The Causal God Gambit

[OLDMAN]

Other than your first sentence I completely agree with you.
Does that mean you are strange?

We sinply have to few facts to state anything so we have to keep all possibilities open.

I agree with you to the notion that we have to keep our minds open. To your notion of degree of knowledge, I would assert that we know enough to structure and support the LCA, KCA and FTA. Further, I predict that scientific support will only increase in support of these arguments. By all means keep investigating.

What dont want to do is to invent fantasy theories of creators and mythoogical creatures

I agree with you about inventing fantasies. However, these arguments that are on the table of discussion here, are not INVENTED fantasies there are REASONED arguments based on what we observe from reality.

That is why I asked you to drop the term God here. You equate God to fantasy. So drop the term.

The LCA reasons that universe needs an explanation and it concludes God. But I’m VERY willing to leave it short of God. Science and reason most plausibly infers that the universe is contingent. Thus reasonably the universe needs an explanation external to itself. Now examine the universe. Reasonably list the characteristics that the explanation of the universe must possess? Just leave it a list of characteristics, don’t name it.

Same for the KCA, just list the characteristics that a cause of the universe would need possess. Just a list. No danger of fantasy there.

The FTA. We only have three choices as to best explain the observed fine-tuning of the universe. Physical necessity, chance or design. That’s it. No invented fantasies.

Don’t let fantasy close your mind.
Keep your mind open and investigate.

Design would be considered unlikely if you are ruling out fantasy.

 

[Juma]

Other than your first sentence I completely agree with you.
Does that mean you are strange?

We sinply have to few facts to state anything so we have to keep all possibilities open.

I agree with you to the notion that we have to keep our minds open. To your notion of degree of knowledge, I would assert that we know enough to structure and support the LCA, KCA and FTA. Further, I predict that scientific support will only increase in support of these arguments. By all means keep investigating.

What dont want to do is to invent fantasy theories of creators and mythoogical creatures

I agree with you about inventing fantasies. However, these arguments that are on the table of discussion here, are not INVENTED fantasies there are REASONED arguments based on what we observe from reality.

That is why I asked you to drop the term God here. You equate God to fantasy. So drop the term.

The LCA reasons that universe needs an explanation and it concludes God. But I’m VERY willing to leave it short of God. Science and reason most plausibly infers that the universe is contingent. Thus reasonably the universe needs an explanation external to itself. Now examine the universe. Reasonably list the characteristics that the explanation of the universe must possess? Just leave it a list of characteristics, don’t name it.

Same for the KCA, just list the characteristics that a cause of the universe would need possess. Just a list. No danger of fantasy there.

The FTA. We only have three choices as to best explain the observed fine-tuning of the universe. Physical necessity, chance or design. That’s it. No invented fantasies.

Don’t let fantasy close your mind.
Keep your mind open and investigate.

Did you really bring up FTA? Oh my god... FTA? Really? LOL!!!!

 

[bilby]

Because if X exists, either it too needs a creator (by the logic we just used to arrive at the necessity for X); or whatever reasoning we use to explain why X doesn't need a creator could equally well be applied to the universe - resulting in a more parsimonious hypothesis.

You rejected point 1 for 'the universe'; how can you not also reject point 1 for 'X' with the exact same reasoning? The only way to do that is special pleading.

Only if you ignore that the universe and X are compositionally distinct.

The universe is material.
X is immaterial.

X could be ANYTHING. You have no business declaring it to have any particular properties.

Science most plausibly infers that material is not eternal.

Science does no such thing. The closest it comes is the 1st law of Thermodynamics, which implies the exact opposite.

The universe is spatial.
X is spaceless.

You don't know that.

Science most plausibly infers that space is not eternal.

Again, no it doesn't. It says that we don't know - the singularity is the point before which we know nothing. It might be a beginning, or a reconfiguration, of space, and/or time, and/or matter. We don't know, and we are not justified in guessing.

Therefore that which is material and that which is spatial needs a cause.

You have no basis for that claim.

That which is eternal cannot have a cause.

That I can agree with. But you have not shown that the universe is not eternal; nor have you shown that anything is eternal. Either is possible, neither is certain. And of course there are other possibilities, but with no observational evidence, speculation about any of them is futile.

Special pleading? No way. These deductive arguments have been around for over two thousand years. During the vast majority of that time the universe was on the list of eternal. If the universe is dropped from that list of eternal entities that does not then render these deductive arguments special pleading.

These arguments for the existence of gods have been special pleading from day one. An old error is not preferable to, nor more respectable than, a new error.

Further..… Your reasoning of special pleading is too restrictive….It is the nature of deductive arguments to have a but one conclusion. By your reasoning all deductive arguments would be special pleading.

No, only the ones that apply different rules to desirable outcomes than are applied to undesirable ones. If 'X' is 'The universe' you apply one rule, and if 'X' is God, you apply another. That's textbook special pleading.

 

[bigfield]

The universe is spatial.
X is spaceless.

You don't know that.

It's spatial pleading.

 

[Juma]

Again I’m not saying that the SBBM claims with certainty that the universe began to exist. But if you follow the evidence the SBBM far more reasonably points to a universe with an absolute beginning as opposed to one that is eternal or illogically created itself.

It is not unreasonable to concur with Hawkings that time began… http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html or with Vilenkin that the universe is not past eternal…

By now, there’s scientific consensus that our universe exploded into existence almost 14 billion years ago in an event known as the Big Bang. But that theory raises more questions about the universe’s origins than it answers, including the most basic one: what happened before the Big Bang? Some cosmologists have argued that a universe could have no beginning, but simply always was.
In 2003, Tufts cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin and his colleagues, Arvind Borde, now a senior professor of mathematics at Long Island University, and Alan Guth, a professor of physics at MIT, proved a mathematical theorem showing that, under very general assumptions, the universe must, in fact, have had a beginning.

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

I’m not saying that either of these great cosmologists claim that the universe began with absolute certainty, but even they seem to reason so. Last I knew, both are engaged with research that is more along the lines of self-creation, almost surrendering to the notion that from the evidence we have now the universe began to exist. Further the illogical notion of self-creation is in no way more plausible then what we can reasonably predict from what we know now.

The SBBM in regards to the beginning of the universe far more reasonably predicts that the universe had an absolute beginning.

Does it do so with certainty……NO.

SO your "IDKism" is epistemically bankrupt.

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

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

So pull your head out of the sand and reason this through.....in the context of the science of cosmology............which is far more PLAUSIBLE;

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

There is no reason going on with this. You are obviously not reasonable.
"i dont know" is simply intellectual honesty, if that is beyond you there is really nothing more to discuss.

 

[Lion IRC]

When we're considering theories about what might have happened, why is one person's
"I don't know" better than anther persons "I think I do know"?

Props for admitting you don't know. But just because YOU don't know, that doesn't mean all other theories are unreasonable or unwarranted.

Don't let intellectual vanity or jealousy trick you into thinking that nobody else could possibly know stuff that you DONT.

 

[bigfield]

When we're considering theories about what might have happened, why is one person's
"I don't know" better than anther persons "I think I do know"?

Props for admitting you don't know. But just because YOU don't know, that doesn't mean all other theories are unreasonable or unwarranted.

Don't let intellectual vanity or jealousy trick you into thinking that nobody else could possibly know stuff that you DONT.

Tell us about that empirical evidence you have that we don't.

 

[Learner]

Design would be considered unlikely if you are ruling out fantasy.

You can rule out fantasy and still ask the question; is the universe by natural design or designed by intent ? Valid questions for science.

 

[Learner]

"Don't know's" should indicate at least being open to the suggestion rather than, strongly oppose practically all of Remez's posts. This would be interesting to know who here is more agnostic.

Neil deGrasse Tyson says he is often mistaken as an atheist but is indeed an agnostic himself. He is open to the idea but he is currently a "Don't knower".

 

[abaddon]

"Don't know's" should indicate at least being open to the suggestion rather than, strongly oppose practically all of Remez's posts. This would be interesting to know who here is more agnostic.

Neil deGrasse Tyson says he is often mistaken as an atheist but is indeed an agnostic himself. He is open to the idea but he is currently a "Don't knower".

The opposition to remez's posts is because he asserts a strong argument and it's not a strong argument. An agnostic is willing to say "I don't know" when there's a lot of uncertainty. The "We almost know nothing with certainty" stuff is little different from the "we all have faith" trick theists play to make their incredible beliefs seem at least as reasonable as other "contenders". It's not a good sign for how overwhelmingly convincing he clearly thinks his reasons should be. Inconclusiveness is anathema to theism, so "IDKism" looks like a "copout" to a mind that needs an answer, and now.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist and has conceded as much (at least once, with a shrug). But he prefers the label agnostic and he intends to teach something about science by that choice. His agnosticism isn't a 50/50 indecisiveness or excessive "openness" but rather conveys, more than the word "atheism", a stance of scientific skepticism. The "I'll consider it when there's much better evidence presented" sort of skepticism. Which is an exact match for agnostic atheism, but "atheism" implies an ideological stance in a lot of minds.

Tyson's a science educator and he wants to advocate science and to keep the focus on that. Watch him though, in interviews, and you'll see he's annoyed when someone brings God up. That's because it distracts from science. God as a claim about nature is not outside of science's purview; if there's a God there should be empirical evidence. But until there's strong evidence in, it's only a distraction from what we do actually know about nature. It's stupid to keep "conjecturing" about something with such lame evidence. There are reasons... crappy, close-minded reasons... anyone would keep doing that.

It's funny how theists balk at "I don't know" in a way that atheists generally don't. Theists need to have a "strong contender" and would like others to concede it's at least a reasonable "contender".

LionIRC makes it more plain he confuses feeling certain and having knowledge. At least he skips a lot of the theological word-wrangling by doing so.

It's not hard to connect the dots among hundreds of statements from many theists. They feel hopefulness to live forever. They imagine matter can't do anything unless acted on by forces external to it. They would feel meaningless if their lives weren't intended.

Spirit/matter dualists have a dismal view of matter. It's been a misery-inducing problem in western civilization for over 2 millennia now. People like life well enough but they're also disappointed and wish something would make up for that disappointment (or as Nietzsche correctly named it, resentment). They turn to fantasy. And it feels real because a sad feature of the human condition is we feel like spirits or minds stuck inside of bodies and feel a distance from all nature "around us". That's a problem that needs therapy for anyone who feels it (all our civilization needs such therapy). But theists project the schizotypal divide into all existence. Then all the sources of uncertainty about their spirit world that are out there in the real world become a threat. Like atheism for example.

 

[Underseer]

The Kalam cosmological argument is dead.

In defending Kalam, Craig has been forced to try and disprove relativity. Since there are mountains of evidence supporting relativity, he's been forced to try and disprove relativity without regard to any of the evidence. So Craig tried to disprove relativity with a syllogism in a desperate attempt to salvage the Kalam argument.

Even Ray "banana man" Comfort understands enough about why things are true in science to lie about the evidence, but only Craig is dumb enough to think he can disprove an established theory without regard to the evidence.

 

[Juma]

"Don't know's" should indicate at least being open to the suggestion rather than, strongly oppose practically all of Remez's posts. This would be interesting to know who here is more agnostic.

The "dont know" was not about remez arguments. We know that KCA, LCA and FTA are worthless. They have been crushed to smithereens long ago. The two first are special pleading and the last is simply "probability after the fact". So.

The "dont know" is neither if there are immaterial gods/spirits because physics shows that it cannot be as surely as there cannot be a full size living elephant in you kitchen fridge. (Forces has particles, if there would be any other force we would have seens its particle)

The "dont know" is about what happened before the big inflation.


By the way: what Neil deGrasse Tyson wants to tell about his relation to religion has really nothing to do with this thread. Arguments counts, not authoritative opinion.

 

[remez]

Science most plausibly infers that space is not eternal.

Again, no it doesn't. It says that we don't know - the singularity is the point before which we know nothing.

OK. OK. OK.
We don’t know for certain. I know that. I have said it myself many times.

So….. let’s BOTH play by your rule and see where it leads us.
Your rule is easy…. if we can’t know something without absolute certainty then we can reason no further. Neither of us.

X could be ANYTHING. You have no business declaring it to have any particular properties.

Can’t go there. Your rule.

Science most plausibly infers that material is not eternal.

Science does no such thing. The closest it comes is the 1st law of Thermodynamics, which implies the exact opposite.

Can’t go there either. “Implies” is reasoning without absolute certainty and that is against the rule.

Science most plausibly infers that space is not eternal.

Again, no it doesn't. It says that we don't know - the singularity is the point before which we know nothing. It might be a beginning, or a reconfiguration, of space, and/or time, and/or matter. We don't know, and we are not justified in guessing.

By your rule we can’t go there either. Since neither of us knows with absolute certainty, we are not allowed to reason any further.

Therefore that which is material and that which is spatial needs a cause.

You have no basis for that claim.

You are correct, logic need not apply.

That which is eternal cannot have a cause.

That I can agree with. But you have not shown that the universe is not eternal; nor have you shown that anything is eternal. Either is possible, neither is certain.

You are correct again I have not shown that the universe is not eternal with absolute certainty, so all reason stops there. So neither of us can say anything further on this issue using your rule.

And of course there are other possibilities, but with no observational evidence, speculation about any of them is futile.

No. No. No. Neither one of us can reason that there are other possibilities? That would require reasoning without absolute certainty. And by your rule we can’t do that.

See, I got it now….without absolute certainty no reasoning allowed. I’m sorry for wasting your time, I mistakenly thought you were trying to be reasonable.

Thanks for the lesson.

 

[remez]

There is no reason going on with this.

Absolutely certain.

You are obviously not reasonable.

I tried. And that’s where it went all wrong. I get it know. IDK for certain means all further reasoning is futile. Thanks for the lesson.

"i dont know" is simply intellectual honesty,

I honestly agree its simple.
I just didn’t realize that all reasoning needed to stop there. Sorry.

if that is beyond you there is really nothing more to discuss.

Yep there is NO REASON to reason past IDK.
So leave it there.

 

[remez]

The opposition to remez's posts is because he asserts a strong argument and it's not a strong argument.

You don’t actually know that. Be honest.

An agnostic is willing to say "I don't know" when there's a lot of uncertainty.

And so am I.
And it is absolutely fine for the agnostic make that claim. I have no problem whatsoever with you making that claim. An agnostic can stop all further reasoning right there that is fine.

But be honest and stop it right there. Don’t cross that parameter to say the argument is wrong for any other reason and then not allow me to cross the parameter as well to counter your bad reasoning.

That is why in our last post (153). I abandoned the pursuit of the arguments with you and invited you to address directly the REAL issue of reasoning in regards to certainty vs plausibility. I laid open my thoughts for you to honestly critique. I really wanted to know your mind on that (two weeks ago post 153). For whatever reason you did not respond until this indirect slight.

The "We almost know nothing with certainty" stuff is little different from the "we all have faith" trick theists play to make their incredible beliefs seem at least as reasonable as other "contenders".

Of course they are different. One approach is natural theism the other is presuppositional. They are very different approaches.

It's not a good sign for how overwhelmingly convincing he clearly thinks his reasons should be.

For anyone that can journey reasonably beyond IDK they are good. All you have unreasonably done is proclaim we must stop all reasoning at IDK and then dishonestly cross that line to attack your straw man version of the arguments. Further you volitionally won’t allow any theist to explain the actual reasoning because they must obey your unreasonable barrier of absolute certainty. It is your "schizotypal" fantasy space. It is so easy to feel safe there. You set the unreasonable parameters that only you can break.

 

[bilby]

Again, no it doesn't. It says that we don't know - the singularity is the point before which we know nothing.

OK. OK. OK.
We don’t know for certain. I know that. I have said it myself many times.

So….. let’s BOTH play by your rule and see where it leads us.
Your rule is easy…. if we can’t know something without absolute certainty then we can reason no further. Neither of us.

X could be ANYTHING. You have no business declaring it to have any particular properties.

Can’t go there. Your rule.

Science most plausibly infers that material is not eternal.

Science does no such thing. The closest it comes is the 1st law of Thermodynamics, which implies the exact opposite.

Can’t go there either. “Implies” is reasoning without absolute certainty and that is against the rule.

Science most plausibly infers that space is not eternal.

Again, no it doesn't. It says that we don't know - the singularity is the point before which we know nothing. It might be a beginning, or a reconfiguration, of space, and/or time, and/or matter. We don't know, and we are not justified in guessing.

By your rule we can’t go there either. Since neither of us knows with absolute certainty, we are not allowed to reason any further.

Therefore that which is material and that which is spatial needs a cause.

You have no basis for that claim.

You are correct, logic need not apply.

That which is eternal cannot have a cause.

That I can agree with. But you have not shown that the universe is not eternal; nor have you shown that anything is eternal. Either is possible, neither is certain.

You are correct again I have not shown that the universe is not eternal with absolute certainty, so all reason stops there. So neither of us can say anything further on this issue using your rule.

And of course there are other possibilities, but with no observational evidence, speculation about any of them is futile.

No. No. No. Neither one of us can reason that there are other possibilities? That would require reasoning without absolute certainty. And by your rule we can’t do that.

See, I got it now….without absolute certainty no reasoning allowed. I’m sorry for wasting your time, I mistakenly thought you were trying to be reasonable.

Thanks for the lesson.

We don't know what is beyond the singularity.

Not 'we don't know for certain'; we are certain that we don't know.

Of course we can discuss things that we don't know for certain. But we can't discuss things that we are certain that we don't know, because to do so is futile.

I am unsure whether you are not smart enough to have understood this distinction, in which case discussion with you is futile; Or whether you are smart enough, but chose to conflate what I said with something similar in order to make some kind of rhetorical point - in which case it was lost on me, because you just came across as not very bright; Or whether you hoped that I wouldn't understand the difference, and would accept your rather silly argument as a compelling reason to agree with your earlier unsupported claims, in which case you really need to be more honest if you don't want to lose people's respect.

Perhaps you could try again, now that I have explained that 'There are some things that we cannot know' means something different from 'If we don't know something for certain, then we cannot know anything'.

Or perhaps you don't want to have an honest debate anymore, now that you are unable to refute my arguments other than by twisting my words to mean something very different from what I actually said?

 

[blastula]

remez, you confuse reasoning with conjecture.

 

[Juma]

For anyone that can journey reasonably beyond IDK they are good.

Only if those that do accept that the result of that journey has nothing to do with reality.

 

[remez]

We don't know what is beyond the singularity.

Not 'we don't know for certain'; we are certain that we don't know.

How are you certain you don't know?

 

[remez]

remez, you confuse reasoning with conjecture.

Use the context of the KCA and make your case.