Different Kinds of Reasoning - Scientific Method vs Faith

[remez]

Doesnt answer the question: what created god.

If the universe was eternal would it have a cause?

 

[Juma]

Doesnt answer the question: what created god.

If the universe was eternal would it have a cause?

How do you know that god is eternal?

 

[remez]

If the universe was eternal would it have a cause?

How do you know that god is eternal?

Theology supported by philosophy and science.

 

[Juma]

How do you know that god is eternal?

Theology supported by philosophy and science.

You must be joking...

Present the argument.

 

[abaddon]

remez,

You incorrectly thought that my description of causality as a “human generalization from empirical observations of nature” (as opposed to a thought in the mind of God or similar) meant you needed to explain to me about causal relations existing aside from human observation. When I think I explained thoroughly enough, in that most recent post you addressed and the one before it, that my doubt is that causality happens outside of time.

Causality as an abstraction is from Hume. We say “cause” because we see one event follows repeatedly upon another event, and surmise "causation”. It doesn't mean humans invented the phenomenon they’re describing.

Also you took “No, I’m not saying your argument’s a fallacy of composition” out of the context of its fuller sentence to say I’m arguing with myself. I’m not THAT bad of a writer, you seem to me too fast of a poster.

If I find time this week I will work out a more elaborate explanation of why I think events outside of time and space are at least improbable if not impossible; also (maybe) why treating the universe as a “thing” is problematic; and will think again on your repeated challenge to “choose a contender”.

 

[atrib]

How do you know that god is eternal?

Theology supported by philosophy and science.

More like made up shit trying desperately to impersonate arguments based on science and philosophy.

Something cannot come from nothing, except when Biblegod does magic. That is the essence of your argument. The rest is just handwaving. You don't know why our reality exists any more than any of us skeptics, so you desperately try to shoehorn your preferred supercreature into the role of dysfunctional universe creator. You make up shit and foolishly claim certainty in your knowledge. Nothing new here.

 

[DBT]

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.

Sure, you did reply, but I don't recall that you actually addressed what was said, nor did you accept that God is not required for Steinhardt's model, which is obviously not a part of the model.

Which was the essence of my complaint. That you tend to ignore the difficulties and assert and reassert your belief in the necessity of God as an explanation for any form beginning of the Universe regardless of the difficulties that are being presented, ie, models that clearly do not require a Creator.

 

[remez]

Present the argument.

OK First ……..

Is it reasonable to conclude that something has to be eternal?

And again ………..

If the universe were eternal would it need a cause?

 

[Juma]

Present the argument.

OK First ……..

Is it reasonable to conclude that something has to be eternal?

And again ………..

If the universe were eternal would it need a cause?

No bullshitting. Present your entire argument that god is eternal.

 

[remez]

More like made up shit trying desperately to impersonate arguments based on science and philosophy.

Specifically what did I make up?

Something cannot come from nothing, except when Biblegod does magic.

Too simplistic a generalization. Just flaming a straw man.

You left this unaddressed from earlier…………

Therefore, the stuff that makes up our visible universe has always existed, and a supernatural creator is not necessary to explain its existence.

Right there, your case is special pleading for materialism. In the face of the overwhelming evidence. The material just had to exist, it just had to, my materialism cannot grasp the probable fact that our universe began without material. The only reason you have to say that is your presupposition of materialism. That is a philosophical choice on your part. One that requires a defense, not simply assumed to be true. Thus your counter is based on a philosophy that needs to be defended before your counter stands as reasonable.

Something created something out of nothing or nothing created something out of nothing? Which is more reasonable?

Even your straw man requires less faith.

Why you are even concerned that universe is eternal?
Or that it is part of some larger eternal material environment?

You don't know why our reality exists any more than any of us skeptics, so you desperately try to shoehorn your preferred supercreature into the role of dysfunctional universe creator.

These arguments have been around for over two thousand years in one form or another. I’m addressing an argument with a set of well-established definitions. Arguments that a library of books have addressed. Authored by both sides of the debate. Hawking, Dennett, Dawkins and Krauss recently have authored books addressing these concerns.

What is it that you see that I’m making up?

You make up shit and foolishly claim certainty in your knowledge. Nothing new here.

I’m not claiming absolute certainty. I addressed that in our last post. I’m asserting that the theistic God is a more rational conclusion than the universe creating itself.

For further context here is the last post you have yet to respond to ….

You keep dancing around this fact.

I’m not dancing around it. I’m dancing to it. It’s been my tune along.

All we have established at this point to some degree of certainty is that the visible universe began to exist in its present state about 13.7 BYA.

To a great, great, great degree of certainty. Without a reasonable doubt. Complete beginning ….time space matter and energy. Evidence by the most prevalent cosmological model existing. The standard big bang model is not going away and it most definitely predicts a beginning. All these failed eternal models strengthen the SBBM. The BVG theorem is even destroying the idea of looking for an eternal material model.

This does not mean that that the stuff (matter and energy) that constitutes our visible universe did not exist in some form prior to this time.

You only have that desperate self-blinding faith this is remotely possible. Why is it even possible? Because the science can logically only get Planck close. If the universe had a beginning, a total beginning, then science by its own philosophical limitations will never be able to conclude its cause. That is all you have on your side. There be monsters there.

Here is what I mean by that. Science is limited to the study of nature. If nature began to exist, totally exist, then how could we possible trace through the natural laws of physics backwards to the exact moment they began. You claim we don’t know how it began because the natural laws break down. Do they break down or are they just coming into existence? Think about it, how can science using the natural laws of physics actually follow the natural laws to back their absolute natural self-cause? I “postdict” you can’t, because the natural laws would break down just a Planck before you get there.

If just coming into existence from something non-natural then how can natural science possible know? It can’t and it won’t. That is all you have to cling too, standing against all the evidence that points to a total beginning.
Now at this point you are concluding well it just has to be natural because that is all there is. Well THAT would be special pleading. THAT would be a nature of the gaps fallacy.
Focus there was solely that the universe had a complete absolute beginning, not that the cause was a theistic God.

Some more support ………….
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Observation: Something, this visible universe, exists

This leads us to the following two options:

1. Something can come from nothing, and your premise is false
2. Something cannot come from nothing, and your premise is true.

If (1) is true, then a supernatural creator is not needed to explain the existence of the universe.

Sure he is. If the universe began then it needs a cause. A cause doesn’t have to be material to be a cause. I thought you understood the argument. When the contingency argument addressed the logic that nothing comes from nothing, it was appealing to our reasoning of a physical material causation. There can exist no material cause from nothing. Therefore the universe needs an efficient cause that is not material. The transcendent efficient cause must also be eternal, timeless sans creation, spaceless, power, and arguably a personal agent.

Truly I thought you understood the two philosophies we were debating…… that we were dancing to the same tune……ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing, nothing comes) and creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing)
have for centuries been understood together not in conflict but support with the understanding of material and efficient causation.

If (2) is true, a supernatural creator could not have created this universe out of nothing, because something cannot come from nothing.

The theistic God is the efficient cause not a material cause. There is no material cause. He caused all materials to be about 13.7 bya. That is the theistic doctrine and it has been for centuries even in the face of the science prior to the twentieth century proclaiming the universe was eternal. The twentieth century was very confirming.

Therefore, the stuff that makes up our visible universe has always existed, and a supernatural creator is not necessary to explain its existence.

Right there, your case is special pleading for materialism. In the face of the overwhelming evidence. The material just had to exist, it just had to, my materialism cannot grasp the probable fact that our universe began without material. The only reason you have to say that is your presupposition of materialism. That is a philosophical choice on your part. One that requires a defense, not simply assumed to be true. Thus your counter is based on a philosophy that needs to be defended before your counter stands as reasonable.

Something created something out of nothing or nothing created something out of nothing? Which is more reasonable?

So yes, while it is hypothetically possible that a sentient supernatural creator created this universe, there are potentially an infinite number of other causes by which this visible universe could have come about,

What you are referring to as hypothetically possible, has scientific support and therefore is far more plausible. Far more plausible than your desperate science fiction speculations that you are hiding behind instead of facing the evidence and the logic.

there are potentially an infinite number of other causes by which this visible universe could have come about, all of which are pretty much unknown at this time.

How does that even make sense?

We simply don't know. Which leads us to the fundamental difference in how theists and scientists see the world, which is the topic of this thread:

I’m both and I’m not going to ignore the almost certain fact, supported by the evidence, that our universe had an absolute beginning. You are creating this false dichotomy and proclaiming your self-blinding faith is better for your non-theistic side. You’re the one self-blinding yourself to the overt evidence that our universe had an absolute beginning. All the other models fail, confirm or do not escape a beginning anyway.

Some more support ………….
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Theist: we don't know why the universe exists, therefore our preferred supernatural creator with x,y,z characteristics did it.

WHY?
If you meant How? Then Straw man.

Scientists: we don't know why the universe exists, therefore we must keep looking for the answers.

WHY?
If you meant How? Then…….. As a scientist and theist I concur. But this does nothing to nullify my case for a theistic God.

Should we somehow actually find empirical evidence of an eternal material environment beyond our universe then I would really have to reconsider my theisms.

Also, we are still waiting on you to support your assertion that a expanding universe supports the existence of the Biblical creator. We are not holding our breath.

Redressed several times already. Find one and challenge it if you like.

???

 

[remez]

Sure, you did reply, but I don't recall that you actually addressed what was said, nor did you accept that God is not required for Steinhardt's model, which is obviously not a part of the model.

As I understand it from your last post, there are three different points of confusion between us that I’ll attempt to clarify here.

1. Me not recognizing that God is not part of their model. I just assumed God was not part of their model. I have addressed each of these models from the perspective that God is not required. But……here….

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.

… is where I missed you. I was already operating with the understanding that these models were God-free. So I directly redressed why they are models that don’t represent a viable alternatives to the universe being part of some materially eternal environment. They still come into being.

Now for confusion number 2.

That you tend to ignore the difficulties

2. Me ignoring there difficulties. I wasn’t ignoring them. To the contrary, I was embracing them. It is those very difficulties and more that I assert render the models insufficient.

Is there some particular difficulty you want me to address?

And number 3.

3. Several times I claimed that the cyclic and multiverse models don’t eliminate a finite past. They just kick the can down the road. They still would begin to exist.

This is what I meant by that. First remember I did not mean that the models themselves required God. What I was asserting is that even if they were effective they still would not eliminate the need of a beginning. Your models would still represent a beginning that could not be caused materially. These models, even if they were effective, would still be contingent. Something necessary had to cause there beginning.

 

[remez]

OK First ……..

Is it reasonable to conclude that something has to be eternal?

And again ………..

If the universe were eternal would it need a cause?

No bullshitting. Present your entire argument that god is eternal.

Stop ignoring my questions and prove to us that you understand the argument to begin with.
Or are you just playing the word games?

 

[Juma]

No bullshitting. Present your entire argument that god is eternal.

Stop ignoring my questions and prove to us that you understand the argument to begin with.
Or are you just playing the word games?

You are the one playing games.

You are using "god is eternal" in your argument. It is up to you to show that it is true.

 

[bilby]

Something coming from something is banal - it happens all the time.

To explain the existence of anything, either something can come from nothing; or something is eternal.

'A God' creating 'a universe' is neither. It's just more of the banal shit we see all the time. It solves no problems that it doesn't equally cause.

If something can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal, and God is needless.

If nothing can be eternal, then something can arise from nothing. Again, God is needless.

God is not only not THE answer to "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"

God isn't even AN answer to the question.

When it comes to origins, positing that a God made the universe is not even addressing the question; it assumes that something already existed - which is the one thing we are seeking to eliminate, if we are to grasp what happened, while rejecting eternality.

Only a crazy person could claim to solve the problem of eternality by positing an eternal entity.

 

[DBT]

3. Several times I claimed that the cyclic and multiverse models don’t eliminate a finite past. They just kick the can down the road. They still would begin to exist.

That's an error. A cyclic universe means that there is no beginning to the universe, only the beginnings and endings of cycles. The universe - if cyclic - passes through all stages, start of the cycle > middle of cycle > end of cycle > start of the cycle..... eternally.

The so called ''beginning'' refers to the start or beginning of a cycle and not the beginning to the Universe itself.

In regard to 'kick the can down the road' - proposing an unknown element such as 'god is the creator' is kicking the can down the road by claiming god is eternal and therefore exempt from your rule, every beginning requires a cause.

Your models would still represent a beginning that could not be caused materially. These models, even if they were effective, would still be contingent. Something necessary had to cause there beginning.

No it doesn't, for the reasons given above.

A cyclic universe does not begin to exist at the start of a cycle nor does it terminate at the end of that cycle, these are just stages within the cyclic model.

 

[remez]

Only a crazy person could claim to solve the problem of eternality by positing an eternal entity.

Solve the problem of eternity? ……………….Eternity isn’t a problem.

It is simply a condition of the necessary first cause.
The problem is what is that eternal entity?

So if it is crazy to posit an eternal entity for the eternal then what non-eternal entity should we posit for the eternal?

Something coming from something is banal - it happens all the time.

I concur.

Something coming from something is banal - it happens all the time.

To explain the existence of anything, either something can come from nothing; or something is eternal.

The something from nothing part. Context the universe, I contend the cause cannot be material but must be efficient.

'A God' creating 'a universe' is neither. It's just more of the banal shit we see all the time. It solves no problems that it doesn't equally cause.

I keep witnessing this assertion but no one ever explains it. How so? What problems does it cause?

If something can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal, and God is needless.

Now that is the BIG question here…..Is the universe eternal?
If the universe is eternal then it would not have a cause.
If the universe were eternal then we would need to address the concerns of a possible metaphysical dualism.
But as I have pointed out our best science at the moment renders that discussion irrelevant.

If nothing can be eternal, then something can arise from nothing…..

Our present observation testifies that “nothing” cannot be eternal. But I’m still curious as to what you meant……..
Arise? …..materially arise? …..from nothing material? …. ???? Please clarify.

When it comes to origins, positing that a God made the universe is not even addressing the question; it assumes that something already existed

Not something material. It logically assumes something immaterial existed to cause the universe. That is your issue here. You seem to assume all causes are material. If all material, matter space time and energy came into being then the cause must at least be an immaterial efficient cause. These arguments certainly don’t assume the belief system of naturalistic materialism.

This was pointed out to you in our last post 185, last month. Was this a reply to that post or was it supposed to be some new objection?

 

[remez]

In regard to 'kick the can down the road' - proposing an unknown element such as 'god is the creator' is kicking the can down the road by claiming god is eternal and therefore exempt from your rule, every beginning requires a cause.

This is not an exemption. It is logic. If something is eternal than it does not have a cause. If the universe is eternal it does not have a cause and is possibly the first cause of all that exists today. If the universe is eternal then it cannot not exist. Something that cannot not exist is deemed necessary. Thus the answer to why there is something rather than nothing is that there exists some eternal entity that necessary and the first cause of all that exists. The identity of the necessary eternal entity that is the first cause is what we are debating.

God is unknown? Why? This debate is thousands of years old. Universe vs the theistic God as the eternal first cause. If the theistic God is unknown to you that does not change history of those who have debated this argument for millennium. It just seems volitional on your part to say you know nothing of the other side of this debate.

3. Several times I claimed that the cyclic and multiverse models don’t eliminate a finite past. They just kick the can down the road. They still would begin to exist.

That's an error. A cyclic universe means that there is no beginning to the universe, only the beginnings and endings of cycles. The universe - if cyclic - passes through all stages, start of the cycle > middle of cycle > end of cycle > start of the cycle..... eternally.

I understand your utopian description and your FAITH for this model. But it scientifically does not work that way. Did you read either of the two links I provided? Each is an atheistic source explaining why the cyclic model does not work. Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok version is just a remake of the old oscillating models discarded back in the eighties. Interesting how the cyclic model parallels the religions of reincarnation, isn’t it?

Check out the links I mentioned earlier. This time I’ll quote the relevant section here. …..

There is another way that the universe might be eternal in the past. It could have cycled through an infinite succession of expansions and contractions. This notion was briefly popular in the 1930s, but was then abandoned because of its apparent conflict with the second law of thermodynamics. The second law requires that entropy should increase in each cycle of cosmic evolution. If the universe had already completed an infinite number of cycles, it would have reached a state of thermal equilibrium, and so a state of maximum entropy. All the energy of ordered motion would have turned into heat, a uniform temperature prevailing throughout.
We do not find ourselves in such a state.

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.

But you should read entire article to gain some perspective. Bottom line………………

It is not eternal, thus needs a cause.

 

[bilby]

Solve the problem of eternity? ……………….Eternity isn’t a problem.

It is simply a condition of the necessary first cause.
The problem is what is that eternal entity?

So if it is crazy to posit an eternal entity for the eternal then what non-eternal entity should we posit for the eternal?

Something coming from something is banal - it happens all the time.

I concur.

Something coming from something is banal - it happens all the time.

To explain the existence of anything, either something can come from nothing; or something is eternal.

The something from nothing part. Context the universe, I contend the cause cannot be material but must be efficient.

Meaning what? What does 'efficient' mean in this context? And how does an immaterial entity interact with a material one - much less create it?

'A God' creating 'a universe' is neither. It's just more of the banal shit we see all the time. It solves no problems that it doesn't equally cause.

I keep witnessing this assertion but no one ever explains it. How so? What problems does it cause?

What created God? If universes need creators, why don't Gods? If Gods can be eternal, why can't universes?

If something can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal, and God is needless.

Now that is the BIG question here…..Is the universe eternal?

You don't know, and nor do I. But you, for some reason, discard the possibility.

If the universe is eternal then it would not have a cause.

True. Problem solved; no Gods required.

If the universe were eternal then we would need to address the concerns of a possible metaphysical dualism.

Wha?

But as I have pointed out our best science at the moment renders that discussion irrelevant.

No, it doesn't. Our best science at the moment says 'Science can't say what happened before the planck time'. That in no way rules out an eternal universe - you have no reason to assert that it does, other than that you just want it to.

If nothing can be eternal, then something can arise from nothing…..

Our present observation testifies that “nothing” cannot be eternal. But I’m still curious as to what you meant……..
Arise? …..materially arise? …..from nothing material? …. ???? Please clarify.

sorry, that was unclear, perhaps i should have said "If no entities can be eternal, then something can arise from nothing". I am saying that if there are no eternal entities, then something must have spontaneously arisen. From nothing. Because we observe entities today.

When it comes to origins, positing that a God made the universe is not even addressing the question; it assumes that something already existed

Not something material.

So fucking what?

Why should materiality make a difference?

If you are positing a God that cannot interact with the material universe, then your God is indestinguishable from non-existent. If whether or not God CAN interact with the material universe, it still needs a cause.

It logically assumes something immaterial existed to cause the universe. That is your issue here. You seem to assume all causes are material. If all material, matter space time and energy came into being then the cause must at least be an immaterial efficient cause.

No. immaterial things cannot interact with the material. And you keep using the word 'efficient' as though it should mean something in this context, but as far as I can tell, it does not mean anything at all.

These arguments certainly don’t assume the belief system of naturalistic materialism.

This was pointed out to you in our last post 185, last month. Was this a reply to that post or was it supposed to be some new objection?

No, it is a simple re-statement of the objections you still have not addressed.

Your post 185 makes no sense at all. You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that in order for me to know that you don't know the answer to the question 'What caused the universe', I have to know the answer.

Instead of an argument, you just introduce a string of non-sequiturs - the word 'efficient' cannot possibly apply here, unless you are using it to mean something you have not defined. Certainly none of the dictionary definitions I know for the word render it applicable; Your post 185 looks to me as rational as "If God didn't create the universe, then it would smell a funny colour".

You seem to delight in making things more complex for no apparent reason, other than to obscure the fact that your logic has broken down.

Immaterial things don't interact with the universe. A cause for the universe, if one exists, must either itself be eternal - and you insist that this is not allowed (except for your God, which is blatant special pleading); or it must have a cause, which gets us back to square one.

Entity 1 has cause 2.
Entity 2 has cause 3.
Entity 3 has cause 4.

We can keep going forever. Or there is an entity n which causes entity n-1, but has no cause n+1.

Entity n must either be eternal, or it must arise spontaneously, uncaused, from nothing.

You are seeking to claim that entity n must be your God; I assert that there is nothing known about entity n, and that your assertion is therefore unjustified and unjustifiable.

You claim that if entity n exists, it must be immaterial. Why? If it is, how does that help?
You claim that if entity n exists, it must be efficient. WTF does that even mean?
You claim that if entity n exists, it must be eternal. That's not true - it could simply be able to arise spontaneously from nothing.
You claim that if entity n exists, it must be timeless sans causation. That's true by definition, if it is eternal; and untrue if it can spontaneously exist.
You claim that if entity n exists, it must be spaceless. That appears to make no sense at all.
You claim that if entity n exists, it must be powerful. Why?
You claim that if entity n exists, it must be a personal agent. Seriously, how the FUCK do you get to that bizarre idea?

I say that we don't know, NOR NEED TO KNOW any attribute of entity n; regardless of whether it is material, or efficient, or powerful, the same regression applies - entity n has cause n+1.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to show that entity n does not require cause n+1. But as you know nothing about entity n, or even entity n-1, n-2... until we reach the Planck epoch, that really is mission impossible.

No matter what attributes you hang on entity n, you cannot show that it must be as you describe; we simply don't know ANYTHING about it.

It could be God. Or a lump of Gouda cheese. Both are equally plausible.

 

[DBT]

This is not an exemption. It is logic. If something is eternal than it does not have a cause.

Logic?

You do not know whether the Universe or time had a beginning.

You have no available information that relates to 'god'

Therefore you have nothing to examine, God (whatever that is) being undetectable.

Hence, no way to determine what 'god' is or what the attributes of 'god' may be.

You do not know whether a 'god (whatever that is) is eternal or a part of a family...a succession of gods, just like the turtles that were believed to hold up the earth, that go ''all the way down''

You have no knowledge of God or about God (whatever that is).

You have no knowledge relating to whether the universe/time had a beginning. Or if the standard model is correct, there was no time before the universe.

Therefore logic must tell you that we do not know how the universe came about, or if it is cyclic or a part of a larger system. Or something else entirely.

As the thing we call 'god' (whatever that is) is undetectable, non verifiable, unfalsifiable, the best we can say is we do not know if such a thing as a god exists.

 

[remez]

You ask quite a few questions and I have answered most of them. How about you answering some?

Only a crazy person could claim to solve the problem of eternality by positing an eternal entity.

Solve the problem of eternity? ……………….Eternity isn’t a problem.

It is simply a condition of the necessary first cause.
The problem is what is that eternal entity?

So if it is crazy to posit an eternal entity for the eternal then what non-eternal entity should we posit for the eternal?

You didn’t answer the questions?

Meaning what? What does 'efficient' mean in this context? And how does an immaterial entity interact with a material one - much less create it?

Seriously. That would be like me asking at this point……
“What in the world is a stupid singularity? Why are you purposely being so obscure?”

Material isn’t the only kind of cause.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/

I keep witnessing this assertion but no one ever explains it. How so? What problems does it cause?

What created God? If universes need creators, why don't Gods? If Gods can be eternal, why can't universes?

You already agreed to that point. Eternity needs no cause, see………….

If the universe is eternal then it would not have a cause.

True. Problem solved; ……..

Logically that which is eternal has no cause.

If universes need creators, why don't Gods? If Gods can be eternal, why can't universes?

Again our best scientific understandings point to space, time, matter and energy began to exist, therefore it needs a cause.

Now that is the BIG question here…..Is the universe eternal?

You don't know, and nor do I. But you, for some reason, discard the possibility.

I have provided credible scientific evidence that the universe has a finite past. Meaning all space, time matter, and energy came into existence approximately 13.7 b.y.a. I have quoted prominent scientists that are also atheists that concur.

But for the Sci-Fi’s generated in a Planck second, where you can hide in IDK-ville, and ignore where the evidence leads; what evidence you have you provided that the universe is eternal? Or reasonably belongs to some eternal material environment?

What is it again……. to believe in something without evidence?

…….."If no entities can be eternal, then something can arise from nothing". I am saying that if there are no eternal entities, then something must have spontaneously arisen. From nothing. Because we observe entities today.

Logic demands something must be eternal. What you are suggesting is worse than magic. Which is more rational, logic or fantasy? What requires more faith? I certainly don’t have enough faith for door number 2.

Your post 185 makes no sense at all. You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that in order for me to know that you don't know the answer to the question 'What caused the universe', I have to know the answer.

No, I have actually defended the opposite of that against Juma. You don’t have to have an explanation of the explanation in order for the explanation to be considered reasonable.

I’m asserting that you’re volitionally hiding in a Planck second of ignorance, while ignoring the scientific evidence that the universe began, to avoid following where the evidence leads. You don’t like where the evidence leads so you hide in pseudo-safety of IDK-ville. Certainly you can be skeptical, but that alone does not render views that oppose yours incorrect. You need to provide evidence that your view is more reasonable.

Instead of an argument, you just introduce a string of non-sequiturs - the word 'efficient' cannot possibly apply here, unless you are using it to mean something you have not defined. Certainly none of the dictionary definitions I know for the word render it applicable; Your post 185 looks to me as rational as "If God didn't create the universe, then it would smell a funny colour".

You seem to delight in making things more complex for no apparent reason, other than to obscure the fact that your logic has broken down.

It is not obscure. This has been debated in this pedagogy for thousands of years. I did not make it up. It was part of my secular education.

If you never understood the argument was an efficient cause then you never understood the argument, which is what I claimed in the first place. You blame me for not being so narrow minded as to know what an efficient cause is. How could you not? I have repeatedly told you straight up that the cause was immaterial. Why chastise me if you are just now discovering (I hope) what the argument you been trying to debate really means?

Immaterial things don't interact with the universe.

Please explain. I really want your EXPLANATION of the assertion. Be fair and explain yourself.

A cause for the universe, if one exists, must either itself be eternal …….or it must have a cause, which gets us back to square one.

Mostly correct. That is the essence of “Why is the something rather than nothing?”

A cause for the universe, if one exists, must either itself be eternal - and you insist that this is not allowed (except for your God, which is blatant special pleading);

I don’t insist that it is not allowed but for the theistic God……. I’m asserting that the universe which used to be considered eternal for thousands of years….. is not. It totally began to exist about 13.7 b.y.a. Therefore it needs a cause. I have supported this assertion with scientific evidence, reason and expert testimony. Nothing but science fiction, subjective opinions, idk-ideologies and lack of knowledge of the argument have been leveraged against it. I’m just asking you to reasonably follow the evidence where it leads.

As to your charge of special pleading……. For thousands of years BOTH the universe and the theistic God have been championed as the first eternal cause. About a century ago the universe was bumped from the list. So history bears witness that your charge of special pleading is incorrect. To cry that now after the fact, is a useless false hope.

We can keep going forever. Or there is an entity n which causes entity n-1, but has no cause n+1.

That which is eternal has no cause.

Entity n must either be eternal, or it must arise spontaneously, uncaused, from nothing.

Logically entity n must be eternal. What is this “arise” stuff?

You are seeking to claim that entity n must be your God; I assert that there is nothing known about entity n, and that your assertion is therefore unjustified and unjustifiable.

Two issues there…. The theistic god is unknown or the forensic characteristics of the cause must be unknown?
And then….
The epistemological process you employ to claim “unknown” as you have already remonstrated is likely self-defeating, and therefore in error.

You are seeking to claim that entity n must be your God;

Supported by science that the universe has a cause. Supported by forensic reasoning of what the characteristics of that cause need be.

I assert that there is nothing known about entity n,

Support by what ?????
Really…..pardon my skepticism of your faith but…..
Just a moment ago you were the one suggesting the reasoning of uncaused spontaneous arisings.

and that your assertion is therefore unjustified and unjustifiable.

Again supported by what???
What are your epistemological standards for that assertion? Support your assertion.

You claim that if entity n exists, it must be immaterial. Why?

Because all material came into existence. Therefore its cause was logically immaterial because material did not exist.

You claim that if entity n exists, it must be efficient. WTF does that even mean?

“What in the world is a stupid singularity?”…………..Your indignation is humorous.
Again how do you NOT know this and debate the argument? Link provided above.
Try this………..What is the efficient cause of the jet engine?

You claim that if entity n exists, it must be eternal. That's not true - it could simply be able to arise spontaneously from nothing.

I’m fine with your reasoning being illogical. Many “faiths” operate that way. If you are asserting the argument KCA fails based upon that reasoning without evidence then that’s ok with me. I’ll give you another chance to support it though.

You claim that if entity n exists, it must be timeless sans causation. That's true by definition, if it is eternal;

Thank you.

You claim that if entity n exists, it must be timeless sans causation. That's true by definition, if it is eternal; and untrue if it can spontaneously exist.

Again I’m fine with your faith. I’m just defending the reasoning of the argument against your unsupported assertions that it fails.

You claim that if entity n exists, it must be spaceless. That appears to make no sense at all.

Space began. It logically did not exist prior to its existence. So whatever caused space had to be spaceless because space did not exist.

You claim that if entity n exists, it must be powerful. Why?

Seriously. The cause of ALL matter and energy. Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics? Entropy? How could the cause not be powerful?

You claim that if entity n exists, it must be a personal agent. Seriously, how

Reason. It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be an immaterial, non-physical entity beyond space and time.

Now what sort of entities match that description. Either an abstract object or an unembodied mind. Logically abstract objects don’t cause effects. So the cause of the universe must be a transcendent Mind, which is of course is what theists understand God to be.
Also…………
It is the only explanation as to how a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect with a beginning like the universe.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to show that entity n does not require cause n+1.

Again why does that which is eternal need a cause?

But as you know nothing about entity n, or even entity n-1, n-2... until we reach the Planck epoch, that really is mission impossible.

Why is it we can’t forensically compile a list of what characteristics the cause of the universe must have?
Just like investigating a homicide scene and determining the characteristics of the killer.

No matter what attributes you hang on entity n, you cannot show that it must be as you describe; we simply don't know ANYTHING about it.

Two separate issues here…are you saying we can’t forensically determine a list of characteristics of the cause and/or that theists can’t provide support for the characteristics of the theistic God?
Again your self-defeating epistemology render your judgement of knowledge here questionable. I’m questioning.

It could be God. Or a lump of Gouda cheese. Both are equally plausible.

Is Gouda cheese material?