The Causal God Gambit

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

The energy that created the molecules in my body has always existed. That doesn't mean I, myself, am eternal.

 

[remez]

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.

Of course it doesn’t. But what does that have to do with my query?

First, my question was regarding the rationality of ignoring the characteristics of an explanation or cause of a contingent universe not whether the contingency was logical or empirical.

Second, if you’re epistemically reasoning that the logic should be ignored until it can be empirically verified then your reasoning is self-refuting. Since your epistemology has no empirical evidence thus rendering your reasoning as inconsistent and volitionally arbitrary.

Third, not all is lost. You do seem to rationally recognize that a logical contingency does exist.

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

Ok

The Big Bang is an event that happened to existing matter. That which became this universe already existed.

You have no empirical evidence for this. Your reasoning seems inconsistent from what you portrayed earlier. And volitional to the point of begging the question for a material cause.

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

First, I agree with this existence of this entity called a singularity. But my reasoning that it is not eternal is scientifically more plausible than your reasoning that it is eternal in some fashion.

Second, your diminishing prose of magic powers only serves to provide a measure as to how little you understand the subject you are opposing. A rational person would attempt to understand what it is they’re opposing. What would you think of my understanding of evolution if I suggested it was false because monkeys still existed?

Third, a transcendent cause is logically consistent if the universe had an absolute beginning. By absolute beginning I mean all material, matter, space, energy and time began to exist at the big bang.

I cannot convince myself that using 'god magic' as an alternative is good reasoning or decent explanation.

On the contrary, I’m certainly not asking you to treat them as mutually exclusive. If that is what you are doing then we need to examine your epistemological reasons for doing so, for that does not seem rational at all.

Again my comment there more reasonably addresses “God’s existence” and not your diminished understanding of theism.

'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?

It cannot.
So I’ll assume we are in agreement on the monumental point.
Ok?

 

[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.

The energy that created the molecules in my body has always existed. That doesn't mean I, myself, am eternal.

No, of course it doesn't necessarily mean that you are eternal. (Who among us are guaranteed that?) It DOES mean you were created. (Amen)
And I completely agree that 'The Energy' which created you is eternal. (You say 'energy', I say God) Now, back to the KCA and contingency.

Did the energy which created you act with its own volition/intent or did it have no choice but to cause you to come into existence? Were you inevitibly going to come into existence (necessity) or are you the product of pure chance? Does 'the energy' keep on causing an infinite series of things (like you) to happen over and over and over........(do you believe in reincarnation? Past lives?)

 

[Juma]

The energy that created the molecules in my body has always existed. That doesn't mean I, myself, am eternal.

No, of course it doesn't necessarily mean that you are eternal. (Who among us are guaranteed that?) It DOES mean you were created. (Amen)
And I completely agree that 'The Energy' which created you is eternal. (You say 'energy', I say God) Now, back to the KCA and contingency.

Did the energy which created you act with its own volition/intent or did it have no choice but to cause you to come into existence? Were you inevitibly going to come into existence (necessity) or are you the product of pure chance? Does 'the energy' keep on causing an infinite series of things (like you) to happen over and over and over........(do you believe in reincarnation? Past lives?)

Oh my oh my oh my... what a bunch of silliness.
you do know that eneegy is a well defined concept? That energi has no volition by itself but that volition requires flow of energy.

 

[bilby]

Why couldn't the universe be the result of natural forces that we do not currently understand?

Here is a no brane-er ...................

HONESTLY which is more plausible the universe began to exist or that it is eternal?

I don't have enough data to answer that question. Neither do you. What differentiates us is the fact that you are biased towards an answer found in a 2,000 year old book which describes a mythological creator, while I am not. Isn't that the reason you keep repeating your baseless arguments over an over? Be honest.

'Plausible' is a meaningless word in the context of this debate.

The options we have to choose from are:

1) The universe is eternal; or
2) The universe is not eternal

If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, the universe has always existed.
If we instead plump for 2 (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 1) then:

2a) The universe began to exist from nothing; or
2b) Something existed before the universe, and that thing caused the universe to begin to exist.

If we accept 2a, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, the universe began from nothing.
If we instead plump for 2b (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 2a) then we have an unknown entity, 'X' that caused the universe to begin to exist.

What can we say about 'X'? Well, we are interested in origins, so lets try this:

The options we have to choose from are:

1) X is eternal; or
2) X is not eternal

If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, X has always existed.
If we instead plump for 2 (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 1) then:

2a) X began to exist from nothing; or
2b) Something existed before X, and that thing caused X to begin to exist.

If we accept 2a, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, X began from nothing.
If we instead plump for 2b (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 2a) then we have an unknown entity, 'Y' that caused X to begin to exist.

What can we say about 'Y'? Well, we are interested in origins, so lets try replacing X with Y in this algorithm, and go back to step 1

Either this leads us to:

A) An endless loop of eternal causes for causes; Or
B) We end at something that began to exist from nothing; Or
C) We end at something that is eternal and has always existed.

At this point, the religious mind discards A and B, declares that C is implausible or unacceptable as an explanation for the universe, and invokes an un-evidenced intelligence which (for no obvious reason) they claim C is perfectly acceptable to explain.

The only 'reason' to discard A and B; and the only 'reason' to declare that C cannot apply to anything we observe, but does apply to their favourite imaginary friend, is that they want it to be so.

But there's no reason to do this. All three possibilities A, B and C are open as candidates for truth, and there are no scientific grounds to discard any of them, other then the rule of parsimony. That rule tells us to discount option 2b in the original argument, unless and until we have solid evidence to justify adding a new entity to our consideration; and leaves us to choose one of two equally parsimonious choices:

1) The universe is eternal; or
2a) The universe began to exist from nothing

These are the options that are 'plausible' if we apply logic and the rule of parsimony to our discussion. Anything else is less plausible, and anyone who wants to argue otherwise needs to explain what the error in this logic is; or why they want to discard the rules of logic; or why they feel justified in making an unparsimonious claim.

The KCA is basically an exercise in 'smoke and mirrors' to conceal the lack of parsimony required to arrive at a preferred conclusion.

Did you proof read that?
Here is your conclusion.....

These are the options that are 'plausible' if we apply logic and the rule of parsimony to our discussion. Anything else is less plausible, and anyone who wants to argue otherwise needs to explain what the error in this logic is; or why they want to discard the rules of logic; or why they feel justified in making an unparsimonious claim.

But this was your opening.............

'Plausible' is a meaningless word in the context of this debate.

Yes, I did.

If you don't understand the purpose of my putting the word 'plausible' in quotation marks, then that's not really my problem.

I do wonder why you feel that it is better to make an attack on the semantics of my argument rather than its substance though - I rather doubt that my meaning is actually unclear to you, but just in case, please feel free to substitute the follow ing as a conclusion, and respond to that:

These are the options that are reasonable if we apply logic and the rule of parsimony to our discussion. Anything else is less reasonable, and anyone who wants to argue otherwise needs to explain what the error in this logic is; or why they want to discard the rules of logic; or why they feel justified in making an unparsimonious claim.

Are you up to the challenge, or would you prefer to criticize my grammar or punctuation as a further diversion from the point?

 

[remez]

Did you proof read that?

Here is your conclusion.....

These are the options that are 'plausible' if we apply logic and the rule of parsimony to our discussion. Anything else is less plausible, and anyone who wants to argue otherwise needs to explain what the error in this logic is; or why they want to discard the rules of logic; or why they feel justified in making an unparsimonious claim.

But this was your opening.............

'Plausible' is a meaningless word in the context of this debate.

Yes, I did.

If you don't understand the purpose of my putting the word 'plausible' in quotation marks, then that's not really my problem.

I do wonder why you feel that it is better to make an attack on the semantics of my argument rather than its substance though -

You invited me to point out the errors in your logic. The first error I chose to address was that you absolutely contradicted yourself as I pointed out.

You turning my concern into a semantic issue is a ridiculous dodge on your part. I understood the “latitude” you were trying to afford yourself by using the “marks”. But there is no doubt that you used to same term thus contradicting yourself.

Your suggested change does not fix your contradiction because 1) logically your opening now reads…. 'Reasonable' is a meaningless word in the context of this debate. Thus you are still contradicting yourself. And 2) Plausible and reasonable are synonymous.

Therefore your contradiction still remains.

Moving on…..

The options we have to choose from are:

1) The universe is eternal; or
2) The universe is not eternal

If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, the universe has always existed.
If we instead plump for 2 (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 1) then:

Here……” If we instead plump for 2 (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 1) then:” ….

I have repeatedly provided the reasoning for 2. It is not simply asserted. So stop ignoring the reasoning I provided and engage.

2a) The universe began to exist from nothing; or
2b) Something existed before the universe, and that thing caused the universe to begin to exist.

If we accept 2a, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, the universe began from nothing.
If we instead plump for 2b (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 2a) then we have an unknown entity, 'X' that caused the universe to begin to exist.

So for this section…..

I would theistically clarify the context of 2a that nothing logically infers materially nothing.

Again your “(despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 2a)”

2a is worse than magic and denies logic.

2b logically allows for an immaterial efficient cause which is far more reasonable than illogical self-caused 2a.

So yes we have great reason to choose 2b over 2a.

There really is no comparison here. 2a is illogical and 2b is completely logical.

What can we say about 'X'?

In the context that X is the cause of the universe we can reasonably assert that X is eternal, spaceless, immaterial, personal, super intelligent, super powerful. Because logically these are the characteristics that X would need to possess to be the cause of our universe. Note that is reasoned now arbitrarily asserted.

Which is far more than what you offered…….

The options we have to choose from are:

1) X is eternal; or
2) X is not eternal

If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, X has always existed.

How is X not the creator?
Your asserted logic makes no sense.
You need to clarify and defend your reasoning.
Until then, the rest is meaningless to pursue at this point.

 

[Juma]

Did you proof read that?

Here is your conclusion.....

These are the options that are 'plausible' if we apply logic and the rule of parsimony to our discussion. Anything else is less plausible, and anyone who wants to argue otherwise needs to explain what the error in this logic is; or why they want to discard the rules of logic; or why they feel justified in making an unparsimonious claim.

But this was your opening.............

'Plausible' is a meaningless word in the context of this debate.

Yes, I did.

If you don't understand the purpose of my putting the word 'plausible' in quotation marks, then that's not really my problem.

I do wonder why you feel that it is better to make an attack on the semantics of my argument rather than its substance though -

You invited me to point out the errors in your logic. The first error I chose to address was that you absolutely contradicted yourself as I pointed out.

You turning my concern into a semantic issue is a ridiculous dodge on your part. I understood the “latitude” you were trying to afford yourself by using the “marks”. But there is no doubt that you used to same term thus contradicting yourself.

Your suggested change does not fix your contradiction because 1) logically your opening now reads…. 'Reasonable' is a meaningless word in the context of this debate. Thus you are still contradicting yourself. And 2) Plausible and reasonable are synonymous.

Therefore your contradiction still remains.

Moving on…..

The options we have to choose from are:

1) The universe is eternal; or
2) The universe is not eternal

If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, the universe has always existed.
If we instead plump for 2 (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 1) then:

Here……” If we instead plump for 2 (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 1) then:” ….

I have repeatedly provided the reasoning for 2. It is not simply asserted. So stop ignoring the reasoning I provided and engage.

2a) The universe began to exist from nothing; or
2b) Something existed before the universe, and that thing caused the universe to begin to exist.

If we accept 2a, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, the universe began from nothing.
If we instead plump for 2b (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 2a) then we have an unknown entity, 'X' that caused the universe to begin to exist.

So for this section…..

I would theistically clarify the context of 2a that nothing logically infers materially nothing.

Again your “(despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 2a)”

2a is worse than magic and denies logic.

2b logically allows for an immaterial efficient cause which is far more reasonable than illogical self-caused 2a.

So yes we have great reason to choose 2b over 2a.

There really is no comparison here. 2a is illogical and 2b is completely logical.

What can we say about 'X'?

In the context that X is the cause of the universe we can reasonably assert that X is eternal, spaceless, immaterial, personal, super intelligent, super powerful. Because logically these are the characteristics that X would need to possess to be the cause of our universe. Note that is reasoned now arbitrarily asserted.

Which is far more than what you offered…….

The options we have to choose from are:

1) X is eternal; or
2) X is not eternal

If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, X has always existed.

How is X not the creator?
Your asserted logic makes no sense.
You need to clarify and defend your reasoning.
Until then, the rest is meaningless to pursue at this point.

big bang is NOT the beginning of the universe. its a phase of enourmous inflation. nobody knows what is before that.

 

[remez]

big bang is NOT the beginning of the universe. its a phase of enourmous inflation. nobody knows what is before that.

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?


Why did you ignore your obligation to respond to post 154?

 

[bilby]

Did you proof read that?

Here is your conclusion.....

These are the options that are 'plausible' if we apply logic and the rule of parsimony to our discussion. Anything else is less plausible, and anyone who wants to argue otherwise needs to explain what the error in this logic is; or why they want to discard the rules of logic; or why they feel justified in making an unparsimonious claim.

But this was your opening.............

'Plausible' is a meaningless word in the context of this debate.

Yes, I did.

If you don't understand the purpose of my putting the word 'plausible' in quotation marks, then that's not really my problem.

I do wonder why you feel that it is better to make an attack on the semantics of my argument rather than its substance though -

You invited me to point out the errors in your logic. The first error I chose to address was that you absolutely contradicted yourself as I pointed out.

You turning my concern into a semantic issue is a ridiculous dodge on your part. I understood the “latitude” you were trying to afford yourself by using the “marks”. But there is no doubt that you used to same term thus contradicting yourself.

Your suggested change does not fix your contradiction because 1) logically your opening now reads…. 'Reasonable' is a meaningless word in the context of this debate. Thus you are still contradicting yourself. And 2) Plausible and reasonable are synonymous.

Therefore your contradiction still remains.

Moving on…..

The options we have to choose from are:

1) The universe is eternal; or
2) The universe is not eternal

If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, the universe has always existed.
If we instead plump for 2 (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 1) then:

Here……” If we instead plump for 2 (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 1) then:” ….

I have repeatedly provided the reasoning for 2. It is not simply asserted. So stop ignoring the reasoning I provided and engage.

Your reasoning is broken. Many people have refuted this, I need not repeat their work. It depends upon your use of 'universe' to mean something other than 'everything that exists'; And I don't accept that re-definition of the word.

2a) The universe began to exist from nothing; or
2b) Something existed before the universe, and that thing caused the universe to begin to exist.

If we accept 2a, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, the universe began from nothing.
If we instead plump for 2b (despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 2a) then we have an unknown entity, 'X' that caused the universe to begin to exist.

So for this section…..

I would theistically clarify the context of 2a that nothing logically infers materially nothing.

Again your “(despite having no reason to think it any more 'plausible' than 2a)”

2a is worse than magic and denies logic.

2b logically allows for an immaterial efficient cause which is far more reasonable than illogical self-caused 2a.

So yes we have great reason to choose 2b over 2a.

There really is no comparison here. 2a is illogical and 2b is completely logical.

What can we say about 'X'?

In the context that X is the cause of the universe we can reasonably assert that X is eternal, spaceless, immaterial, personal, super intelligent, super powerful. Because logically these are the characteristics that X would need to possess to be the cause of our universe. Note that is reasoned now arbitrarily asserted.

Which is far more than what you offered…….

The options we have to choose from are:

1) X is eternal; or
2) X is not eternal

If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, X has always existed.

How is X not the creator?
Your asserted logic makes no sense.
You need to clarify and defend your reasoning.
Until then, the rest is meaningless to pursue at this point.

How is X not the creator? Because there IS no creator of something that has always existed. X may or may not create some other stuff, but X cannot be 'The Creator^TM', because X exists without being created. And if stuff can do that, the whole question is moot - stuff (X) can just exist, so why not the stuff that makes up the universe?

How is X necessary? Let's just make the universe eternal. Problem solved. Oh, but you think that's 'worse than magic'. How?

All you have here is handwaving and special pleading. If 2a is 'worse than magic and defies logic' when X is 'the universe', how does it not have those same negative attributes where X is your creator?

 

[remez]

How is X necessary? Let's just make the universe eternal. Problem solved. Oh, but you think that's 'worse than magic'. How?

Hold on a min.
Perhaps you did not understand the trail I took through your logic structure.

I was progressing in this fashion. I chose “2) The universe is not eternal”….. proceeding thru “2b) Something existed before the universe, and that thing caused the universe to begin to exist”…… to X. That trail already eliminated that the universe is eternal. So I then reasoned what the characteristics of X had to be if it were the cause of the universe.

From there I was obviously on to “1) X is eternal”. At that point I objected to.

“If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, X has always existed.”

Hence my question how can you say no creator needed? Because following that path through your logic X is the creator.

Does that help?

 

[bilby]

How is X necessary? Let's just make the universe eternal. Problem solved. Oh, but you think that's 'worse than magic'. How?

Hold on a min.
Perhaps you did not understand the trail I took through your logic structure.

I was progressing in this fashion. I chose “2) The universe is not eternal”….. proceeding thru “2b) Something existed before the universe, and that thing caused the universe to begin to exist”…… to X. That trail already eliminated that the universe is eternal. So I then reasoned what the characteristics of X had to be if it were the cause of the universe.

From there I was obviously on to “1) X is eternal”. At that point I objected to.

“If we accept 1, then that's the end of the discussion - no creator is needed, X has always existed.”

Hence my question how can you say no creator needed? Because following that path through your logic X is the creator.

Does that help?

No.

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.

 

[blastula]

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?

You're again misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say I didn't know what the science was. I said I didn't know which scenario is more likely, which is because science doesn't know. You are claiming science does know or makes one scenario more likely, but you are merely conjecturing.

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

This is also a misrepresentation. That wasn't all I said. There was more in that post and as to which you have not replied. Here are other points you have not replied to:

-cosmologists do have past eternal models
-Neither possibility [past eternal or finite beginning] is evidence for theism, anyway.
-[to a challenge to make a better approach] Better approach than what? Than your mere conjecture and false representation? Using BGV to support the premise is fallacious. All it tells us is "maybe" there was a finite beginning, not that it was likely nor definitely. And even if it did more than that, it still wouldn't help theism.
-you misrepresent the science here.... you are just playing pretend about the science

I am still awaiting your reply to any of them.

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.

Specify which assertion is groundless. Also you failed to respond to another point in my last post:

why don't you just prove it by appealing to an event occurring in the present day, since you do believe your god acts in the world. It should be way easier, if in fact your god does exist..

Did the universe stop expanding? Did chemistry cease to exist? etc. FTA?

That's also a handwave. Expansion and all other physical properties have been in effect since the early universe. Obviously I am asking about special divine interventions that defy known physical properties and which you believe occur today and also have in the past. Christians commonly believe these occur, from miracles described in the Bible to present day miraculous interventions in their daily lives and even that they have conversations with their god. I'll take your dodge as admission that you can't prove your god does any of that neither.

Why bother responding at all if you are just going ignore nearly everything I said?

 

[blastula]

remez, here is another example where you have misrepresented the science.

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…

If you had bothered to read the link (or had otherwise known about the Hartle-Hawking no boundary proposal), you would know this from YOUR link:

In fact, James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary. They would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges. I have been round the world, and I didn't fall off.

If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.

This does not help your argument for an absolute beginning from nothing.

Further,

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.

Self-creation is not a logical issue, it's an empirical matter. This is especially fallacious of you to argue since you believe your god is self-created.

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

NO. Even if it did predict a beginning, it wouldn't predict an "absolute" beginning. Science couldn't possibly say anything about a state of absolute nothingness. So, even if there was a beginning, the question then is, beginning from what? As Sean Carroll says, the Big Bang doesn't mark the beginning of our universe, it marks the end of our theoretical understanding.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Nothing can create itself and thus be "self-created" Anything that exists either is created or is infinitely eternal. God is defined by many theologies to be eternal or even outside of time. But not proven to be eternal or even demonstrated to exist.

A god outside of time leads to too many contradictions and logical problems. An otherwise temporal but infinite God cannot be demonstrated to actually exist.

Or for that matter to have created anything.

 

[blastula]

To say that nothing can create itself is conjecture when we're talking about the fundamental nature of existence. 'Self-created' is interchangeable with 'eternal' or 'uncaused' for our purposes. The relevant aspect is whether something separate caused it to come into being.

 

[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?


Why did you ignore your obligation to respond to post 154?

You seem to have a very strange view of how science works. Some parts of science are very well established, QCD is one example, other are very uncertain, what came before the great inflation is good example of that. We sinply have to few facts to state anything so we have to keep all possibilities open.
What dont want to do is to invent fantasy theories of creators and mythoogical creatures. We dont need such phantasies since they provide no explanation of what happened.

If you are ok with a creator that crated the world with some properties then there is nothing that prevents us from believing that it could created a universe with any properties. Thus our knowledge of the universe isnt helped a bit by such a hypotesis.

you are free to believie in s creator but dont pretend it has anythibg to do with science.

 

[abaddon]

With all the persistence and repetition, I guess the CA is supposed to be an Atheism Killer of an argument. If atheists argue against it, if they treat it like it's not the utmost of sophisticated reasoning ever, then they haven't understood... And so the persistent assertions posing as a powerful argument. The most self-serving "traditional" definitions are valued as the most valid. But it's logic and not values that makes a whacked-out speculation like the Gawd-thing seem plausible. The premises are asserted to be science-based when clearly they're values-informed choices of what's plausible.

'I want the universe to have begun at the big bang' would be the most truthful version of the basic idea. And yet it's the atheists that are blinded by ideology.

The universe expands. Isn't that an atheism-killing game-changer? No. It changes what "universe" will come to mean as astrophysicists learn more about it (or them), and that's all. "Traditional definitions" are obsolete is what the discovery means.

 

[remez]

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.
Science most plausibly infers that material is not eternal.

The universe is spatial.
X is spaceless.
Science most plausibly infers that space is not eternal.

Therefore that which is material and that which is spatial needs a cause.
That which is eternal cannot have a cause.

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.

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.

 

[remez]

remez, here is another example where you have misrepresented the science.

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…

If you had bothered to read the link (or had otherwise known about the Hartle-Hawking no boundary proposal), you would know this from YOUR link:

You are completely wrong as to my not reading the link and so is your assumption that I do not understand the HHM. I judged that article a credible reference to the issue that time had a beginning. And that was the only reason I cited it. I completely disagree with his mathematical approach to the issue that the universe has no boundary. I completely detest is YEC straw man logic. But I do appreciate, the almost certain conclusion that time began and that again was the only reason I reference it. Look at the context of my reference. Further if you had read the link more carefully it clearly states right under the title, do not copy. I have never seen a no copy statement so prominently presented as that one. Hence why I did not.

To your assertion that I am misrepresenting the science. No. Your charge seems to be more that you object to the notion of me using it as evidence to support a portion of my position. For example your charge here regarding my citation of Hawking’s article. I only offered it for support that time began not that his model supports a transcendent cause, for it does not. Thus I did not misrepresent his model or any of the science as you have charged. You simply misrepresented my reason for citing the article and wrongly asserted that I misrepresented the science.

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.

Self-creation is not a logical issue, it's an empirical matter. This is especially fallacious of you to argue since you believe your god is self-created.

Note your assertions are philosophical statements that you simply assert to be true. So give me some empirical evidence that they are true. If you can’t then it is you that is conjecturing and misrepresenting the facts.

Your skepticism really seems to be based on the self-refuting foundation of scientism. More specifically empiricism. Which leaves much of your reasoning subjectively hanging in midair and completely arbitrary in its use.

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

NO. Even if it did predict a beginning, it wouldn't predict an "absolute" beginning. Science couldn't possibly say anything about a state of absolute nothingness.

I did not say that science could.
Science is not the only way to reason, it is not the only standard of truth.

Again your statements, which you believe are true, are not scientific statements. They are in fact philosophical statements. Your reasoning is completely inconsistent and arbitrary.

Examine……….
When you use non-scientific reasoning to support your concerns it’s assumed true.
But………..
When I use reasoning you pejoratively label it “conjecturing”, inconsistently mix in a little “science can’t say” and simply dismiss it.

Inconsistent and arbitrary.

So, even if there was a beginning, the question then is, beginning from what?

Exactly. Good non-scientific reasoning.

But then your next statement seems to inconsistently infer we can’t even ask that……..

As Sean Carroll says, the Big Bang doesn't mark the beginning of our universe, it marks the end of our theoretical understanding.

I think the context of SC’s remark would more accurately be “the end of our scientific understanding.” I assert reasoning can journey further. As you inconsistently demonstrated with your previous non-scientific reasoning. But please provide the link because I’m curious.

Your reasoning is inconsistent and arbitrary.

To further my point here is my response to post 215………..

To say that nothing can create itself is conjecture when we're talking about the fundamental nature of existence.

But to even infer that is conjecture. Thus you, yourself are conjecturing. How can you not see that?

'Self-created' is interchangeable with 'eternal' or 'uncaused' for our purposes.

Just another conjecture. One that sounds completely irrational and arbitrary as well.
How can you conjecture that as fact?

The relevant aspect is whether something separate caused it to come into being.

I would tend to agree with you here.
But because that is conjecture, I can’t even agree with you and be right.

Conclusion, you don't just get to misrepresent my reasoning as conjecture and yours correct.

 

[remez]

You seem to have a very strange view of how science works. Some parts of science are very well established, QCD is one example, other are very uncertain, what came before the great inflation is good example of that.

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.