Different Kinds of Reasoning - Scientific Method vs Faith

[DBT]

Did you miss that post 173 above?

Nah, just got tired of the dancing . I made the comment to Juma because he summarized the problems of making unfounded assumptions, that if the universe had a beginning (which is not known), that the beginning has to be the work of god (another unfounded assumption) - 'god' itself being an unknown element, just a word that means whatever a believer wants it to mean.

It's just a circular argument based on unfounded assumptions. If you want to believe in Creation, fine, not my business, but you don't have a valid case for the reasons already given by several posters, including myself.

 

[bilby]

Nowhere have I indicated that X had to be only the theistic God or the universe.
Do you have something to share as a potential candidate?
Be prepared to defend your candidate.

My candidate is I don't know, and NOR DO YOU.

And I am very, very confident that I can defend that candidate against your assertion that the Christian God is the answer.

You seem to have fallen for the trap of thinking that any positive answer to a question is better than an admission of ignorance; or worse, for the trap of thinking that other people's ignorance gives you permission to claim anything that you want, without challenge. But it does not.

I don't know what next week's lottery numbers will be; But I can say with confidence that the ones you pick will almost certainly be wrong.

Indeed, there are an infinity of such possibilities,

Indeed. So how does the theist move from the universe needing a cause to that cause is the theistic God? Is it an arbitrary “love me-love me not” pedal plucking plot? Is it a blind faith approach? Is it a matter of subjective opinion? What if I told you that the approach the theist employs here is a rational combination of science, metaphysics, philosophy and theology?

If you told me that, I would say "Prove it, and justify your use of those techniques to show that they are valid".

Simple process actually. Forensically compile a list of characteristics that the cause of the universe would need to possess, if indeed it had an absolute beginning.

This is a forensic (scientific) exercise mind you.

OK, present your list.

Then juxtapose that forensic list to your “infinite” list of suspects.

Thereby subtracting a finite number of entities from an infinite list; leaving an infinite list.

Then release the unreasonable suspects.

Leaving a still infinite list of reasonable suspects. A list that may well not include the Christian God, although given the number of conflicting descriptions of His properties and traits, that's difficult to say. It would help if you could set out the basics of the traits YOU assign to God, so we can actually make a start on that comparison. When you say 'God', I have a vague idea what you mean, given your statement that you are a Christian; But I need more details to get a precise idea, because lots of Christians disagree about what God is or is not.

of which 'God' of any flavour is a small subset; and the Christian God that you seem to prefer is but one member of that subset -

Same process described above.

Please note I claim these two arguments point to a theistic God not specifically the Christian God. That would require additional evidences beyond the scope of these two arguments alone.

Well, you haven't provided your 'forensic list', nor have you shown how that list eliminates even every possibility other than a theistic God, much less every possibility bar a Christian God; So let's not get ahead of ourselves. You present the evidence, then we can see what we are left with.

 

[Juma]

First I would like you to address this special pleading charge.

Your alternative of "an intelligent mind creating the universe from nothing" is just one of infinite possible alternatives.

Ok ….. open to research possibilities….. so………..
Please explain how your response supports your charge that my case is special pleading. I understand your assertion of alternatives but how does that make my case special pleading?
Moving on…………

1) the current universe started some finite time ago

Theistic position supported by science …… 1) the universe had an absolute beginning.

2) there was a something "beyond" that started it.

Now I asked you earlier to list the characteristics that the cause of the universe would have to possess. Just like examining a crime scene. Look at the universe with an absolute beginning and forensically list the characteristics of its cause.

That something had to be eternal, immaterial, beyond nature, timeless sans causation, powerful and an intelligent personal agent.

Now that list of characteristics is not arbitrary. The list of characteristics is compiled from a forensic investigation of what characteristics the cause of the universe with an absolute beginning would possess.

That list just happens to identify the main suspect as the theistic God.

While at the same time eliminating all of your unreasonable “natural suspects” and the non-theistic gods as well.

Now let’s go through your lineup.

a) this universe is a simulation in another universe

See e).

b) universe is cyclic (big bang, big crunch, big bang)

Fails the BGV theorem. Doesn’t eliminate an absolute beginning anyway. Insufficient mass to reverse expansion. Entropy issues cannot be resolved sufficient enough to render these models reasonable. Gets pretty ad hoc attempting to hurdle all of the defects.

c) some mad alien scientist created it in his lab by mistake.

You fail to see that there was no space, time, mass, or energy for this fiction. Perhaps if you could provide some common revelation I could study this further. In other words I willing to entertain your scenario as long as you can provide a common history of revelation.

d) a seed has been existing for eternity and then become this universe.

Fails quantum, mechanically. Its probability of collapse is non-zero thus it couldn’t have existed eternally.

e) this universe started as a quantum event in another universe.

Multiverse scenarios….. Again are crushed by the BGV theorem. Meaning they still have a finite past thus do not eliminate the need for a cause. Provide one that does get around the BGV theorem and then we might have something reasonable to discuss.

Your alternative of "an intelligent mind creating the universe from nothing" is just one of infinite possible alternatives.

Only if you ignore the process the theist is employing to get from a cause to the theistic God. And since that is what you are arbitrarily doing your attempted refutations are unreasonable.

Your talk about "necessary" is just bullshit. We cannot know wether there is anything that is "necessary".

“MY talk?” You really don’t understand the argument you are trying to defeat. Logic demands that since something exists then something has to be necessary. I didn’t make this up. This has been debated for thousands of years. Look it up.

And even if there are, we cannit know wether something specific is "necessary" or not.

Try forensic science and reasoning and give your arbitrary fictions a rest.

1) "law of causality" does not need to hold for the universe as a whole. We cannot know anything about the physics outside the universe.

2) BGV: A: only states that what comes before the hyperinflation cannot be an eternal hyperinflation. B: is a general relativistic theorem. It doesnt include quantum mechanical considerations and thus really dont say anything about the beginning of the universe at planck time.

3) "necessary" isnt a real property. We can only observe that what actually are the case. That something exists doesnt mean that it is necessary. That smart people has discussed some idea for millenia is not an argument for it being a real issue. Theology lure people into bogus thought patterns.

4a) why would a "creative reason" be intelligent?

4b) how icould a "creative reason" be intelligent if it isnt a result from a complex process like we?

4c) the truth is that the requirement of intelligence in a "creative reason" is to hide the fact that it doesnt explain anything. How did this thing create? If you cant explain that, if you can specify a probable model, then you really hasnt explained anything. Your model isnt a model. It is not anything better than explaining friction forced as "small intelligent deamons working against you".


I do not "ignore the process the theist is employing to get from a cause to the theistic God. ", on the contrary: I very easily shows that it is baloney.

 

[remez]

Did you miss that post 173 above?

Nah, just got tired of the dancing . I made the comment to Juma because he summarized the problems of making unfounded assumptions, that if the universe had a beginning (which is not known), that the beginning has to be the work of god (another unfounded assumption) - 'god' itself being an unknown element, just a word that means whatever a believer wants it to mean.

It's just a circular argument based on unfounded assumptions. If you want to believe in Creation, fine, not my business, but you don't have a valid case for the reasons already given by several posters, including myself.

Your charge of circular reasoning is based on a straw man.

So certainly we can agree to disagree. Absent any forthcoming defense of your reasoning, I’ll rest comfortably with the reasoning that is on the table.

Thank you for your time and effort.

 

[remez]

OK, so you can replace your Special Pleading fallacy with a False Dichotomy fallacy if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the universe began to exist.

Nowhere have I indicated that X had to be only the theistic God or the universe.
Do you have something to share as a potential candidate?
Be prepared to defend your candidate.

My candidate is I don't know, and NOR DO YOU.

Context. I was addressing your False Dichotomy charge there. Overtly you concede then that your charge was incorrect?

My candidate is I don't know, and NOR DO YOU.

And I am very, very confident that I can defend that candidate against your assertion that the Christian God is the answer.

You seem to have fallen for the trap of thinking that any positive answer to a question is better than an admission of ignorance;

You were far more than pleading ignorance there.

You seem to be missing that you are arguing for a natural material cause from the supposed ignorance gap of a single Planck second. You are blatantly proposing a Nature of the gaps fallacy. You are positive the answer from your ignorance is natural and materialistic. That is no different than a lazy theist wrongfully proposing that your proposed gap must be filled with God. That is the primary disconnect we have between our faiths. Your epistemology is stuck in naturalistic materialism, perhaps even more shackled by scientism. Naturalistic materialism can’t get at the larger body of truth and is internally self-defeating.

I don't know what next week's lottery numbers will be; But I can say with confidence that the ones you pick will almost certainly be wrong.

Exactly.

I don’t scientifically know what happened for that first single Planck second, a Planck second vs 13.7 billion years; But I can predict with EVEN GREATER confidence that your denial of an absolute complete material beginning of the universe is almost certainly wrong.

OK, present your list.

Again just to name a few to get started….

The cause would have to be immaterial, eternal, timeless sans causation, spaceless, powerful, and a personal agent.

Then juxtapose that forensic list to your “infinite” list of suspects.

Thereby subtracting a finite number of entities from an infinite list; leaving an infinite list.

Your list was infinite.

Now name the top three that remain on your list and we will reason through them.

Please note I claim these two arguments point to a theistic God not specifically the Christian God. That would require additional evidences beyond the scope of these two arguments alone.

Well, you haven't provided your 'forensic list', nor have you shown how that list eliminates even every possibility other than a theistic God, much less every possibility bar a Christian God; So let's not get ahead of ourselves. You present the evidence, then we can see what we are left with.

Then batter up ……. Go ahead and name your top three suspects.

 

[remez]

1) "law of causality" does not need to hold for the universe as a whole. We cannot know anything about the physics outside the universe.

I’m unsure if you are trying to infer that my position is committing a fallacy of composition, and/0r if you are actually begging the question for natural materialism.

So why wouldn’t the law of causality apply to the universe?
And ……….
Why wouldn’t it apply beyond the universe?

2) BGV: A: only states that what comes before the hyperinflation cannot be an eternal hyperinflation.

Thus it began to exist some finite time ago. Time, space, matter and energy began to exist with the beginning of our universe.

B: is a general relativistic theorem. It doesnt include quantum mechanical considerations and thus really dont say anything about the beginning of the universe at planck time.

Quantum is a material something, not nothing. The material quantum state began with the universe.
Again ….. http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

3) "necessary" isnt a real property.

No it’s a causal explanation for the property of being eternal.

That something exists doesnt mean that it is necessary.

No, of course not, most things are contingent.

I do not "ignore the process the theist is employing to get from a cause to the theistic God. ", on the contrary: I very easily shows that it is baloney.

You have presented nothing yet that has not been refuted or rebutted.

 

[DBT]

Nah, just got tired of the dancing . I made the comment to Juma because he summarized the problems of making unfounded assumptions, that if the universe had a beginning (which is not known), that the beginning has to be the work of god (another unfounded assumption) - 'god' itself being an unknown element, just a word that means whatever a believer wants it to mean.

It's just a circular argument based on unfounded assumptions. If you want to believe in Creation, fine, not my business, but you don't have a valid case for the reasons already given by several posters, including myself.

Your charge of circular reasoning is based on a straw man.

That is the kind of dancing I was referring to. The foundation of my charge is the fact that we do not have enough information to determine whether time had a beginning or the universe has always existed in some form. The standard model has its problems, but there is still nothing to suggest the agency of supernatural entity. That is nothing more than an assumption based on personal desire.

Absent any forthcoming defense of your reasoning, I’ll rest comfortably with the reasoning that is on the table.

Thank you for your time and effort.

More dancing. I have given post after post of reasoning, quotes and links to articles, as have several posters, which is summarily dismissed or ignored and the assertion of 'a beginning to the universe requires a creator, a god' repeated in different ways regardless of the fact that there may not have been a beginning to matter/energy, or if there was beginning, this says nothing about the existence of a creator (being an assumption).

You have not made a case for the necessity of a creator under any current model of the universe, be it the standard model or any string theory/quantum model.

 

[abaddon]

So why wouldn’t the law of causality apply to the universe?
And ……….
Why wouldn’t it apply beyond the universe?

The fallacy of composition was explained several pages ago.

Causes are inferred from observing one thing repeatedly following another within nature. We want to explain that so we say there’s a “cause”.

Causation is temporal. Notice it’s one thing following another… So, it’s not only something inferred from observations within nature but within time too.

The fallacy of composition is when one takes an observation of objects or events and assume it applies to the whole collection. Each song on the album is short therefore the album is short. Everything in the universe is caused therefore the universe is caused. Each thing in nature is “contingent” so the whole of nature is “contingent”.

That which applies to observed 'things' within the universe does not necessarily apply to the whole universe. To think so needs imagining it's a 'thing' within... whatever.

You seem to be imagining a time before the “absolute beginning of the space-time continuum”.

 

[Juma]

I’m unsure if you are trying to infer that my position is committing a fallacy of composition, and/0r if you are actually begging the question for natural materialism.

So why wouldn’t the law of causality apply to the universe?
And ……….
Why wouldn’t it apply beyond the universe?

Why wouldnt it apply to a god?

2) BGV: A: only states that what comes before the hyperinflation cannot be an eternal hyperinflation.

Thus it began to exist some finite time ago. Time, space, matter and energy began to exist with the beginning of our universe.

B: is a general relativistic theorem. It doesnt include quantum mechanical considerations and thus really dont say anything about the beginning of the universe at planck time.

Quantum is a material something, not nothing. The material quantum state began with the universe.
Again ….. http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

As I said: BGV is a general relativistic theorem. It doesnt say anything about what happens before the hyperinflation. The "cosmic egg" is just one of many possibilities.
But as the article says: even if they succed to show that the universe had a beginning, that doesnt help the theistic case a bit.

3) "necessary" isnt a real property.

No it’s a causal explanation for the property of being eternal.

That something exists doesnt mean that it is necessary.

No, of course not, most things are contingent.

Then show that is (or has been) something that is/was "necessary".

I do not "ignore the process the theist is employing to get from a cause to the theistic God. ", on the contrary: I very easily shows that it is baloney.

You have presented nothing yet that has not been refuted or rebutted.

A forum discussion like this requires that you doesnt lie outright. You havent refuted anything. (The article did seem to indicate that the seed theory could have been refuted, but you did not)

 

[remez]

The foundation of my charge is the fact that we do not have enough information to determine whether time had a beginning or the universe has always existed in some form.

The following two quotes are from Hawking and Vilenkin respectively.

In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.

Link…… http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

“With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is now no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universe (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176

I have given post after post of reasoning,

Each time I have responded by challenging that reasoning and asking you to defend. I have provided evidence and reasoning as to why for provided defeaters fail. The cyclic, multiverse, quantum, brane eternal scifi models just don’t cut it scientifically and/or philosophically. Yet have you ever addressed these failures? No, you seem to think that the very presence of their fiction defeats an absolute beginning.

I have given post after post of reasoning, quotes and links to articles, ………, which is summarily dismissed or ignored ….

Dare you to show me where I have ignored a link you provided.

….or if there was beginning, this says nothing about the existence of a creator…

It means a great deal.

If there was no beginning then these arguments would be far less compelling.

It means the universe can no longer be thought of as eternal and stand in competition as the most reasonable cause of everything.

It means the universe isn’t necessary.

Einstein so despised this notion he created a pseudo-cosmological constant to defeat it. He called it his greatest error.

As to redress the notion that Vilenkin says supports your thought there….. he takes the argument to the conclusion of a cause and fails to address the rest. How convenient. However, he does not bury his head in the sand to the need for a cause. He simply does not address the forensic and abductive reasoning that proceeds from a cause to a theistic creator.

The standard model has its problems, but there is still nothing to suggest the agency of supernatural entity. That is nothing more than an assumption based on personal desire.

“There is still nothing to suggest” …… but the forensics and abductive reasoning that you continually leave unaddressed.

You have not made a case for the necessity of a creator under any current model of the universe, be it the standard model or any string theory/quantum model.

I’m ok with your assessment. I didn't think you would find them compelling. I just wanted a shot at defeating your common defeaters.

I’m ready to move on to the next argument.

 

[remez]

I do not "ignore the process the theist is employing to get from a cause to the theistic God. ", on the contrary: I very easily shows that it is baloney.

You have presented nothing yet that has not been refuted or rebutted.

A forum discussion like this requires that you doesnt lie outright. You havent refuted anything. (The article did seem to indicate that the seed theory could have been refuted, but you did not)

I found and article to support my view and you claim that by doing that I didn’t refute your defeaters. How does that work?

You havent refuted anything.

I have attempted to refute, rebut and redress everything you put forth against these arguments. You just admitted I refuted your cosmic egg defeater.
Some other quick examples……………

B: is a general relativistic theorem. It doesnt include quantum mechanical considerations and thus really dont say anything about the beginning of the universe at planck time.

Quantum is a material something, not nothing. The material quantum state began with the universe.

Or these …………

a) this universe is a simulation in another universe

See e).

b) universe is cyclic (big bang, big crunch, big bang)

Fails the BGV theorem. Doesn’t eliminate an absolute beginning anyway. Insufficient mass to reverse expansion. Entropy issues cannot be resolved sufficient enough to render these models reasonable. Gets pretty ad hoc attempting to hurdle all of the defects.

c) some mad alien scientist created it in his lab by mistake.

You fail to see that there was no space, time, mass, or energy for this fiction. Perhaps if you could provide some common revelation I could study this further. In other words I willing to entertain your scenario as long as you can provide a common history of revelation.

d) a seed has been existing for eternity and then become this universe.

Fails quantum, mechanically. Its probability of collapse is non-zero thus it couldn’t have existed eternally.

e) this universe started as a quantum event in another universe.

Multiverse scenarios….. Again are crushed by the BGV theorem. Meaning they still have a finite past thus do not eliminate the need for a cause. Provide one that does get around the BGV theorem and then we might have something reasonable to discuss.

None of these were defended by you.
Or these ……………..

1) Remember that time itself started with the universe. There is no "before the universe". So there cannot have been a cause.

So I’m assuming you’re referring to an efficient cause and not a material cause. Thus you are claiming there is no efficient cause because it did not take place in space or time. Which if you examine that closely, you should notice that your refutation is self-refuting. Self-refuting refutations aren’t cause for a false premise.

2) "cause and effect" is no physical law, it is metaphysics. There is one law though and that is that IF there is a cause it must occur before the effect. But since time started when the universe did so...

…… so …. reason beyond the physics. You said so yourself. Think about it …. The laws of logic are immaterial. Not physical. Metaphysics.

3) Quantum mechanics shows that there are plenty of uncaused events.

And thunder is the sound of the gods bowling. Not knowing “how” does not mean it was uncaused. I advocate we keep trying to understand rather than to give up and say it was magically uncaused.

Those were just a quick few. How have I been dishonest with you?

 

[remez]

So why wouldn’t the law of causality apply to the universe?
And ……….
Why wouldn’t it apply beyond the universe?

The fallacy of composition was explained several pages ago.

No it was asserted by underseer. I asked him to support his assertion and he did not. That does not equate to the argument being defeated. You must support your defeaters for them to be defeaters. Simply mentioning them does not make them defeaters. This fallacy charge has been level against this argument before. And it has easily been shown to be wrong. As a matter of fact in order to assert the charge you have to make a straw man out of the argument.

Before I show you your straw man I would like to address this notion that these arguments have been defeated. Look deeper. The defeaters that were fired against these arguments have in turn been defeated. Skeptics are too quick to buy into the shallow defeaters that been refuted or rebutted. That is why I keep asking you to defend your defeaters they don’t work.

Causation is temporal.

Temporal in what sense? There is a big difference between the understanding that the law of causality addresses at temporal relationship and asserting that the law of causality itself is temporal.

The fallacy of composition is when one takes an observation of objects or events and assume it applies to the whole collection. Each song on the album is short therefore the album is short. Everything in the universe is caused therefore the universe is caused. Each thing in nature is “contingent” so the whole of nature is “contingent”.

There is the straw man. The argument is not claiming or assuming that the universe needs a cause because things in the universe have a cause. The argument is based on the reasoning that whatever begins to exist has a cause. So to even assert the fallacy of composition you have to make the argument of straw. That is why I was waiting for underseer to respond and reveal the straw man as you did. It is a classic charge that is easily dismissed. Yet skeptics still claim the argument is defeated by a pseudo-defeater.

You seem to be imagining a time before the “absolute beginning of the space-time continuum”.

We recognize the law of causality as not only eternal and immaterial but that it obviously predicts material and/or efficient causes. The cause of the universe cannot be a material cause but is an efficient, immaterial cause.
But we have been here before………..

Explain how simply offering some irrational piece of skepticism refutes the true conclusion of an argument.

Look at how you just throw “true” in there.

The conclusion logically follows from the premises. You have provided nothing but skepticism to challenge the premises.

and again your skepticism without rational reasoning does not defeat either argument.

If there are alternative possibilities (enough of them already named in the thread) then your premises are not reasonable to assume as true and what you think follows from them cannot be trusted as a valid conclusion. That’s not skepticism without rational reasoning.

There you go again. Your “alternative possibilities” are wild speculations in need of your defense because they are unreasonable. The ones named in this thread need defense. I have not ignored them. I have challenged them scientifically. I have challenged their metaphysics. No one has responded to my challenges. You must defend what you present as a counter. That’s how it works. Defend your wild speculations as reasonable in the face of the stronger science and reasoning I have offered against them. Your claim that my premises (supported by stronger science) are weak simply because you named some undefended wild speculation is simply irrational. Defend your assertion.

Now………..Law of causality states for every effect there is a preceding cause. Think about it.

Ok, thinking about it, I realize causality is an attribute of events within nature.

I know where you going with this. You’re failing to recognize that this attribute is not physical or material and thus bounded by neither.

If the universe began to exist then the universe is an effect. Think about it.

Ok. If the universe began then I accept that it is an effect.

So logic demands the universe has a cause. Think about it.

Here’s one way that your logic falls apart. You’re trying to “extrapolate” back to before the universe or nature “began”. You assume a characteristic found within nature (causation) will still apply when you go outside the bounds of nature. Also it’s a fallacy of composition to apply a feature found within something and say it applies to the whole thing.

Yep you did. You would be correct if the laws of logic were a physical characteristic. But they are not physical characteristics bound by the physical. Same reasoning applies to your asserted fallacy feature. Your reasoning fails. Further you are begging the question for materialism when you errantly claim they don’t apply outside of the physically material universe.

See that’s how it works you challenge I counter. Your challenge was mentioned and I countered it. You will not be able to defend your challenge here in any rational manner. Now feel free to challenge again. But your counter here logically fails. And the other wild eternal universe models do as well. Unless of course, you can present some reasoning that presents their cause as more rational. Happy hunting.

The fact that the universe began to exist means it had a external cause.

No it doesn’t necessarily mean that. If your “law of causality” that’s central to your argument applies even at the alleged beginning of 'the universe', then why stop there? Where’d god come from?

I will attend to your special pleading charge in a moment. Heard it many times.

But here….. I said the universe’s cause had to be external. You so no. Then you provided an if-then sentence for …… what purpose? I don’t see how it supports your no or counters my assertion. What were you reasoning here?

Because I really want to know how you can say “no” to the logic I asserted there.

….. and you did not respond.

 

[Juma]

... [A lot of baloney that avoids the real issue...]...
[\QUOTE]

Now to the real issue:
Show that there is such a property as "necessary".

 

[abaddon]

The fallacy of composition was explained several pages ago.

No it was asserted by underseer.

No, I referred to myself and you quote that instance of me explaining it later in this post.

Causation is temporal.

Temporal in what sense?

Cause -> effect is processual and so happens in time.

There is a big difference between the understanding that the law of causality addresses at temporal relationship and asserting that the law of causality itself is temporal.

What does “law of causality itself” even mean? Do you think it’s a thing in itself?

Causality is just a human generalization from empirical observations of nature. I don’t know how it can be an eternal… whatever. Force? Rule? Thought in the mind of God?

The fallacy of composition is when one takes an observation of objects or events and assume it applies to the whole collection. Each song on the album is short therefore the album is short. Everything in the universe is caused therefore the universe is caused. Each thing in nature is “contingent” so the whole of nature is “contingent”.

There is the straw man. The argument is not claiming or assuming that the universe needs a cause because things in the universe have a cause. The argument is based on the reasoning that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Word game bullshit. Causality isn’t only a “reasoning”, it’s an abstraction from observation. “Whatever begins to exist has a cause” is something one can only extrapolate from things or events within experience (in the universe) having apparent causal relations. There’s no other way to derive the main assumption, causality, upon which your argument to God is based except looking at nature.

Yet skeptics still claim the argument is defeated by a pseudo-defeater.

I don’t claim it’s defeated. If it’s doubtable then it’s not a solid argument. It’s been argued by dozens over centuries with no absolute "defeaters" and to no end because ultimately it reveals nothing at all but how people value things. You get “God” out of it if that word seems meaningful (seems to have explanatory power because of assumptions about "eternal" and other). But you think “no I’m not convinced” if the concept "God" isn't perceived as meaningful.

Label and dismiss that any way you like, values are the central fact of this argument and not logic because the logic's riddled with value-laden assumptions and terms.

You seem to be imagining a time before the “absolute beginning of the space-time continuum”.

We recognize the law of causality as not only eternal and immaterial but that it obviously predicts material and/or efficient causes. The cause of the universe cannot be a material cause but is an efficient, immaterial cause.

Who’s "we"? What is the means of “recognizing” it? This is all assertion. You just keep asserting things over and over, calling them "obvious" and "necessary".

You would be correct if the laws of logic were a physical characteristic. But they are not physical characteristics bound by the physical. Same reasoning applies to your asserted fallacy feature. Your reasoning fails. Further you are begging the question for materialism when you errantly claim they don’t apply outside of the physically material universe.

No, I’m not saying your argument’s a fallacy of composition because logic’s material and belongs only within the material universe. Look up the fallacy of composition if you don’t understand it. There’s no physicalist assumption going on.

The fact that the universe began to exist means it had a external cause.

No it doesn’t necessarily mean that. If your “law of causality” that’s central to your argument applies even at the alleged beginning of 'the universe', then why stop there? Where’d god come from?

I will attend to your special pleading charge in a moment. Heard it many times.

But here….. I said the universe’s cause had to be external. You so no. Then you provided an if-then sentence for …… what purpose? I don’t see how it supports your no or counters my assertion. What were you reasoning here?

Because I really want to know how you can say “no” to the logic I asserted there.

….. and you did not respond.

1) “No it doesn’t necessarily mean that”.

I will withdraw that because I’d already conceded previously the premise that IF this universe is an effect then there’s a cause of the effect.

2) “If your “law of causality” that’s central to your argument applies even at the alleged beginning of 'the universe', then why stop there? Where’d god come from?”

Here I went from doubting the necessity of an external cause to wondering why does god get an “out” regarding your eternal “law of causality”?

(And so the wheel just spins on and on and on and on and on and on, the argument's old because it's unsolvable and it'd be so much less onerous ... maybe even interesting ... if you would just move on to why it's a Christian God and not another).

 

[DBT]

It means a great deal.

Proposing a beginning to the Universe does not imply a Creator because, for the standard model a beginning to time/space means that there was no time before the Universe. And as the Universe is, by definition, all that there is, all that exists, there is no Agent outside the Universe and no separate time continuum external to the time/space/relativity of the Universe. So, no nothing and no one before time began and nothing and no one acting outside of the Universe.

And other models, multiverse, many worlds, cyclic, etc, have no need of a Creator.

Dare you to show me where I have ignored a link you provided.

Don't you remember the issue with a cyclic universe? You objected for the reason of energy loss and I provided links to updated versions based on QM/brane collisions. It's not so much that you ignored the given links, but the points that are raised in the articles and the points that I raised. You just brush all difficulties aside and assert God is necessary (which you are still doing now), which under practically any scientific model you care to raise, is not a necessary explanatory element.

 

[remez]

There is a big difference between the understanding that the law of causality addresses at temporal relationship and asserting that the law of causality itself is temporal.

What does “law of causality itself” even mean? Do you think it’s a thing in itself?

Causality is just a human generalization from empirical observations of nature. I don’t know how it can be an eternal… whatever. Force? Rule? Thought in the mind of God

Specifically…………….

What does “law of causality itself” even mean?

The law of causality immaterial law that exits eternally.

Do you think it’s a thing in itself?

Yes, don’t you? You have been trying to use it throughout our discussion here.

Causality is just a human generalization from empirical observations of nature. I don’t know how it can be an eternal… whatever.

Before there were any humans on the earth, was the condition that there were no humans on the earth, true?

Also ……………..

Human generalizations change the laws of logic do not.

Force?

No

Rule?

Law.

Thought in the mind of God

Part of the nature of God.
Next ...

The fallacy of composition is when one takes an observation of objects or events and assume it applies to the whole collection. Each song on the album is short therefore the album is short. Everything in the universe is caused therefore the universe is caused. Each thing in nature is “contingent” so the whole of nature is “contingent”.

There is the straw man. The argument is not claiming or assuming that the universe needs a cause because things in the universe have a cause. The argument is based on the reasoning that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Word game bullshit. Causality isn’t only a “reasoning”, it’s an abstraction from observation. “Whatever begins to exist has a cause” is something one can only extrapolate from things or events within experience (in the universe) having apparent causal relations. There’s no other way to derive the main assumption, causality, upon which your argument to God is based except looking at nature.

I think you missed my point there. To claim that theists are committing the fallacy of composition there is to assert that our reasoning for the universe to have a cause depends on faulty logic ….. that since we observe that things in the universe having causes therefore we assume the universe has a cause. If that is the logic of the argument then it would be a fallacy of composition comparable to your record example.

But the logic of the argument depends on things having a beginning. Anything that begins to exist (regardless of subset characteristics) needs a cause. There is no composition of the logic in the argument.
Further ……………

Causality isn’t only a “reasoning”, it’s an abstraction from observation.

So is gravity. But does that mean gravity didn’t exist before humans were around?

“Whatever begins to exist has a cause” is something one can only extrapolate from things or events within experience (in the universe) having apparent causal relations.

Yes, but human observation and extrapolation did not cause the law of causality or gravity to exist. The law of causality is nonphysical characteristic we have discovered not invented. In the same manner as the law of gravity is a physical characteristic that we discovered not invented. Each existed prior to human discovery. The Earth was the similar shape as the Mars before humans were here to observe their shapes. Earth was closer to the sun than Neptune before there were humans here to observe their mathematical relations.
In this context our observation is not causal, it’s descriptive. Without the existence of the law of causality we would never have been able to make sense of our observations?

There’s no other way to derive the main assumption, causality, upon which your argument to God is based except looking at nature.

Yes our observations discovered and confirmed its existence, but our observations did not cause its existence.

Yet skeptics still claim the argument is defeated by a pseudo-defeater.

I don’t claim it’s defeated. If it’s doubtable then it’s not a solid argument. It’s been argued by dozens over centuries with no absolute "defeaters" and to no end because ultimately it reveals nothing at all but how people value things. You get “God” out of it if that word seems meaningful (seems to have explanatory power because of assumptions about "eternal" and other). But you think “no I’m not convinced” if the concept "God" isn't perceived as meaningful.

Noted … not defeated just doubtful.
Then……….

It’s been argued by dozens over centuries with no absolute "defeaters" and to no end because ultimately it reveals nothing at all but how people value things.

It does not address how people value things …. Non sequitur.

You get “God” out of it if that word seems meaningful (seems to have explanatory power because of assumptions about "eternal" and other).

Conclusion does not rest upon any premise or logic of humans values.

But you think “no I’m not convinced” if the concept "God" isn't perceived as meaningful.

No. I’m challenging your claims of why it is doubtful. You will likely still find the argument uncompelling, but that does not make the argument unsound or invalid it just means you don’t find it compelling. Thus it is your reasoning vs the logic of the argument that is there to be judged. More specifically we are addressing the plausibility of the argument. You reject it for certain expressed doubts. I simply have been challenging the validity of those doubts. You have been challenging my efforts and defending yours. That’s the way it works.

Label and dismiss that any way you like, values are the central fact of this argument and not logic because the logic's riddled with value-laden assumptions and terms.

How so? Premises, logic and conclusion is the central thesis. It is an objective argument based on logic, no need for subjective values. You may be rejecting it based on subjective values but that again does not render the objective argument invalid.
Next …………..

You would be correct if the laws of logic were a physical characteristic. But they are not physical characteristics bound by the physical. Same reasoning applies to your asserted fallacy feature. Your reasoning fails. Further you are begging the question for materialism when you errantly claim they don’t apply outside of the physically material universe.

No, I’m not saying your argument’s a fallacy of composition because logic’s material and belongs only within the material universe. Look up the fallacy of composition if you don’t understand it. There’s no physicalist assumption going on.

I saw this a different fallacy. As to the regards of the law of causality as being physical there, I was addressing the fallacy of begging the question not composition. Go back and read it. It is “write” there. There were two different concerns. Your prior concern that I reposted had nothing to do with composition as I saw it.
Further……………..

No, I’m not saying your argument’s a fallacy of composition

But you did exactly that at the beginning of your last post …………

The fallacy of composition was explained several pages ago.

No it was asserted by underseer.

No, I referred to myself and you quote that instance of me explaining it later in this post.

No that was begging the question ….. as you quoted me.
AND NOW you are claiming ………. In the same post…..

No, I’m not saying your argument’s a fallacy of composition because logic’s material and belongs only within the material universe. Look up the fallacy of composition if you don’t understand it. There’s no physicalist assumption going on.

You are arguing with yourself and criticizing me for it. I recognized from the beginning you were committing two different fallacies.
Next……………

The fact that the universe began to exist means it had a external cause.

No it doesn’t necessarily mean that. If your “law of causality” that’s central to your argument applies even at the alleged beginning of 'the universe', then why stop there? Where’d god come from?

1) “No it doesn’t necessarily mean that”.

Then you are illogically asserting the universe created itself? Based on what? Faith?

I will withdraw that because I’d already conceded previously the premise that IF this universe is an effect then there’s a cause of the effect.

Very rational.

2) “If your “law of causality” that’s central to your argument applies even at the alleged beginning of 'the universe', then why stop there? Where’d god come from?”

Let’s leave the “God Hypothesis” out of this for a just a moment.

This is the rationale for the argument. If something exists now then something has to be eternal. Rationally something necessarily has to exist eternally without cause. That which is eternal does not begin. That which is eternal rationally has no cause. For most of human history the universe has been reasoned to be eternal and reasoned to not have a cause because it did not begin. Science recently has shown that not to be the case.

Now do you understand the logic of ……………..

1. that something has to be eternal
2. a entity that is eternal it does not have a cause
3. the universe is not eternal ……………

………..without the burden of the “God Hypothesis?”

So……..

Here I went from doubting the necessity of an external cause to wondering why does god get an “out” regarding your eternal “law of causality”?

He doesn’t. God is eternal and did not begin to exist. Again that which is eternal does not have a cause.
This is not a case of special pleading for this EXACT logic throughout history (until recently) has been the reasoning why the universe was considered to be the first cause.

(And so the wheel just spins on and on and on and on and on and on, the argument's old because it's unsolvable and it'd be so much less onerous ... maybe even interesting ... if you would just move on to why it's a Christian God and not another).

To clarify …

1. These two arguments point to a theistic God, not necessarily the Christian God.

2. What remains (as I see it) in the pool of God’s that has not been filtered out by these two arguments is…..

The Christian God, the Islamic God and the God of Judaism. One could make a case for the deistic God as well, but then one would first have to admit there is a God, and then examine the scriptural evidence to why that is or is not the case.

I will of course entertain any other candidates you may wish to contend.

 

[remez]

And as the Universe is, by definition, all that there is, all that exists,

The context of your “all” is all matter space time and energy. That is the limit of naturalistic materialism. The universe does not account for the immaterial, non-physical spaceless, eternal. Etc.

So, no nothing and no one before time began ….

Nothing and no one material, physical and temporal.
And from the beginning of our discussion …….

……. no one acting outside of the Universe.

So you ARE stating there is no God. Now if that is not the definition of an atheist then what is?

And other models, multiverse, many worlds, cyclic, etc, have no need of a Creator.

I have pointed out before how you were wrong here. The multiverse and cyclic models do not eliminate the need for a first cause. And the quantum theories start with something not nothing.

Dare you to show me where I have ignored a link you provided.

Don't you remember the issue with a cyclic universe? You objected for the reason of energy loss and I provided links to updated versions based on QM/brane collisions. It's not so much that you ignored the given links,

Better.

It's not so much that you ignored the given links, but the points that are raised in the articles and the points that I raised. You just brush all difficulties aside …..

Posts 133,139,145,149,152,168,173,176, …… back and forth we went. I read your first and only link, with Steinhardt, enjoyed it, and directly responded. He is a good writer.

Did you read my earlier link by Vilenkin?

Or this one new one here…..

The idea of a cyclic universe was recently revived by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok.11 They suggested that in each cycle expansion is greater than contraction, so that the volume of the universe is increased. The entropy of the universe we can now observe could be the same as the entropy of some similar region in an earlier cycle; nonetheless, the total entropy of the universe would have increased because the volume of the universe is now greater than it was before. As time goes on, both the entropy and the total volume grow without bounds, and the state of maximum entropy is never reached. There is no maximum entropy.12
The problem with this scenario is that, on average, the volume of the universe still grows, and thus the BGV theorem can be applied. This leads immediately to the conclusion that a cyclic universe cannot be past-eternal.

Link….
http://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe

note in this one he even brushes off theism……. I provide it here because it certainly addresses the unreasonableness the model you were championing. As for his brush off of theism ….. He really did not address the second part of the argument. His comment only redressed the first part of the argument and he says so. So it would be easy at that point to say a cause is needed but theism is not helped. Metaphysically weak on that point but the rest is incredible. He even shares a great description of the theorem in the article. As to his “desperation” of quantum creation, I have already addressed earlier. This guy is good. And so is Steinhardt. I enjoy reading them both. I don’t agree with all of their ideas but don’t shy away from their work either. Read the article. I would like your thoughts on it.

So now……………..

Which points did I not address?

 

[Juma]

So how came this "god" to be? Created by another god?

 

[remez]

So how came this "god" to be? Created by another god?

To repeat from just above your last post ....Where I just addressed this again.....

2) “If your “law of causality” that’s central to your argument applies even at the alleged beginning of 'the universe', then why stop there? Where’d god come from?”

Let’s leave the “God Hypothesis” out of this for a just a moment.

This is the rationale for the argument. If something exists now then something has to be eternal. Rationally something necessarily has to exist eternally without cause. That which is eternal does not begin. That which is eternal rationally has no cause. For most of human history the universe has been reasoned to be eternal and reasoned to not have a cause because it did not begin. Science recently has shown that not to be the case.

Now do you understand the logic of ……………..

1. that something has to be eternal
2. a entity that is eternal it does not have a cause
3. the universe is not eternal

………..without the burden of the “God Hypothesis?”

So……..

Here I went from doubting the necessity of an external cause to wondering why does god get an “out” regarding your eternal “law of causality”?

He doesn’t. God is eternal and did not begin to exist. Again that which is eternal does not have a cause.

This is not a case of special pleading for this EXACT logic throughout history (until recently) has been the reasoning why the universe was considered to be the first cause.

 

[Juma]

Doesnt answer the question: what created god.