The Causal God Gambit

[Methinx]

Among the pool of explanatory options considered

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

Choice d) is by far the most plausible explanation.

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

Better reasoning would be one that excluded "un-embodied minds or transcendent non-physical personal causes."
(At least until such time when it can be shown that there is a unique necessary existent or first cause)

A "more 'virtuous' argument is the one that says because matter and energy are eternal, never ceasing to be one or the other, they cannot have a cause, but must always have had 'Being'. In other words, the existence of matter and energy is the 'default' of existence.

'Something' must always have existed, because to say 'nothingness once existed' is a contradiction.

+

 

[Learner]

Better reasoning would be one that excluded "un-embodied minds or transcendent non-physical personal causes."
(At least until such time when it can be shown that there is a unique necessary existent or first cause)

+

" Better reasoning would be one that excluded" You have to include all scenarios as considerations. Taking from what you say yourself - "until a time it can be shown "
(no one knows).

A "more 'virtuous' argument is the one that says because matter and energy are eternal, never ceasing to be one or the other, they cannot have a cause, but must always have had 'Being'. In other words, the existence of matter and energy is the 'default' of existence.

'Something' must always have existed, because to say 'nothingness once existed' is a contradiction.

I don't know - if 'matter' and energy has always existed; why do we 'still see' the very little volume of physical matter in comparison to the great vast universe still expanding? There would have been more than enough time for stars and galaxies to have disappeared from sight.

edit:
This concept would be contradicting itself again- when you think about the expansion of moving of stars and galaxies from a more central location having had some starting point.

 

[remez]

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

ok

I was making the case to Juma that p2 had scientific support. Then you sniped in…..

Because p2 is supported cosmology, CBMR. red shift, BGV etc. and you claim that it has no empirical support.

Please explain.

Big Bang cosmology doesn't tell us what was the nature of the origin of the universe, which is the point of contention. It tells us the universe has been expanding for a certain time, but that's not the same as "the universe had a beginning" as in "began from absolute nothingness and with an outside cause."

BGV doesn't help because it assumes classical spacetime. Guth himself doesn't believe the universe had a beginning and believes it's eternal.

Since you were accusing me of misrepresenting the science on the grounds that we don’t know for certain, I decided to turn the table and ask you to present evidence for your assertions that the universe could be eternal.
You did surprise me. And it was humorous.

Make your case that a past eternal material universe is more plausible.

Sorry, conjecture posing as evidence is the theists' specialty, not mine. I do know that actual cosmologists do have past eternal models, but I have no idea which is more likely. Neither possibility is evidence for theism, anyway.

Thanks.
I really enjoyed that.

There you were telling me I that I was conjuring the science while at the same time you were admitting to not knowing what the science was to begin with. If you don’t know the science then how can you assert that I’m misrepresenting it?

That was the last I heard from you until you arbitrarily sniped in @161.

If all were are going to do is snipe in with groundless assertions and neglect any burden to support those assertions then you’re simply wasting time. I’ll just “handwave” you on by with some sniping remarks myself.

 

[remez]

Oh goodness, not the KCA again.

1) words
2) more words
3) smug words

*poof*

Proved that god exists!

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

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

*bam*

Proved a creator again!

Oh goodness, not another KCA mocker again.

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

"poof"

Proved that god does not exist.

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

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

*bam*

Proved no creator again.

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

You are correct.
But I was not defending a position there.
I viewed your post as an obvious “gag invitation” to mock by straw man.
Sorry.

Anyway, I do thank you for complementing mine as a textbook example, but to be honest I must give you the credit, for I was simply mimicking yours.

 

[remez]

Better reasoning would be one that excluded "un-embodied minds or transcendent non-physical personal causes."
(At least until such time when it can be shown that there is a unique necessary existent or first cause)

Remember those are just characteristics of an explanation/cause that our universe would possess if it was contingent and had an absolutely beginning.
So. Why would it be better to ignore the characteristics?

A "more 'virtuous' argument is the one that says because matter and energy are eternal, never ceasing to be one or the other, they cannot have a cause, but must always have had 'Being'. In other words, the existence of matter and energy is the 'default' of existence.

That has been the battleground of this debate. To hold that position, I assert you have to stand against the far more plausible scientific prediction that our universe had an absolute beginning.

So, in the face of the more plausible scientific prediction…… Why would it be more plausible to beg the question for a material explanation or cause?

Most importantly……

'Something' must always have existed, because to say 'nothingness once existed' is a contradiction.

Are you stating this as reasonable or mocking it?
I can’t quite tell.
And I’m very interested.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm surprised how many atheists quibble about the ontological idea of 'nothingness' and
'non-existence'. After all they have no trouble with the idea that God doesn't 'exist' - that He is nothing, not a thing.

 

[Juma]

I'm surprised how many atheists quibble about the ontological idea of 'nothingness' and
'non-existence'. After all they have no trouble with the idea that God doesn't 'exist' - that He is nothing, not a thing.

Eh? What atheist? When?

 

[Lion IRC]

I was under the impression that atheists thought God is non-existent.
Is God somewhere or nowhere?
Does evidence for God exist or not?

 

[Lion IRC]

Does intellectual property exist?
If it doesn't exist then I don't owe royalties to anyone and piracy is a victimless 'crime'.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There is no evidence for an omni-everything creator God transcendent to the material Universe. There is evidence for a material Universe. There is no evidence for any sort of supernaturalism.

Again, the idea of a personal God as per Bible, Quran et al, soon involves itself in logic contradictions and problems, indicating that God is impossible. Leading one to the conclusion to save appearances, God needs to be redefined downwards to be a viable hypothesis. But even if you go with Process Theology, pantheism or some such, it's still a hypothesis that needs evidence. Evidence indicates the idea of a multiverse is a more likely state of affairs. It is a natural extension of proven physics.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh goodness, not the KCA again.

1) words
2) more words
3) smug words

*poof*

Proved that god exists!

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

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

*bam*

Proved a creator again!



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

You are correct.
But I was not defending a position there.
I viewed your post as an obvious “gag invitation” to mock by straw man.
Sorry.

Anyway, I do thank you for complementing mine as a textbook example, but to be honest I must give you the credit, for I was simply mimicking yours.

I hate amateur mic night.

 

[Lion IRC]

Every ventriloquist needs to start somewhere.

 

[Lion IRC]

There is no evidence for an omni-everything creator God transcendent to the material Universe. There is evidence for a material Universe....

Is there evidence that the universe is 13.9 billion years old?
Yes - thankyou you science for providing this evidence.

Is there evidence that the universe existed before the Big Bang?
No. Such evidence would falsify the apparent (scientific) age of the universe.

I think we are on safe ground when we say that the universe came into existence.

Cue the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

If the universe was a lightbulb would we say it turned itself on?
If it was a moving billiard ball, would we say it mysteriously started moving without a prior explanation?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is no evidence for an omni-everything creator God transcendent to the material Universe. There is evidence for a material Universe....

Is there evidence that the universe is 13.9 billion years old?
Yes - thankyou you science for providing this evidence.

Is there evidence that the universe existed before the Big Bang?
No. Such evidence would falsify the apparent (scientific) age of the universe.

I think we are on safe ground when we say that the universe came into existence.

Cue the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

If the universe was a lightbulb would we say it turned itself on?
If it was a moving billiard ball, would we say it mysteriously started moving without a prior explanation?

Except at no point has the universe not existed. The big bang was a transformation, not a creation.

 

[Lion IRC]

If the universe has always existed you need not quibble about the KCA.
The KCA relates only to things which began to exist.

 

[Lion IRC]

A past-eternal, perpetual motion universe and yet here I am still waiting for Marty McFly and a Dolorean time machine to turn up. How long can it take to invent one of those things?

Heck, I'd even settle for a hoverboard.

[YOUTUBE]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eOH15_pqWZ4[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Past-eternal perpetual motion machine? Yet you believe in an eternal perpetual motion God who somehow is omni-everything and personal?

 

[Lion IRC]

Yep.
Personal being can decide whether or not to create a universe or a Dolorean time machine.

But a past eternal perpetual motion machine spontaneously doing random stuff over and over and over forever, will eventually do everything - and then start over again. No decision making.

Wash, rinse, repeat. Groundhog Day.

 

[Juma]

I'm surprised how many atheists quibble about the ontological idea of 'nothingness' and
'non-existence'. After all they have no trouble with the idea that God doesn't 'exist' - that He is nothing, not a thing.

Sorry if i wasnt obvious enough.but then I actually thought that you said something but I now realized that your post didnt contain anything substantial at all.

 

[Methinx]

Remember those are just characteristics of an explanation/cause that our universe would possess if it was contingent and had an absolutely beginning.
So. Why would it be better to ignore the characteristics?

Logical contingency does not equal empirical contingency.

That has been the battleground of this debate. To hold that position, I assert you have to stand against the far more plausible scientific prediction that our universe had an absolute beginning.

So, in the face of the more plausible scientific prediction…… Why would it be more plausible to beg the question for a material explanation or cause?

I agree with you, it seems this universe had a beginning.
The Big Bang is an event that happened to existing matter. That which became this universe already existed.

The only part where we disagree is the part where you claim the cause of it all is a 'unembodied mind' with magic powers and I claim that the universe probably always existed as something other than a universe. A singularity.

I find myself having a very low expectation of finding that there are any gods; nowhere in human history has it ever been demonstrated that a god exists and is active in the Universe.
I cannot convince myself that using 'god magic' as an alternative is good reasoning or decent explanation.

Most importantly……

'Something' must always have existed, because to say 'nothingness once existed' is a contradiction.

Are you stating this as reasonable or mocking it?
I can’t quite tell.
And I’m very interested.

How would 'nothingness' exist?

+