A rephrasing of the cosmological argument.

[Link]

It's obvious? How so? I'm not sure I understand why you'd think that.

We are discussing why in this thread. So if you keep up, it will be obvious why I'm asserting this.

 

[John53]

Of course not. But there is no special pleading there. It's a logical argument.

Links statement appears otherwise to me.

God doesn't have cause and effect applied to him after causing the universe nor does he come something limited, but is eternal and remains what he is.

 

[paradox]

The heat capacity of melting ice is infinite while it is melting.

Interesting, do you have a source for this because I'm not able to find it?

btw. do you know that there are 2 kinds of infinities?
1.) infinitely close to (or far from) a point
2.) infinitely small or big magnitude

If your example is about 1 then you might have a point, but not otherwise.

Which particular problem? There are *paradoxes*, but no contradictions.

Video @2:40 concludes previously said and proves a contradiction.

Any particular part you want to discuss? It was cool to see Woodin in the video.

No but, I found whole video very informative and though you might want to watch some time.

Edit:
Updated point 1.) for corectnes

 

[Link]

Links statement appears otherwise to me.

Salam

We have three hypothetical scenarios of the universe:

(1) It began to exist (limited time)
(2) It always existed.
2 can be split two further ones:
2a Infinite state of cause and effects, one state to another.
2b Eternal existing "before time, motion, cause and effect" then having "motion, cause and effect time" applied to it with no cause.

This is the two scenarios we are talking about universe if existed forever.

Why I don't believe in 2a is possible, has to do with it being a paradox, it would require a cause since it's still an effect and at the same time would not require one, since it's infinite in span.

As for 2b, this would eternal universe spanning no beginning no end, then shrinking to plank time moment and being in motion by cause and effect after having none of that.

I'm saying God is more plausible, because (1) is more plausible, and God does not shrink from infinite time to plank time nor is an effect that needs a cause so why we don't need to apply this to God is obvious.

So it's more rational to conclude. It's obvious why if you read the thread.

 

[John53]

Salam

We have three hypothetical scenarios of the universe:

(1) It began to exist (limited time)
(2) It always existed.
2 can be split two further ones:
2a Infinite state of cause and effects, one state to another.
2b Eternal existing "before time, motion, cause and effect" then having "motion, cause and effect time" applied to it with no cause.

This is the two scenarios we are talking about universe if existed forever.

Why I don't believe in 2a is possible, has to do with it being a paradox, it would require a cause since it's still an effect and at the same time would not require one, since it's infinite in span.

As for 2b, this would eternal universe spanning no beginning no end, then shrinking to plank time moment and being in motion by cause and effect after having none of that.

I'm saying God is more plausible, because (1) is more plausible, and God does not shrink from infinite time to plank time nor is an effect that needs a cause so why we don't need to apply this to God is obvious.

So it's more rational to conclude. It's obvious why if you read the thread.

It's not rational to me because it requires special powers for which there is no evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

Interesting, do you have a source for this because I'm not able to find it?

Well, the point is that the heat capacity is defined as the ratio between the energy put into a system and the temperature change induced by doing so.

But, in melting ice, a finite amount of energy produces NO temperature change. So the heat capacity is infinite.

By the way, this is typical of many phase transitions.

btw. do you know that there are 2 kinds of infinities?
1.) infinitely close to a point
2.) infinitely small or big magnitude

1. Infinitesimals are no longer used in most mathematics. No two points are infinitely close together. Instead, the notion of a limit is used (as in calculus), but that only involves finitely large quantities.

2. A lot of care is required here. There are several different notions of size or magnitude and the different notions can give very different results.

So, for example, we can talk about cardinality (Cantor's insight), leading to Hilbert's hotel, etc.

OR, we can talk about infinite *limits* (which are again defined only using finite quantities).

But there are also other concept of infinity, including ordinals (related to first, second, third, etc as opposed to one, two, three, etc). Ordinals are very different than cardinals.

If your example is about 1 then you might have a point, but not otherwise.

My example was a ratio between measured quantities that comes out to be infinite. it is, however, an important quantity in physical chemistry.

Video @2:40 concludes previously said and proves a contradiction.

I saw no contradiction there. Even when there is a discussion of Hilbert's hotel, there is no contradiction, merely a paradox. The resolution is to realize that finite and infinite quantities have different properties. one of the places where they differ is precisely in the stuff discussed about the hotel.

No but, I found whole video very informative and though you might want to watch some time.

I watched it (at 1.5 rate). It was interesting, but I have been working with the ideas expressed most of my life, so there was little new there. It was interesting to see Woodin talk about his stuff.

 

[Link]

The simplest argument I can state for myself is...

I know I exist.
I know I am created and did not cause myself.
So I have a cause and thus The Creator.

Salam

The Creator can be your parents in your argument or grandparents or great grant parents. They can all be the cause.

So this leads to think well how did it all start? Which then you would have to address the two scenarios:

(1) Infinite eternal universe changing without a cause to a finite plank time universe and from being without motion, to motion, without cause, and from spamming eternal to a tiny plank time. (I don't take this one seriously)
(2) Infinite state of effects one state to another, of the universe, I took this scenario more seriously, and my argument in OP was addressed to tackle this one but it went off towards (1).

If none these two.

Universe is limited and began.

A timeless eternal creator willing it to existence is logical and more rational to conclude.


With peace brother.

 

[firedragon]

I didn't say you did, I said atheistic and quoted where you said it.

Apologies if I missed something.

 

[Link]

It's not rational to me because it requires special powers for which there is no evidence.

Yet the other two options being scratched out, we are only left with that to conclude.

 

[firedragon]

Links statement appears otherwise to me.

I am referring to the OP. I have not read all the comments. I found it a bit hard to read but it's not an a priori argument.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You can rephrase the Cosmological Argument a million ways, and it won't change anything. Until you come to grips with this little conundrum, you are lost, and you won't find your way out:

The Cosmological Argument is based on a very simple notion -- that anything that "exists" must have a cause for its existence. In every way that it has ever been expressed, it tries to get itself back to the idea that that "cause" is God.

And there it stops. Why does it stop there? Because if God "exists," then God must need a cause of his existence, and there's no answer to that. At least no satisfactory one.

Because, and think about this carefully, if you presume that there is "something that can exist that has no cause of its existence (GOD)," then you might as well conclude that it is the universe itself. There's no reason to introduce the notion of a "personal" god, or an intelligence, or a "desire to create" or anything else! None at all.

The moment you concede that something you might call "God" can exist without a cause, you concede that so can anything else -- because you have no possible means to prove otherwise.

 

[paradox]

Well, the point is that the heat capacity is defined as the ratio between the energy put into a system and the temperature change induced by doing so.

But, in melting ice, a finite amount of energy produces NO temperature change. So the heat capacity is infinite.

By the way, this is typical of many phase transitions.



1. Infinitesimals are no longer used in most mathematics. No two points are infinitely close together. Instead, the notion of a limit is used (as in calculus), but that only involves finitely large quantities.

2. A lot of care is required here. There are several different notions of size or magnitude and the different notions can give very different results.

So, for example, we can talk about cardinality (Cantor's insight), leading to Hilbert's hotel, etc.

OR, we can talk about infinite *limits* (which are again defined only using finite quantities).

But there are also other concept of infinity, including ordinals (related to first, second, third, etc as opposed to one, two, three, etc). Ordinals are very different than cardinals.



My example was a ratio between measured quantities that comes out to be infinite. it is, however, an important quantity in physical chemistry.



I saw no contradiction there. Even when there is a discussion of Hilbert's hotel, there is no contradiction, merely a paradox. The resolution is to realize that finite and infinite quantities have different properties. one of the places where they differ is precisely in the stuff discussed about the hotel.



I watched it (at 1.5 rate). It was interesting, but I have been working with the ideas expressed most of my life, so there was little new there. It was interesting to see Woodin talk about his stuff.

I see you're ahead of time compared to me when it comes to infinities.
What you said is worthy to be studied upon.

 

[Polymath257]

I see you're ahead of time compared to me when it comes to infinities.
What you said is worthy to be studied upon.

One big aspect is that there has been a LOT learned in this regard over the last century and a half. Cantor revolutionized our understanding of the infinite, but his work was done in the late 1800's.

Pretty much anything said about infinity prior to Cantor has been overturned by what we have learned. Before that, there was huge debate about 'potential' versus 'actual' infinities. No mathematician today worries about those distinctions. They have been subsumed into the new understanding.

You might be interested in this thread: Infinity

 

[John53]

Yet the other two options being scratched out, we are only left with that to conclude.

Doesn't make it correct or rational.

 

[ppp]

Nice example, but we know too little about black holes to take this for granted.
Black Hole Cores May Not Be Infinitely Dense | Inside Science

That's an interesting article and all, but it does not help your case. Should it turn out that there are no actual singularities, then that would hold for both black holes and the initial state of the universe. If anything, that article, should it turn out to be on the right path, would damage your case even more.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A timeless eternal creator willing it to existence is logical and more rational to conclude.

Creation is 'physical energy'. By its own property, it appears and disappears (We do not know the process). To will is 'anthropomorphic', and imagined by humans.

The Cosmological Argument is based on a very simple notion -- that anything that "exists" must have a cause for its existence.

I agree with that, but we do not know causes for all things. It is a matter of research. Search goes on.

 

[firedragon]

What makes you feel the atheistic point of view is that at some point there was no thing?

I didnt say that it was the atheistic point of view. I said "from an atheistic point of view".

This position, from an atheistic point of view, does not mean "its THE atheistic point of view".

 

[firedragon]

Kalam:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

Conclude that the universe had a cause.

The problem is that 1 is NOT what is in evidence. Instead, the best evidence is

1'. Everything in the universe that has a cause has a cause within the universe.

From this, it follows that the universe does not have a cause.

I would also dispute 2: the phrase 'begins to exist' implies a process over time and that it NOT what happened with the existence of the universe. That is because time itself is part of the universe. Also, causality happens within time, so it makes no sense to talk about a cause outside of the universe.

This is not relevant to the OP.

 

[John53]

I didnt say that it was the atheistic point of view. I said "from an atheistic point of view".

This position, from an atheistic point of view, does not mean "its THE atheistic point of view".

I don't know what the difference is but ok.... what makes you think from an atheistic point of view there was no thing?

 

[Mahdi]

The principle of 'causality' is re-worded below as the concept of 'arise' (synonym for being caused) with the following formulation being the way I conceptualise it.

1. Everything that exists is some thing.
2. Some thing can not arise from no thing.
3. It must therefore arise from some other thing (before) which exists.

Therefore that thing, which no other thing caused, and existed before all other things, is the first thing.

That first thing is The God.

Kalam:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

Conclude that the universe had a cause.

The problem is that 1 is NOT what is in evidence. Instead, the best evidence is

1'. Everything in the universe that has a cause has a cause within the universe.

From this, it follows that the universe does not have a cause.

I would also dispute 2: the phrase 'begins to exist' implies a process over time and that it NOT what happened with the existence of the universe. That is because time itself is part of the universe. Also, causality happens within time, so it makes no sense to talk about a cause outside of the universe.