the universe most likely didn't cause itself

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 219
#91
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
It is irrational to assume God.
Well, at least you're being honest


And for sure.

Sci-fi and the supernatural have been entertaining readers and filmgoers for centuries.


And as if by magic.

A God appeared.

Or was it Mr Benn.

LOL.


Perhaps you were tired Mr E.



#92
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I ask because if time has a beginning, then it seems that time coming into existence must be a product of time. So if you believe time has a beginning, you have the same problem I do and you should reject the idea of time having a beginning.
The coming into existence part would be a product of time, that poses no problem at all for my position even if I asserted that time had a beginning, which I never did.

I’m not the one asserting a timeless cause, nor is there any reason one would be necessary if time did come into existence. In fact the opposite, if it came into existence then there couldn’t have been a cause in any sense of the word. Hence why claims of God being responsible for time are incoherent.

Let’s back up and remember the main point here; you’re claiming that there must be a god of some kind to explain the universe because the universe couldn’t have caused itself. Yet you don’t place the same  constraints on the God belief that you appeal to. You claim the universe must have a cause but a God doesn’t. You claim the universe is a product of time but God isn’t. You claim the universe could not possibly be eternal but God is.

Your support for all of this is that the former claims defy logic, but you dismiss the fact that the latter claims suffer from the same flaws. So this is why, as have been pointed out to you, our understanding of all of this breaks down. This is the point where the only rational position is to say “I don’t know”, but only one of us is doing that while the other claims they’re the only one being rational. That’s backwards.
#93
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
Let’s back up and remember the main point here; you’re claiming that there must be a god of some kind to explain the universe because the universe couldn’t have caused itself.
You have misunderstood me. I have never claimed that the universe cannot be an uncaused cause. What I have claimed is consistent with the Law of Causality ("Every effect must have a cause"). If the universe is an effect, then it must have a cause. If the universe is not an effect, the Law of Causality does not apply and then the universe does not need to have a cause.

So my claim is specifically that the universe is an effect, and must therefore have a cause. And to avoid infinite regress, there must be an uncaused cause where all effects stem from. For the sake of this topic, we need not complicate the matter by determining what that cause is (God or some other eternal entity).


Yet you don’t place the same constraints on the God belief that you appeal to.
As with the explanation above, the only restraint I have placed is that every effect must have a cause. This also applies to God so this statement is incorrect.


You claim the universe must have a cause but a God doesn’t.
Incorrect. To be annoyingly clear, the only reason the universe would have to have a cause would be if it is an effect.


You claim the universe is a product of time but God isn’t.
This is also incorrect. The idea that a cause must be a product of time is your claim, not mine.


You claim the universe could not possibly be eternal but God is.
Not solely based on some some arbitrary preclusion. I do not believe the universe is eternal mainly because of the Laws of Thermodynamics, which do not apply to God. So this is not an accurate comparison.


Your support for all of this is that the former claims defy logic, but you dismiss the fact that the latter claims suffer from the same flaws. So this is why, as have been pointed out to you, our understanding of all of this breaks down. This is the point where the only rational position is to say “I don’t know”, but only one of us is doing that while the other claims they’re the only one being rational.
Your final analysis seems to be based on the misunderstanding described earlier of what my claim was. Perhaps we could find some agreement here to avoid further misunderstanding. Is the universe an effect? The point being to determine if the universe has a cause.

#94
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I have to summarize here, as it seems you have lost track of what is being argued.

1.) You listed the possible options, and suggested one of those options appeared most likely.

2.) I pointed out problems with the nature of temporal causality; and showed how a restated list more accurately shows the issues with our notions of causality.

Q1 Can you please explain what aspect of my restructuring you felt was illogical? 

Q2 Can you explain how you account for the issues of temporal causation that I raised in your argument? This is a critical omission on your part.

3.) You challenge the definition of “causality” that I use.

Q3 It’s not clear how using either definition of causality - including the one you prefer invalidates any of the points I was making? Can you please refer back to my original post and explain why and how using a different definition causes my point to be invalid?

4.) I pointed out which of the definitions you use is irrelevant as my argument still stands - as the temporal aspects of causality is the specifically critical part.

I even quoted it again. 

5.) you repeat the accusation.

You fail to show how the definitions apply to my argument. 

(See Q2 and Q3)

6.) I address your claim by taking each definition in turn and showing how assuming that definition and using it to show how your original claim - and my original restatement still holds.

So all caught up!

Your response:


“It matters because you are using a flawed definition of the Law of Causality”

“Please explain why a cause must have a cause.”


Huh, wut? I am not making that claim. Anywhere. In fact, if you had read my argument, it should be clear that this is the utter, complete, inside out opposite of what I am doing.

My argument explains the conditions where the word cause makes sense and can be applied, and where it does not. My first reply to you, and all other since expressly and explicitly point out that certain configurations of the universe cannot be considered to have a cause - because the word no longer has meaning.

Q4: can you please walk me through the logical process you used to determine that my argument assumed all things have a cause - when it’s central premise was to question whether certain things can be said to have a cause? I’m scratching my head.

Perhaps you are confused with my walk through. I simply took both definitions, and applies them to my argument:

For your information, I apply the first definition when I said:


“That something can exist without 
....

So that’s one side of your definition.”


And the second definition when I said:


“Now, the final possible option is that the rules of causality do not require a cause to itself have a cause...”

Both definitions are right there in my previous post..


Q5: Can you please re-read my last post, and explain how you took it to mean I was assuming one definition, when the post was clearly and explicitly in two parts, and explicit about how I was assessing both definitions?

You also appear to object to me applying a given definition to you; which is weird, since I have done no such thing.

As I reject the central premise of your reply - that I am forcing a definition on you, there’s really no more to say - I have no need to defend an argument I’m not making.


As you appeared to have come of the rails - by diving into a side track and forgetting what we are talking about - I forced you back to my original point (you confuse this with circling back).

So as your argument is attacking an argument I’m not making; and as you still appear to be ignoring what I’m trying to argue: let me restate my point again.


Your original list is not appropriately constructed because time is central to discussions of cause; and you have to start from the point of determining the conditions where cause as we understand it makes sense. You can’t pepper your language with the word “cause” if you haven’t established the conditions in which the word makes sense.

IE: to have a beginning, to have a cause, to be caused, etc - in the way we understand the terms - requires time to exist. 

That’s the central point I am making.

Q6: You have not raised any objection to this temporal aspect of causality any time I have raised it. It’s fair to presume that your repeated lack of objection indicates you accept it, right?

As a result, to ask whether the universe has a cause or was created; one must separate configurations where those words have meaning and where it doesn’t. 

IE: does the universe exist at all points of time, or not.

If it does - discussion of cause, or creation, etc, is meaningless because it’s not possible to have the cause preceding effect with no time reference.

That applies equally to both of your definitions of causality; so my argument remains valid in both cases. Indeed, I have been explicitly using examples of the universe having a cause and not having a cause.


Q7: Why on earth did you ask whether my definition of causality requires everything to have a cause in an argument where I am using examples of things having a cause or not? 

Q8: How on earth do you feel it’s valid to accuse me of assuming all things have a cause, when the core of my argument is explicitly about explaining the conditions where a thing cannot have a cause? Are you reading my argument?

This is what I don’t get, it’s like you didn’t actually read it: and you simply found some part you could object to; and ignored whether the objection was relevant at all. 


The upshot of my point: is that time itself cannot be caused in any way we understand the word without violating our understanding of causality: that a cause and effect must be temporally related.

Q9: do you object to this point? That time cannot be caused in any way we understand it? What is your objection? You’ve ignored this when I have pointed this out.

So we are left with two options: that universe (the root physical reality in which time is manifest) wither wasn’t caused, or our concept causality breaks down.

Or in other words: I am not assuming all things have a cause or not - I don’t know - each is a possible solution from argument. Hence why demanding that I say which I have been choosing is kinda weird.

So in your list; plugging that into your list we get.

The universe(the root physical reality in which time is manifest) is eternal: time wasn’t created and is infinite or time wasn’t created and is finite. 
Time 
The universe came from nothing/caused itself: this is either functionally the same as above; or is not a coherent option because our notions causality break down.
The universe was caused by something else: this is not a coherent option because our notions of causality break down.

This leads me back to my original conclusion. You suggest the first is more reasonable, but that’s clearly nonsense; because what you are describing is inherently incoherent. 

Now, here’s the fundamental thing: we are left with 3 possible options from the above:

Everything has a cause: (first definition)
Some things don’t need a cause: (second definition)
We don’t understand causality, and our notion of cause doesn’t apply to the universe.

I have no clue which it is: though My personal preference is the latter - I have no basis in which to declare our notions of causality is universal even though that seems to be the basis for all theists in this thread.

Your original  conclusion - that the universe must have been caused by something, however, is equally invalid in all three possibilities. (Can’t need to be caused if wasn’t caused, can’t need to be caused if doesn’t need a cause, can’t need to be caused if the nature of causation is invalid)

Q10: given this is time #3 explaining why your list and conclusion is faulty, and how, which part of my reasoning do you object to and why?

#95
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
It is irrational to assume God.

Well, at least you're being honest
No, I'm being logical. Mr. E is all about logic.

It is ALWAYS irrational to assume ANYTHING without logical justification. The process is illogical regardless of what the assumption is about.

Christians do not assume God, no matter what your liberal atheist dogma tells you. Reality does not reside between your ears.
#96
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Reality does not reside between your ears.

Nice goad Mr E.

But if you think about it logically.

Between ones ears is the only place in the universe where one can presume to be aware of reality.  


As ever....Data in...Data assessment and management....Data out.

Mr E thinks, therefore he probably is.
#97
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Between ones ears is the only place in the universe where one can presume to be aware of reality. 
Reality is not affected by your awareness at all my easily triggered friend. There is your awareness, and there is reality. Two separate and different things.

Don't beat yourself up. You are fighting through a liberal brainwashing, it will take time to get it. Take one day at a time.
#98
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@EtrnlVw
Okay. Wow. 

So, your post can be broken down into two real parts.

First, is the collection of unsupported assertions you make about the nature of the nature and properties of nature the universe and reality - specifically about some weird notion of “fixed reality” and that the universe is a backdrop where it’s not really clear what any of it really means. 

You have no basis upon which to ground or support any of these ideas; and they are really no more than wild, unsupported speculation - building an argument upon them makes the argument unsupported too and thus needs no counter.

So yes - if I just wildly speculate a universe that has rules in which God is not necessary, I can use that speculation to “prove”, that God doesn’t exist - and that would be just as well supported as your own...


How can anyone counter unsupported speculation about the nature of metaphysics in a realm where we have no basis to draw any real conclusions or even to assess what is even possible?

In this respect - unless you can provide a logical argument to support this speculation - which I know you can’t - I’m not going to waste more time talking about it.


The second part, is where you tell me, based on this speculation that various temporal words such as before and after can make sense in that context. Your description is jumbled and rather incoherent. It’s not clear exactly what you’re talking about because you keep mixing in a bunch of temporal words into your vague assertions and so trying to disentangle time and lack therefore is near impossible.

It’s really the mother of all equivocation where before doesn’t mean before, but also does.


One key thing here, is that your reasoning for letting yourself use these temporal words and terms in the way you are when there is no time, is based on you asserting all this nonsense about the universe, together with reasoning that - having read what you said twice - still isn’t wholly clear.

For example, you can’t say there is a “before” the universe if the universe includes time - like north of the North Pole.

You don’t really explain why as far as I can see: you kinda handwave and point me to your assertions about how things work; which is unhelpful.



So let me restate this. 

We have a bunch of temporal concepts upon which we build our understanding of the universe, and what is possible based on what we know happens and what we can observe. Things have a cause, things can exist, can be created, there are before, afters.


The way we use those words doesn’t apply to any physical reality in which there is no time in the same sense we experience it.

IE: if time starts at the Big Bang; there can be no before; if there is no before, then our idea of causation cannot apply: 

How can something be created if it exists at all points of time?

How can something be caused if the cause doesn’t occur at any point in time?

Beginning is similar: the universe has a beggining in the same sense a film has a beginning; or the planet earth has a beginning. 

There is a point you can get to in one dimension where you cannot go any further.

What is North of the North Pole, what do you see when you rewind before the start of a film, what is before the Big Bang.

The question itself is incoherent.

In this respect they have a “beginning” - a location that specifies the extent of a dimension.

However, that’s distinct from a causal, creative or bounding beginning - which is the point on a given dimension that frames the extent of a thing within that dimension. 

Something cannot be created in the way we understand the word if there is no point in time in which it does not exist, right?

Likewise, how can you say something hasn’t always existed if there is no point in time where it did not exist. If something exists for all time - does that not imply it is eternal by definition?


You don’t answer those questions above: what you do is assert that the concepts definitely do make sense with hand waving, and reference back to your speculation. Neither of which is valid.



The bottom line is this: we can’t apply our notions of causality to the universe itself - because they don’t work any more.

We can’t draw any conclusions of his things because we have no basis or framework for making any determinations if those notions are invalid.

Sure - you can pull random speculation out of your a** and say it solves the problem, or define some sort of universe in which before and after can be redefined - but we have basis upon which to assess its validity.

If you try, any conclusions you draw from it is beginning the question, as the conclusion is based on the rules you have assumed without justification.



That’s the triumvirate. 

The undistributed middle fallacy: where you set up an argument for a universal cause, then sneak in all other properties of God.

Special Pleading: when you set up your assumptions and assertions such that you have arbitrarily exempted God from a problem that exists for the universe.

Begging the question: when you make speculative assumptions about the universe that force the conclusion of God, but cannot be justified.


Theists make large, convoluted, multi-layered argument to obfuscate and obscure where the above fallacy lies in their argument.


#99
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So my claim is specifically that the universe is an effect, and must therefore have a cause. And to avoid infinite regress, there must be an uncaused cause where all effects stem from. 
One of the most basic principals of logic is that you limit your assumptions to only those which are necessary.

Once you accept that there is an uncaused cause, infinite regress is no longer a problem in need of solving. The answer is simple, something exists which is not an effect thereby stopping the regress.

We know of nothing beyond the universe that exists, so the conclusion requiring the least amount of assumptions is that the universe is not an effect.

God then becomes entirely unnecessary, therefore adding him into the equation directly violates logic.

The idea that a cause must be a product of time is your claim, not mine.
More like English 101.

Cause and effect are definitionally tied to each other  like two sides of one coin, if you don’t have one you don’t have the other.

Cause by definition comes before effect, and effect by definition comes after cause. Before and after are literal expressions of time.

To claim a cause outside of time violates the definition of the word, thereby rendering it unable to be  conceptualized, aka incoherent.

The fact that we cannot conceive of an idea does not mean the idea cannot be real, but it does mean the idea violates basic logic, the foundation of a rational argument. 
Topic's author
#100
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu
@Double_R
We know of nothing beyond the universe that exists, so the conclusion requiring the least amount of assumptions is that the universe is not an effect.

i know you guys like debating causality, but if you go back to the opening post, there are some reasons to think the universe is an effect. there's no evidence that the universe could have been produced a higher level of energy than the beginning universe, that we might expect is required. also it is very strange to think existence could have a finite beginning but last eternally, which is our best observation, to my knowledge. infinite regress makes more sense to me, but an uncaused cause beyond the universe could also help address the issues. it's not a matter of sticking to a simpler approach that double would like, when that simple approach is so full of problems.  i know that Ram thought that all answers about the origin of the universe, breaks down. while i agree, my only quibble with that, is that i think we can have some potential answers to origins that makes more sense than others.... and the common atheistic answers make less sense, scientifically. 
#101
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
i know that Ram thought that all answers about the origin of the universe, breaks down. while i agree, my only quibble with that, is that i think we can have some potential answers to origins that makes more sense than others.... and the common atheistic answers make less sense, scientifically. 
My general point is that our common understanding of how things work break down when applied to the universe and any deeper reality; so we shouldn’t try and use our understanding of how things work to try deduce how the universe works.

Causality, creation, cause  or no cause all have critical errors showing science or our common understanding can’t be applied - so don’t bother.

The issue with Atheism vs Theism here; is that to account for the universe, they both have to make the exact same set of assumptions, with theism having to make more additional assumptions.

So at a metaphysical level - you and I both assume that it must be possible for *something* to exist without being caused. 

Even an infinite regress; the *existence* of that regress must be possible without being caused.

We only differ as to what that something is.

You believe that at a metaphysical level; it is possible for a mind, an intelligence with will and thought, and that has power to shape and create and manipulate, and to bring about and interact with new planes of reality: to exist without cause or reason.

I believe that at a metaphysical level; it is possible for some form of reality to exist that operates by simple rules from which what we observe to be the universe is emergent.

In that respect, you and I differ only by the number of things we stack into our assumption: if you only assume the minimum number of things you can possibly imagine that would be necessary to explain what we see - it precludes God.






#102
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
There is your awareness, and there is reality.
Absolutely, perhaps probably true, maybe.


But your awareness of anything is only in the one place.

Between your ears Mr E.

And that's the only place your reality is too.

External reality is a perception based conclusion, all figured out internally.

And bugger all to do with politics.
#103
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
There is your awareness, and there is reality.

Absolutely, perhaps probably true, maybe.
Certainly true. Proof? When you die, the universe (reality) will continue to remain.

But your awareness of anything is only in the one place.
So?

Between your ears Mr E.
But what does your awareness have to do with reality? Nothing.

And that's the only place your reality is too.
Untrue. That is where my awareness is, that is not where reality is. You are confused because liberal dogma conflates human awareness with reality.

This is why a liberal man can announce he has become a woman, because he thinks his thoughts are what decides his gender. Reality slaps down liberals every day, and they just go right on believing nonsense till reality forces them to either pretend their position never existed (it was Republicans who wanted to defund the police!) or rationalize it away. (Yes, but a human baby is not a person)

I'm talking about reality. Not our awareness. Reality existed before there was humankind, and does not need human awareness to exist.

I know these ideas are scary for a liberal, but baby steps. You'll be fine.
#104
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@n8nrgmi
Inanimate forces can't produce intelligent outcomes, inanimate materials can't begin to build things into existence as if they had knowledge. That is ridiculous. It requires intelligence, mind and forethought to know and understand how to produce functioning and working results....a desired product. 

#105
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ethang5
Zeddy seems to forget that he believes in God, he's admitted it several times.


#106
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Nope.

Awareness and reality is all between your ears Mr E.

No brain...Nothing....Zilch.
#107
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
This will shock you Zeddy, but....

No brain...Nothing....Zilch.
Is untrue. Reality existed before your brain, and will continue to exist after your brain. So...

No brain... Reality...still exists.

Reality is far too big to exist between your ears Zed. That is just liberal nonsense you guys believe because it was fed to you young and no one around you ever question the illogic of it. You now think it's true.

But at least you have a finely washed brain. No smelly old rational arguments there!
#108
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ethang5
Zeddy seems to forget that he believes in God, he's admitted it several times.

Ohh but of course, like Zed it's a half-assed version lol, nonetheless I find it funny he insults you meanwhile he conjures up his own God delusion. Ask em...
#109
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
Zeddy probably thinks that when it's the God he dreams up, it's real. I mean, if he believes his awareness and reality are the same thing,...
#110
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
I ACCEPT the idea of a GOD principle.

I DO NOT BELIEVE in 2000 year old fantasy tales.


And Mr Ethan thinks...And so Mr Ethan temporarily presumes to be aware of an external reality.

And for the same reason MrEVw presumes to be aware of a GOD.


Dodgy word belief....Somewhat self-contradicting.

One can only believe what one can actually know....Though if one can actually know something then one doesn't need to believe.....Therefore one can only  believe in something that cannot be known.

So believe actually disproves a known GOD.

Sorted.

And Goodnight America.
#111
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
I ACCEPT the idea of a GOD principle.

How about you elaborate on that to make clear your belief? We would humorously love to know about your God idea. 

I DO NOT BELIEVE in 2000 year old fantasy tales.

I don't believe I do either, I'm sure Ethan feels the same way. We believe in reality Zeddy. 

One can only believe what one can actually know....Though if one can actually know something then one doesn't need to believe.....Therefore one can only  believe in something that cannot be known.

Belief and knowing are synonymous in my world. 

And Goodnight America.

Not so fast, we need some answers here. 
#112
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@EtrnlVw
Inanimate forces can't produce intelligent outcomes
Assertion; a false assertion as well.

Descent with modification, combined with selective pressure is one of the most successful and powerful optimizing function; and is emergent from very simple sub elements.

inanimate materials can't begin to build things into existence as if they had knowledge.
assertion.

That is ridiculous. It requires intelligence, mind and forethought to know and understand how to produce functioning and working results....a desired product. 
assertion.
#113
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
Assertion; a false assertion as well.

Thanks for the opinion 

Descent with modification, combined with selective pressure is one of the most successful and powerful optimizing function; and is emergent from very simple sub elements.

And who thought of or knew that? the elements lol?

assertion.

 So...inanimate materials have knowledge? 

assertion.

So...productions, desired outcomes and functioning results don't require intelligence, mind and forethought? please produce something alike without any of those attributes. 


#114
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@EtrnlVw
You didn’t offer any justification: simply blurting our what you think is true, is not a valid way to have an argument.

Pointing out that they are no more justified than any random nonsense you want to pull from your a$$, is perfectly valid.


I mean, I can assert that it is not possible for a fully formed intelligent being, with will and super powers to simply exist without cause: and the demand that you have to demonstrate it’s possible by making such a thing occur, would not be reasonable, right?



Complexity can come from Simplicitly - we see it every day in nature with things like emergence. Simple genetic algorithms use simple processes to build up staggeringly optimized solutions by unguided duplicating and pruning.

Simple reinforcement processes can make a simple, stupid Neuron “learn“, connecting them together can make a them find patterns.

RNA can form And self assemble, self replicate naturally.


So I’m terms of your question going from nothing to a fully formed intelligence is many, many steps over a long, long period of time.

So far we can get from protons and elections, to stars, to planets, to chemistry.

We can get from planets and chemistry to simple self contained RNA in cells - if we have luck.

Self replicating RNA in Protocells, to more complex cellular machinery in 500m years is a bit unclear. 

From single cells to multi-cells is known, from multi-cellular colonies, to small differentiation,  and then to larger differentiation is not well understood; to basic multicellularity is simple - and from there to multiple types of animals is also simple - and from simple animals to all life, just needs evolution and evo-devo.


So breaking it down, not only explains why your demand is ridiculous - it also explains exactly why there are not that many vast and insurmountable  gaps between the high energy protons At the Big Bang; and you and I talking about it.




 

#115
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
Once you accept that there is an uncaused cause, infinite regress is no longer a problem in need of solving. The answer is simple, something exists which is not an effect thereby stopping the regress.
Agreed.


We know of nothing beyond the universe that exists, so the conclusion requiring the least amount of assumptions is that the universe is not an effect.

God then becomes entirely unnecessary, therefore adding him into the equation directly violates logic.
So prior to the invention of the telescope, we could essentially only observe our own galaxy. If it was true that we knew of nothing that existed beyond our galaxy, would we have been correct to say that our galaxy is not an effect?


The idea that a cause must be a product of time is your claim, not mine.
More like English 101.
You're going to have to explain how this works:
  • An uncaused cause is the product of time

#116
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
If God built the entire universe here. 
I wonder what he built over there. 

You wouldn't  just build one thing would ya? 

Start with a blank canvas box
#117
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
NO BELIEF.



I will run with any sensible idea....Input data...Assess and manage data....Perhaps come to a conclusion....Maybe not.

Current magic bloke, non-sense....Input data...Reassess and manage data...Probably come to a conclusion....Though maybe not, should new and sensible data ever be made available.

I find your current GOD ideas equally as humorous.

And belief and knowing are antonymous in my World.


And you and Mr E believe in reality....For sure....In so much as your realities, are you realities.

And mine is mine...And I can do little else other that accept that.
#118
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I ACCEPT the idea of a GOD principle.
I care about reality, not your opinions.

I DO NOT BELIEVE in 2000 year old fantasy tales.
How about 6,000 year old fantasies? Or is it the fantasy part causing you to stumble? How about 2,000 year old true tales? Or would the 2,000 years still trip you up?

And Mr Ethan thinks...And so Mr Ethan temporarily presumes to be aware of an external reality.
Mr. E knows that an external reality exists.

Dodgy word belief....Somewhat self-contradicting.
I did not mention the word "belief".

I don't really have the interest to play "engage the narcissist" with you today. You are so self-involved and focused on yourself, you cannot even grasp the concept of something existing outside of you.

Awareness and reality is all between your ears Mr E.
No Sir. Awareness is, reality is not. You have been fed that liberal nonsense for do long, that you now believe it's truth. But when both you and I no longer exist, reality will continue to exist right where it's always been, NOT between our ears.

I know concepts like this can be scary for a liberal indoctrinated to super glue focus on his feelings, but reality doesn't care one iota about your awareness or belief.

#119
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgmi
there's no evidence that the universe could have been produced a higher level of energy than the beginning universe, that we might expect is required
Nor is there any evidence that it couldn’t have been. As has been said repeatedly here, any claim as to what could or couldn’t have been prior to the Big Bang, if there is any such thing as prior to the Big Bang, is just baseless speculation. It’s an attempt to deduce what could explain it despite having zero options left once all logically coherent options have been eliminated.

infinite regress makes more sense to me, but an uncaused cause beyond the universe could also help address the issues.
Please provide some.

it's not a matter of sticking to a simpler approach that double would like, when that simple approach is so full of problems.
The approach is to recognize the simplest explanation as the most reasonable. It’s a basic principal of logic so if you take issue with it I’d love to know why. 

I don’t think that’s what you meant though, I think you were referring to my conclusion that *if* the existence of an uncaused cause is accepted as our first premise, then the universe being that uncaused cause is the most reasonable presumption. So back to the above, please provide the issues with this.
#120
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@ethang5
@EtrnlVw
@ludofl3x
@n8nrgmi
@Fruit_Inspector
I don't disagree with the title. I am only aware of three scientific hypotheses that imply the universe causing itself and I doubt their likelyness adds up to being likely. However, that God caused the universe is even less likely.

theists say God could have caused the universe. atheists say the universe could have caused itself. but the problem is we have reasons to think otherwise.
Theists make a stronger claim. They claim God caused the universe. But the problem is we have reasons to think otherwise.
You are committing a hasty generalization fallacy. That some atheists say the universe could have caused itself, does not imply all of them do.

1. lower energy states come from higher energy states. something had to cause the first maximum energy state of the universe. as far as we know it from our reality, an energy state greater than the universe must have caused it to occur, because we have no reason to think the universe could have caused itself given it had a maximum energy state as a beginning.
If I understand correctly, your argument is the following :

P1. The universe had a maximum energy state at the beginning.
P2. Something that had a maximum energy state at the beginning was caused by something else.
P3. Something that was caused by something else cannot have caused itself.
C. Therefore, the universe cannot have caused itself.

Is that indeed your argument ?

2. existence should have an infinite beginning given it looks like there's an infinite end. i acknowledge there could be a finite end, but from what we can tell existence will be forever more even if it's emptiness. an infinite ending of our universe cannot have a finite beginning that we see. something else must be the infinite beginning. if i'm wrong, how can a finite beginning cause an infinite end? how does that series play out out of nowhere?
Why should something that has an infinite end have a infinite beginning ? Usually theists baldly assert that the universe must have a beginning, even if it were cyclic. They don't attach the condition that it must for that also have an end.
And what is an infinite beginning ?

i acknowledge that there could be evidence that contradict these principles... the problem is that we see no such evidence in the universe, all we have is speculation that these presumed principles are faulty.
I admit that there could be evidence that supports these principles. The problem is that we see no such evidence in the universe. All we have is speculation that these presumed principles are valid.

The concept universe is ambiguous. As our knoweldge of the world has evolved the universe became ever bigger. Today 'universe' can refer to our little patch of spacetime, about 90 billion light years accross, or that patch plus everything that may exist before, after and outside of it.

lower energy states come from higher energy states. something had to cause the first maximum energy state of the universe. as far as we know it from our reality, an energy state greater than the universe must have caused it to occur, because we have no reason to think the universe could have caused itself given it had a maximum energy state as a beginning.
Exactly. In fact, the claim that the universe started itself violates some of the laws of science. But atheists are quite willing to contradict science in order to keep God out of the picture.
Which laws of science does the claim that the universe started itself violate ?

THe question of why is there something rather than nothing has fascinated humanity forever, and still no good answer to it.
I agree with the analysis that any claims about how the universe began fall into one of three categories:
- The universe is eternal
- The universe came from nothing (or is self-created)
- Something caused the universe to come into being.
Option 1 violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. Option 2 violates reason. That leaves option 3.
The laws of thermodynamics are valid in a lab on earth, but not for universes. The first and second law can be broken.
How does option 2 violate reason ?

What could you possibly know about whatever laws would have applied to the universe if it existed in some other form prior to the Big Bang?
My understanding is that the laws of physics have applied to the universe for as long as it has been in existence. Why should we assume otherwise?
Some Christians argue that the uniformity of nature (i.e. that the natural laws don't change) must require God, as without him they should change. Keeping that argument in mind we have even less reason to believe that the natural laws as we know them also ruled prior to the Big Bang.

I'm asking you: are there any causes that were not at one time effects? You said yes, only one thing. This is another way of saying "All causes were at one time effects, except this one special thing." That's special pleading. A universal statement that applies to everything, except one thing, and that one thing is only asserted to be special, not proven to be so.
I think special pleading only applies to specified exceptions. Fruit_Inspector left out what that exception is.

Ramshutu 33 to Fruit_Inspector :
Well... uh... yeah.
That something can exist without a cause inherently violates the principle that each thing that happens was caused by something else.
EtrnlVw  44 :
We have two things that have to be dealt with here, a system of effects which have causes and an infinite regression paradox. Everything within the known universe had a cause, yet at the same time there must exist a point in which those causes began,[1] which brings us to WHY they began. This is not an excuse to bring God into the equation it is a logical calculation and God happens to fit such a postulation. We can trace everything back to a single moment of that which began a succession of events, to a point which preceded those events.[2]
[1] I assume you mean that the sequence of causes must have begun. Why is that ?
[2] In the universe, our local patch of spacetime, yes.

n8nrgmi 48 to ludofl3x :
you are correct that atheism is just believing god doesn't exist, but you are incorrect in saying atheism isn't related to the idea of the universe causing itself, or always existing or any of that stuff. atheists usually hold those beliefs, even though there's no good evidence for them.
says one of the guys who believe God spoke the world into existence.

n8nrgmi to ludof33x :
it's not possible to seek a neutral position in this, by claiming your claim is that you dont know how the universe began. the problem, is that any explanation for how the universe began breaks down, and must be a special exception that can't be demonstrated. that means if a person has the balls to speculate a theory, they are committing a fallacy, according to you. your position isn't neutral if you call anyone speculating as committing fallacy, when all we can do is speculate.
How does every explanation for how the universe began break down ?

ethang5 71 :
Some of the problem in conversations about origins is equavocation on certain words. For example, when we say, "every thing has a cause", what does the word "thing" mean in that sentence?

Theists know there are only 2 "things" in existence, God, and everything else. God is not really a "thing" like creation. Natural, physical, universal laws apply to creation, not the creator. This is only logical, for the creator preceeds creation.

The atheists confusion come in when he conflates the creator and his creation, irrationally thinking that both must submit to the same laws.
It may be wrong, but that does not make believing otherwise irrational. Almost every creator is subject to some of the laws their creation is subject to, like the laws of mathematics and the laws of physics.

I ask because if time has a beginning, then it seems that time coming into existence must be a product of time. So if you believe time has a beginning, you have the same problem I do and you should reject the idea of time having a beginning.
You know too little about the topic to make such a claim. Experts think that time can have a beginning. See for example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle–Hawking_state. FLRW talks about that hypothesis in post 86.

The Big Bang is T=0
EtrnlVw 82 :
The BB represents the beginning of time, cause and effect. What precedes that has no relation to time, cause and effect. I'm positing that God precedes the BB.
Precedence requires time. If the universe exists for T >= 0 and there is no T < 0 then God cannot precedede the universe.
The reasoning you both arguing about assumes a universal time. I suspect though time was close enough to universal around the time of the Big Bang.

If there is no T<0 then the universe cant have been created or caused, because the universe has always existed.
EtrnlVw 82 :
The products within the universe have NOT always existed. We know that the products within the universe had a beginning, will have an ending. These are the things we refer to as being "created", we can observe those processes, we correlate those processes with intelligence.[3] If you claim that the universe existed before the BB I'd be fine with that, because it's irrelevant to that which begins within that universe. If you claim the universe began at the BB, I'm fine with that too and then your claim it has always existed doesn't work.[4] Either way, I'm associating time and cause and effect with the products WITHIN our universe after the BB, the processes involved are how we measure time.
[3] Who is the we that correlates these processes with intelligence ? I don't correlate the creation of gamma ray burst, white dwarf stars and tau neutrinos with intelligence.
[4] Why is that ?

Is the universe a piece of string with a defined start and end that can pointed to; or is it like the surface of a sphere; finite(?) but with no physical start or end.
EtrnlVw 82 :
The universe is like the fabric or backdrop to that which appears within the universe. Perhaps we can say that the universe is like a body of water per say, and then we have all that exists within that body of water. When we refer to creation, we are referring to that which appears within that body of water.
So God allegedly created the stuff within spacetime, but not spacetime itself ?

Notions of creation, or causation requires time before and after
EtrnlVw 82 :
No, this is where you don't seem to follow the logic. Time as we measure it, is only relevant to that which we can trace within the universe. Before that, there is no time, it is an illusion because it only exists if processes exist. What I'm saying is that time began the moment creation began, before that there is no linear time scale.[5]
I've thoroughly explained how eternity and God's existence is exempt from needing time to exist.[6]
[5] That is your belief and hypothesis. However there are many belief on the origin of the universe. The scientific ones referring to God are low on the popularity list in cosmological circles.
[6] What does eternity mean in the absense of time ?