The Causal God Gambit

[remez]

Begging the question for naturalistic materialism.

No. I follow the evidence.

Do you admit that you base your argument on baseless assumptions?
Since that is all we have left when you travel into land of the unknown. (There be dragons, and gods)

here............

Begging the question for naturalistic materialism.

No. I follow the evidence.

This is just it right there. Your are not following the evidence . You are stopping at your philosophical limit.
Your epistemology is a strict materialistic naturalism. Thus you cannot follow the evidence further. You arbitrarily stop right there and from your worldview claim my further reasoning assumptive..........

Do you admit that you base your argument on baseless assumptions?

No I do not. The characteristics of the cause are forensically determined. Thus I am using science and reason to determine the characteristics of the cause. If we leave it at this list, then theism does not come into play. I have repeatedly encouraged you to leave God and theism out of it. What are the characteristics of the cause of the universe.

So we have two camps here at the singularity. One camp philosophically stops at IDK or possibly only searches for natural causes. The other reasons that the universe had an absolute beginning and reasons the cause. No theism there. So examine the epistemologies of these two different camps.

Your reasoning is arbitrarily limited to natural science. So you philosophically stop at a gap that you created and then claim that theists fill the gap with God. While you desperately limit your assumptions to a natural cause.

I follow the evidence to your gap with the assistance of the SBBM and BGV that almost certainly predicts that the universe had an absolute beginning. I have a different conclusion than you. You philosophically need to stop right there and hold out extreme hope that the opposite is true against overwhelming evidence. I determine that scientific evidence overwhelming predicts that the universe had an absolute beginning. No theism there. Yes I will scientifically examine any suggested natural causes. None have been presented thus far that rival and absolute beginning.

Further from my conclusion I do not assume the characteristics of the cause. I forensically examine the universe as to what would have had to cause it. This is a scientific endeavor not a compiled list of theistic assumptions.

Further, your philosophical position is we can only use science, I get that. But here is the major logical contention. Naturalistic science is completely limited to nature. We have masterfully used science to trace our origins back to the singularity. Now if that is the beginning of nature itself than logically science can go no further other than forensically assisting in identifying the characteristics of the cause. This is a well reasoned position based on science by those that don't philosophically limit themselves to strict scientism. It is not assumption.

I will agree that the arguments are theistic. But we need not end at God. So if we drop God, we drop theism. Just forensically compile a list of the characteristics that the cause of the universe must possess. This is not done theistically. It is done scientifically using forensics and reasoning.

Since that is all we have left when you travel into land of the unknown. (There be dragons, and gods)

I travel there with science and reason to explore what we do not know. You philosophically choose to stand on the "nature only" shore with your head buried in the sand, too afraid to explore any further than a natural cause. Lest there be a transcendent cause out there.

 

[Juma]

No. I follow the evidence.

Do you admit that you base your argument on baseless assumptions?
Since that is all we have left when you travel into land of the unknown. (There be dragons, and gods)

here............

Begging the question for naturalistic materialism.

No. I follow the evidence.

This is just it right there. Your are not following the evidence . You are stopping at your philosophical limit.
Your epistemology is a strict materialistic naturalism. Thus you cannot follow the evidence further. You arbitrarily stop right there and from your worldview claim my further reasoning assumptive..........

Do you admit that you base your argument on baseless assumptions?

No I do not. The characteristics of the cause are forensically determined. Thus I am using science and reason to determine the characteristics of the cause. If we leave it at this list, then theism does not come into play. I have repeatedly encouraged you to leave God and theism out of it. What are the characteristics of the cause of the universe.

So we have two camps here at the singularity. One camp philosophically stops at IDK or possibly only searches for natural causes. The other reasons that the universe had an absolute beginning and reasons the cause. No theism there. So examine the epistemologies of these two different camps.

Your reasoning is arbitrarily limited to natural science. So you philosophically stop at a gap that you created and then claim that theists fill the gap with God. While you desperately limit your assumptions to a natural cause.

I follow the evidence to your gap with the assistance of the SBBM and BGV that almost certainly predicts that the universe had an absolute beginning. I have a different conclusion than you. You philosophically need to stop right there and hold out extreme hope that the opposite is true against overwhelming evidence. I determine that scientific evidence overwhelming predicts that the universe had an absolute beginning. No theism there. Yes I will scientifically examine any suggested natural causes. None have been presented thus far that rival and absolute beginning.

Further from my conclusion I do not assume the characteristics of the cause. I forensically examine the universe as to what would have had to cause it. This is a scientific endeavor not a compiled list of theistic assumptions.

Further, your philosophical position is we can only use science, I get that. But here is the major logical contention. Naturalistic science is completely limited to nature. We have masterfully used science to trace our origins back to the singularity. Now if that is the beginning of nature itself than logically science can go no further other than forensically assisting in identifying the characteristics of the cause. This is a well reasoned position based on science by those that don't philosophically limit themselves to strict scientism. It is not assumption.

I will agree that the arguments are theistic. But we need not end at God. So if we drop God, we drop theism. Just forensically compile a list of the characteristics that the cause of the universe must possess. This is not done theistically. It is done scientifically using forensics and reasoning.

Since that is all we have left when you travel into land of the unknown. (There be dragons, and gods)

I travel there with science and reason to explore what we do not know. You philosophically choose to stand on the "nature only" shore with your head buried in the sand, too afraid to explore any further than a natural cause. Lest there be a transcendent cause out there.

A lot of handwaving going on here... and how much you insist of "we need no theism" you always come back to theism. Why? Because theism is what you want to prove. But you fail. Again. This time you dont even bother to bring arguments.

 

[Kharakov]

This statement...your first....

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

And your last statement.....

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

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

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

One of the most significant features of a good model or theory is that it can make accurate predictions. The SBBM most plausibly predicts that our universe in whole began to exist.

It does (predicts that our universe began to exist)? AFAIKnew, it traces spacetime/matter+/+energy back to where classical physical models break down, and doesn't include ideas about events prior to the Planck epoch.

Many of today's top cosmologists attest to that outcome.

I've seen some "top cosmologists" speak of other possibilities. So what? Is luminiferous ether theory still in vogue, or do I need to catch up with the times?

The BGV theorem almost solidifies it.

AFAICT, the BGV theorem doesn't address cyclical systems in which energy/disorder decreases or increases due to various self adjustments between cycles of universal expansion- it just assumes that "universal cycle resets" always result in the subsequent universal cycle having greater entropy than the one before it.

That said, specifically how does the BGV theorem "solidify it" if the BGV theorem does not include possibilities of cyclic universe models with no entropy increase?

Thus any model attempting to extend a material existence beyond the singularity is less plausible.

Why? The singularity (ok, smaller than Planck length) is where classical physical models break down. They (classical theories) break down when energy density is over a certain amount (think black holes). Doesn't mean there isn't some form natural law governing things.

As to your last statement.... observe how you are special pleading for a natural materialistic cause.

Ok, I am finding it quite impossible to observe that (special pleading for a natural materialistic cause) if I follow the order of statements you provided. Can you point out what you are referring to?

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

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

Therefore the skeptic can't avoid God by metaphysically positing that other disconnected universes could possibly exist.

Eternal universes, with or without God, aren't addressed by the KCA. I don't think I postulated completely causally disconnected universe in the above statement either- a simulation run on this computer is not completely causally disconnected from this universe, although the simulation itself might be programmed to run as if it was an isolated universe.

The main point I was making is that the KCA assumes a beginning to the universe, and there might not be one (unless you define the universe as everything except God and/or nature). I assume a beginning to my conscious experience this morning (after my first cup of coffee, obviously), but I don't assume a beginning to the universe or the universal conscious experience (although it could have been quite murky at times, and I would not want to contribute to it's downfall...).

Mehh... so?

 

[abaddon]

I'm not trying to identify the cause. I'm arguing 1) there was a cause and 2) what are the characteristics of that cause. That's it, no God, no theism.

Go for it.

#2 now though. Had WAY more than enough of #1.

 

[remez]

A lot of handwaving going on here... and how much you insist of "we need no theism" you always come back to theism. Why? Because theism is what you want to prove. But you fail. Again. This time you dont even bother to bring arguments.

It is not handwaving. I'm genuinely trying to meet you short of God. You have denied ALL of my reasoning as assumptive due to the fact that the arguments are trying to prove God's existence. What I'm trying to show you is this.....the reasoning is ONLY theistic on the last step. Thus the ONLY theistic reasoning is the matching of the characteristics to God. So if I leave that out, you need not deal with theism at all.

I do not need theism at all to reasonably conclude that the universe had an absolute beginning. Nor do I need theism to forensically compile a list of characteristics of that cause. Thus you cannot dismiss my reasoning on these accounts because of theism.

....you always come back to theism. Why? Because theism is what you want to prove. But you fail. Again. This time you dont even bother to bring arguments.

No you are the one returning to theism. It is your only weak excuse to dismiss my reasoning.

Yes, yes, yes, I have repeatedly brought you non-theistic science and reasoning to argue that the universe had an absolute beginning and from that we can forensically determine the characteristics of that cause. You still do not recognize this fact because from the start you dismissed ALL my reasoning as theistic. No excuses anymore. Face the science and reasoning.

 

[remez]

The SBBM most plausibly predicts that our universe in whole began to exist.

It does (predicts that our universe began to exist)? AFAIKnew, it traces spacetime/matter+/+energy back to where classical physical models break down, and doesn't include ideas about events prior to the Planck epoch.

You are conflating the theories known extension of knowledge back to one single Planck second with a fundamental prediction of the theory.

I agree with you that the theory can only physically extend our knowledge of the expansion back to Planck. But examining that 13.7 billion year extension overwhelming leads to a prediction that the universe began to exist. The BGV also adds to that prediction by asserting that any universe which is on average expanding can not be past eternal. It is that simple.

Here is another way to consider the power of that inference.

We have approximately 8,020,300,637,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Planck seconds of time pointing back towards a beginning and ... only ...one... single ...solitary Planck second that cannot absolutely confirm that beginning.
Plus.......
the added overwhelming evidence of the BGV.

So it is far far far far far far far far ... more plausible (to say the least) that the universe had a absolute beginning as compared to it being eternal.

Serious Question. Please...............
Tell me what would you expect the evidence to look like......If the entire universe actually began to exist at that Planck second?
and.............
How would that evidence look any different from what we actually have right now?

AFAICT, the BGV theorem doesn't address cyclical systems in which energy/disorder decreases or increases due to various self adjustments between cycles of universal expansion- it just assumes that "universal cycle resets" always result in the subsequent universal cycle having greater entropy than the one before it.

Science vs speculation.
Here is your chance....

Perhaps you can inform me as to why scientists "assume" the entropy increases.
Then provide me some rational reason as to why I should consider they were incorrect in "assuming" that entropy increases.
and then.............
Provide some actual actual scientific evidence for your speculation and I'll give it a serious look.

Thus any model attempting to extend a material existence beyond the singularity is less plausible.

Why? The singularity (ok, smaller than Planck length) is where classical physical models break down. They (classical theories) break down when energy density is over a certain amount (think black holes). Doesn't mean there isn't some form natural law governing things.

Yes it does. Natural laws end at nature. No nature no natural laws.

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

So I don't see how eternal universe theories fit in with the KCA

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

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

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

you then replied.....after quoting just this small part.........

Therefore the skeptic can't avoid God by metaphysically positing that other disconnected universes could possibly exist.

Eternal universes, with or without God, aren't addressed by the KCA........

Not by the specific terminology, but they are certainly encompassed by the reasoning as I demonstrated in the full quote.

The main point I was making is that the KCA assumes a beginning to the universe, and there might not be one (unless you define the universe as everything except God and/or nature).

First, I consider the universe to be all of nature, meaning all of physical reality.

Secondly, p2 STATES that the "universe began to exist" and it is philosophically and scientifically SUPPORTED. Your disingenuous phraseology of "the KCA assumes a beginning to the universe " infers that no support has been provided. That is certainly not the case, as evidenced by the fact, that we have been debating this support for over a month.

 

[remez]

Go for it.

That is what I have been doing.
That is what post 153 was all about.

As for your request for #2.............

#2 now though. Had WAY more than enough of #1.

Well...........#2 follows from #1.

So..........
#1 the universe had an absolute beginning. That means all space, matter, time, energy, material, nature came into existence at the beginning of the universe. If you can grant that (even just for sake of investigation) then we can follow to #2.

In general it would forensically reason something like "Since ____ came into being at that instant then its cause must be ___less." Add in a non-theistic reason for personal agency. Reason that he cause is an efficient cause and what that means. etc.

Note no theism at all. The only theism in the actual argument would be matching of the list to the characteristics to God. That I have taken off the table so we can examine the non-theistic reasoning to that point.

Do you wish to investigate #2 further granting the conditions of #1?

 

[Juma]

It is not handwaving. I'm genuinely trying to meet you short of God. You have denied ALL of my reasoning as assumptive due to the fact that the arguments are trying to prove God's existence. What I'm trying to show you is this.....the reasoning is ONLY theistic on the last step. Thus the ONLY theistic reasoning is the matching of the characteristics to God. So if I leave that out, you need not deal with theism at all.

I do not need theism at all to reasonably conclude that the universe had an absolute beginning. Nor do I need theism to forensically compile a list of characteristics of that cause. Thus you cannot dismiss my reasoning on these accounts because of theism.

....you always come back to theism. Why? Because theism is what you want to prove. But you fail. Again. This time you dont even bother to bring arguments.

No you are the one returning to theism. It is your only weak excuse to dismiss my reasoning.

Yes, yes, yes, I have repeatedly brought you non-theistic science and reasoning to argue that the universe had an absolute beginning and from that we can forensically determine the characteristics of that cause. You still do not recognize this fact because from the start you dismissed ALL my reasoning as theistic. No excuses anymore. Face the science and reasoning.

What you dont realize is that what you call "plausible" and "reasonable" is so in your eyes only and you are wearing "theist glasses".

Almost everything you say only makes sense if you really want to show that there is a good. Not if you want to objectiveky calculate the probability for the existence of god.

 

[abaddon]

#1 the universe had an absolute beginning. That means all space, matter, time, energy, material, nature came into existence at the beginning of the universe. If you can grant that (even just for sake of investigation) then we can follow to #2.

Granted for the sake of investigation.

In general it would forensically reason something like...

Yeah, yeah, I know.

Do you wish to investigate #2 further granting the conditions of #1?

Go for it.

I get the non-theistic "cause" thing and that it's deductive logic and not "just theism" or "blind faith". But what makes the cause and God one and the same is what completes your argument or else all we've got is there's a cause and it's got such-n-such characteristics. So don't let us obtuse blinded-by-atheism atheists "stop" you.

Go on to where you connect the eternal and necessary cause to the "non-theistic" personal agency bit that can't be an immaterial object and so has to be minded and all that.

Then match that "non-theistic" list about a personal agency to the Christian God.

It must surely be overwhelmingly convincing to anyone not blinded by atheism when it's laid out in its full glory. So don't be so stingy as to keep holding back.

 

[Learner]

Anything is not possible just because we dont know anything about it. deGrasse would agree.

I would also agree not just 'Anything' is possible (who said 'anything' ?) But would you agree with Tyson?

No you couldnt. The theory about the four basic forces and their corresponding particles is one of, if not the, best supported theories there are.
It is more plausible that the moon is made of cheese than those theories are false.

What ever best theory is out there as the convention, is merely a discriptive analysis of observations. Beyond that would be 'science fiction' filling in the gaps. ( it does happen)

 

[Learner]

What you dont realize is that what you call "plausible" and "reasonable" is so in your eyes only and you are wearing "theist glasses".

Almost everything you say only makes sense if you really want to show that there is a good. Not if you want to objectiveky calculate the probability for the existence of god.

'Plausibitlity' and 'reasonable' should then not apply to an accidental fluke cause before cosmic inflation by the same conceptual atheist view.

 

[Keith&Co.]

'Plausibitlity' and 'reasonable' should then not apply to an accidental fluke cause before the cosmic inflation by the same concept of reason.

Not at all. If the universe works the way we think it does, then that's how it works.
Only your preference for an intelligence behind it makes you think 'accidental' or 'fluke' are problematic for a universe that appears to have been unplanned.
And that's just an extended argument from incredulity.

 

[Learner]

Not at all. If the universe works the way we think it does, then that's how it works.
Only your preference for an intelligence behind it makes you think 'accidental' or 'fluke' are problematic for a universe that appears to have been unplanned.
And that's just an extended argument from incredulity.

Wouldn't increduality also apply to believers of the unplanned philosophy? We all have preferences but how people make their argument is what matters imo.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wouldn't increduality also apply to believers of the unplanned philosophy?

No. Incredulity lies in eschewing an unplanned universe because they can't credit something complex just 'happening' without a designer.

We reject a designed universe, not because we cannot imagine a supreme being, but because we have yet to see compelling evidence that such a being exists.

We all have preferences but how people make their argument is what matters imo.

Yes. And weeding out logical fallacies is very important in evaluating the arguments.

Attempts to fling a Tu Quoque fallacy at one's opponent would be a good example, eh?

 

[Learner]

No. Incredulity lies in eschewing an unplanned universe because they can't credit something complex just 'happening' without a designer.

We reject a designed universe, not because we cannot imagine a supreme being, but because we have yet to see compelling evidence that such a being exists.

The universe has a design and according to some scientists they say it is an apparent design. Theists say created obviously but; a design there is.

Attempts to fling a Tu Quoque fallacy at one's opponent would be a good example, eh?

Regarding the yes or no, intention or lucky, planned design or unplanned design. There are only two propositions that should be given the same level of plausibility, especially when we say "I don't know".

 

[Juma]

I would also agree not just 'Anything' is possible (who said 'anything' ?) But would you agree with Tyson?

No you couldnt. The theory about the four basic forces and their corresponding particles is one of, if not the, best supported theories there are.
It is more plausible that the moon is made of cheese than those theories are false.

What ever best theory is out there as the convention, is merely a discriptive analysis of observations. Beyond that would be 'science fiction' filling in the gaps. ( it does happen)

Sorry but the last paragraph doesnt make sense.
Are you trying to say that what we know about fields and particles is "just a theory"?

 

[Juma]

The universe has a design and according to some scientists they say it is an apparent design. Theists say created obviously but; a design there is.

What scientist says that there ii is an apparent design? And most important: why? What are their arguments?

Scientists sats a lot of silly things, it is their arguments for what they say that are really interesting.

So bring forth the evidence.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The universe has a design and according to some scientists they say it is an apparent design. Theists say created obviously but; a design there is.

What scientist says that there ii is an apparent design? And most important: why? What are their arguments?

Scientists sats a lot of silly things, it is their arguments for what they say that are really interesting.

So bring forth the evidence.

Francis Collins for one. He believes in God and guided evolution.


In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins wrote that scientific discoveries were an "opportunity to worship" and that he rejected both Young Earth creationism and intelligent design. His own belief, he wrote, was theistic evolution or evolutionary creation, which he preferred to call BioLogos. He wrote that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell".^[64] He appeared in December 2006 on The Colbert Report television show and in a March 2007 Fresh Air radio interview to discuss this book.^[65][66] In an interview with D. J. Grothe on the Point of Inquiry podcast he said that the overall aim of the book was to show that "one can be intellectually in a rigorous position and argue that science and faith can be compatible", and that he was prompted to write the book because "most people are seeking a possible harmony between these worldviews [science and faith], and it seems rather sad that we hear so little about this possibility.<sup>[67]


Needless to say, he offers no real proof for his assertion, but he is also no friend to creationists.</sup>

 

[Keith&Co.]

The universe has a design and according to some scientists they say it is an apparent design.

Okay, assuming these unnamed, unattributed scientists ARE saying that design is apparent in the universe, and there's no contextual amplification for that statement (not a safe bet in assertions made by a creationist), does that necessarily imply a DESIGNER?
I mean, evolution is a design process, but saying so works equally well for guided evolution and a blind trial-and-error process.
So, by 'design' did they mean 'obviously the handiwork of an intelligence (or a committee of intelligences), or did they mean something else?

Theists say created obviously but; a design there is.

Great. Of course, this still does not provide evidence for a designer, much less your favorite candidate.

Attempts to fling a Tu Quoque fallacy at one's opponent would be a good example, eh?

Regarding the yes or no, intention or lucky, planned design or unplanned design. There are only two propositions that should be given the same level of plausibility, especially when we say "I don't know".

Have you ever read about the false dichotomy fallacy?

Someone wrote their name on my kitchen wall about 15 years ago. The name was Kyle. I could blame Kyle my son, or i could blame Selina Kyle, Gotham's Catwoman.
I can't say that I KNOW who did it, so would you say that both possibilities have equal levels of plausibility?
Or is one WAY more plausible since no one has shown me a reason to believe that Kyle My Son actually exists?




What's the next fallacy? I have a bet going...

 

[bilby]

All statements are either false dichotomies, or they are not. Pick one.