are you simply going to run away again?

You must be thinking of someone else. This is my post 124.

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.

I answered you directly. And then this is the totality of your reply.

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."

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.

Only a handwave. Please do better and show what was wrong in my reply.

why don't you just prove it by appealing to an event occurring in the present day, since you do believe your god acts in the world. It should be way easier, if in fact your god does exist..

Did the universe stop expanding? Did chemistry cease to exist? etc. FTA?

That's also a handwave. Expansion and all other physical properties have been in effect since the early universe. Obviously I am asking about special divine interventions that defy known physical properties and which you believe occur today and also have in the past. Christians commonly believe these occur, from miracles described in the Bible to present day miraculous interventions in their daily lives and even that they have conversations with their god. I'll take your dodge as admission that you can't prove your god does any of that neither.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh goodness, not the KCA again.

1) words
2) more words
3) smug words

*poof*

Proved that god exists!

It is incredible that people think that a verbal logic argument carries any weight at all in the real world.

1) I think I know what I'm talking about.
2) Therefore, what I think is likely correct.
3) Therefore I am right.

*bam*

Proved a creator again!

Oh goodness, not another KCA mocker again.

1) bad reasoning
2) straw man fallacies
3) mockery offered as reasoning

"poof"

Proved that god does not exist.

It's incredible that people think that a verbal logic argument is mutually exclusive from the real world.

1) He thinks he knows what he is talking about.
2) Therefore, what he thinks is likely correct.
3) Therefore he is right.

*bam*

Proved no creator again.

And that folks is a textbook strawman argument. This is typically seen when a person can't defend their position.