The cosmological argument revisted.

[night912]

Can you quote a single example where I did such a thing?

Please provide 3 quotes

1 Me making the claim

2 you (or someone else refuting my claim)

3 me denying that such a refutation ever took place.

Can you do that?..............obviously not, because you are just making stuff up, its very easy to be you, all you have to do is claim that “the argument has already been refuted”, and then find ridiculous excuses for not quoting such a refutation.

You just did it again in this post.

Hook, line and sinker.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do know this thread is in a debate DIR, right?

And you are debating with a grand master:

 

[night912]

Ohhh, ok I thought this was a forum where people are suppose to share their views with other people, but given your correction know I know that this is a “Chess Game” and that I am suppose to win through some wise “debate tactic”

This is a forum where people share their views. And you presented your view thinking that it was logical, but I proved otherwise. After realizing that, you dishonestly changed what you said claiming to have said it in the first. Even with that, I was still able to show that your view is illogical.

So checkmate. And you denying and making excuses doesn't change the fact that your irrational view got checkmate.

but given your correction know I know that this is a “Chess Game” and that I am suppose to win through some wise “debate tactic”

No, you're supposed to win through the use of logical reasoning, but instead you decided to use your usual dishonest tactic, resulting in you suffering an even more embarrassing loss.

BTW,
Your ad hominem failed miserably here as well.

 

[leroy]

In modern physics, "time" is considered an intrinsic part of the dimensions of the universe.
It's called space-time for a reason you know.

This logically means that if you remove the universe form existence, you effectively remove both space and time.

Secondly, causality is an aspect of the physics of the universe. And not even universal at that. It really only applies on the classical macroscopic level. Once you are talking about quantum levels, not so much.

Anyhow, once again: remove the universe = remove the physics of the universe.

When talking about the origins of the universe, we are discussing a context where the universe does not exist. Logically, you can't invoke inherent parts of the universe in that context, since they don't exist either - the universe needs to exist for those inherent parts to exist.

Temporal context: a context where time exists; where time flows.
Causality requires the flow of time, as causes happen before effects.



In every sense of the word, in context of modern physics, you can't logically invoke "causality" to address the origins of the universe, as "causality" as we know it requires the universe to exist.

I have problems with 2 claims (please support them)

Secondly, causality is an aspect of the physics of the universe.

Causality requires the flow of time, as causes happen before effects.

The claim that causality requires the flow of time is highly questionable, I would argue that you can have simultaneous cause and effect, (the cause and the effect occurred at the same moment) no flow of time is necessary.

Any disagreement?

 

[leroy]

Apart from the fact that the very idea of "unembodied mind" makes zero sense?

That is just semantics, you can call it an unembodied mind, God, or however you want.

If you grant that the universe / cosmos (including time) had a cause……..it logically and inescapably follows that this cause has to be timeless, inmaterial, space less, personal etc………………………you can label this as an unembodied mind or however you want.

"always" is a period of time.

With “always” I mean permanent………….if the cause is permanent, why not the effect?

So I don't understand your objection here. The 14b is only applicable within the confines of the space-time continuum.

Yes, this is deep philophosical and its hard to explain and hard to understand, but this is the very reason I provided a detailed explaining the argument………………why didn’t you read it?

Who says it wasn't? You're the only one here who claims to have "the answers", you know?

In the context of this conversation we are assuming (granting) that the universe had a beginning and a cause……………if you don’t grant this assumptions (at least for the sake of this conversation) then please do not participate in the dialogue that I am having with Hayo.

That doesn't follow at all and sounds more like a gigantic argument from ignorance then anything else.
Not to mention mega confirmation bias, begging the question and assuming your conclusion, off course.

Rarely have I seen so many fallacies combined into a single brainfart.

How do you know that? Even from you own admission, you don’t understand the argument, ………..so how do you know that the argument fails? How do you know that the argument is fallacious?

This is a classic example of “confirmation bias”…………….. you are basically saying “I don’t understand the argument, but since the argument has theological implications that I don’t like, then the argument most be wrong”

So in short

1 First understand the argument for why the cause must be timeless, personal inmaterial space less etc. (you can ether use my source or any other that you trust)

2 prove to me that you understand the argument (explain the argument with your own words)

3 the show the fallacies and the mistakes of the argument

If you don’t do that, then please do not comment anymore on this topic.

 

[leroy]

This is a forum where people share their views. And you presented your view thinking that it was logical, but I proved otherwise. After realizing that, you dishonestly changed what you said claiming to have said it in the first. Even with that, I was still able to show that your view is illogical.

So checkmate. And you denying and making excuses doesn't change the fact that your irrational view got checkmate.


No, you're supposed to win through the use of logical reasoning, but instead you decided to use your usual dishonest tactic, resulting in you suffering an even more embarrassing loss.

BTW,
Your ad hominem failed miserably here as well.

Ok then support your accusations

1 quote a comment where I presented my view

2 quote a comment where you showed is illogical

3 quote a comment where I changed my view and denyed my first view

Can you do that? can you support your accusations?........nooooooooooooooooooooo because you are just a clown

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have problems with 2 claims (please support them)

Secondly, causality is an aspect of the physics of the universe.

Causality is an aspect of the physics of space-time by definition.

Causality requires the flow of time, as causes happen before effects.

Again, by definition. A cause produces an effect. This is a sequence of events. Time has to flow for there to be a sequence of events with one happening after the other.

The claim that causality requires the flow of time is highly questionable,

No, it is by definition.
Prior to an effect, the cause occurs.
The effect follows the cause.
The effect happens after the cause.
The cause happens before the effect.
First the cause happens, and then the effect occurs.

That is what causality is.

I would argue that you can have simultaneous cause and effect, (the cause and the effect occurred at the same moment) no flow of time is necessary.

That makes no sense.
That would be simply two "uncaused" events, or events of unknown cause, happening simultaneously.

Any disagreement?

Yes, much.

Do me a favor and define "causality" for me.

 

[leroy]

Secondly, causality is an aspect of the physics of the universe.

Causality is an aspect of the physics of space-time by definition.

Causality requires the flow of time, as causes happen before effects.

Again, by definition. A cause produces an effect. This is a sequence of events. Time has to flow for there to be a sequence of events with one happening after the other.



No, it is by definition.
Prior to an effect, the cause occurs.
The effect follows the cause.
The effect happens after the cause.
The cause happens before the effect.
First the cause happens, and then the effect occurs.

That is what causality is.



That makes no sense.
That would be simply two "uncaused" events, or events of unknown cause, happening simultaneously.



Yes, much.

Do me a favor and define "causality" for me.

Do me a favor and define "causality" for me.

With Cause I mean what Aristotle defined as “efficient cause”

“X” is the cause of “Y” when the existence of Y Is (or was) dependent upon “Y” …. Such that without X you can’t have Y ………this is what I mean by Cause.

Given this definition, would you agree that you don’t need “flow of time” as part of the definition of causality?

To say that God is the cause of the universe simply means that without God the universe would have not exsted.

It seems to me that all your objection has to do with semantics.

Form wikipedia

(the efficient or moving cause of a change or movement): consists of things apart from the thing being changed or moved, which interact so as to be an agency of the change or movement. For example, the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter, or a person working as one, and according to Aristotle the efficient cause of a boy is a father.

 

[Subduction Zone]

With Cause I mean what Aristotle defined as “efficient cause”

“X” is the cause of “Y” when the existence of Y Is (or was) dependent upon “Y” …. Such that without X you can’t have Y ………this is what I mean by Cause.

Given this definition, would you agree that you don’t need “flow of time” as part of the definition of causality?

To say that God is the cause of the universe simply means that without God the universe would have not exsted.

It seems to me that all your objection has to do with semantics.

And all you have is a special pleading argument.

 

[leroy]

You are, once again, engaging in the fallacy of stopping to think at a convenient point.
That is the rhetorical trick of the false dilemma (or this case trilemma). Let's rearrange the order of inspection:
"And once you accept a timeless cause you have to choose between a personal cause, a random cause or a deterministic cause .....since the first 2 are incoherent due to the paradox mentioned above, you are left with a deterministic cause."
You dismiss A and B and conclude it must be C. You refuse to examine C because it must be true.
That's not how logic works.

I didn’t refused to examine option C, but rather i provided a detailed and extensive explanation (via my source) and I also did my best to explain it with my own words.

So lets examine option C:
Change is always temporal. There is a "before" and an "after" state.
Do we agree?

agree

Something that is able to make a decision, changes its state from "undecided" to "decided". Therefore something that can make decisions can't be timeless.
Do we agree?

Agree

However I am not saying that God “changed his mind” and decided to create a universe 14B years ago, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.
(sorce The Scientific Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith)

]Therefore the "personal" option of the trilemma is impossible and we are left with zero options.

.

The reason why options 1 and 2 fail is because you can’t have an eternal cause with a finite effect…………if the cause is eternal then the effect should also be coeternal.

The free will alternative solves this paradox because it’s the only way where the cause can be eternal and the effect not-eternal.



-----------------


reed more (The Scientific Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith)
Third, this same conclusion is also implied by the fact that only personal, free agency can account for the origin of a first temporal effect from a changeless cause. We have concluded that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a First Cause. By the nature of the case that cause cannot have any beginning of its existence nor any prior cause. Nor can there have been any changes in this cause, either in its nature or operations, prior to the beginning of the universe. It just exists changelessly without beginning, and a finite time ago it brought the universe into existence. Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect which it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why is not the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?

One might say that the cause came to exist or changed in some way just prior to the first event. But then the cause’s beginning or changing would be the first event, and we must ask all over again for its cause. And this cannot go on forever, for we know that a beginningless series of events cannot exist. There must be an absolutely first event, before which there was no change, no previous event. We know that this first event must have been caused. The question is: How can a first event come to exist if the cause of that event exists changelessly and eternally? Why isn’t the effect co-eternal with its cause?

The best way out of this dilemma is agent causation, whereby the agent freely brings about some event in the absence of prior determining conditions. Because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By “choose” one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.

The free will alternative solves this paradox because it’s the only way where the cause can be eternal and the effect not-eternal.

 

[leroy]

You just did it again in this post.

Hook, line and sinker.

OHHHHH you cant support your accusations, good job in promoting the stereotype of internet atheism

 

[Willamena]

The traditional reply by atheist philosophers, is that you are applying the parts to the whole (all parts need a cause, so the whole thing needs a cause), in case of infinite regression. However, another way to think of it, is not in this way (parts to the whole) but through induction. If you see through induction, that infinite regression would still need a cause, then it's not applying parts to the whole.

As for the inductions, it's to see the pattern, will remain in a infinite from the finite case. And this is true. No matter how long the line (even of infinite size), they are all effects, and hence need a cause. It's through induction, and not saying, because the whole thing is effects, it requires a cause.

It's subtle, but if you see infinite regression requiring a first cause through induction, it's a solid and there is no refutation. If you see it through parts to the whole, it's a unproven reason, and unproven proof.

Through induction you deny a first cause, so I'm not seeing the argument.

 

[Willamena]

Let's talk about this. Assume there are billion commanders, and each commander can't command unless the one before him commands it. In this case, they can't command anything, because the first one will have no one before it. Now going back in the infinite chain of commanders, it remains the same, no matter how far back you go, they can't get started because there needs to be one who just starts it without a commander telling him to.

It's inductive reasoning and again, doesn't suffer the problems atheist philosophers bring up, from applying parts to the whole. It's a misapplication of a fallacy when people conclude it mostly on inductive reasoning.

I've highlighted in red the error in the argument.

 

[Heyo]

However I am not saying that God “changed his mind” and decided to create a universe 14B years ago, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.

I thought we agreed that "timeless" and "eternal" are different concepts? In fact they are polar opposites. One is "no time", the other is "infinite time".

You keep confusing those two.

Platonic ideals are timeless. A "1" has no temporal dimension, neither has the ideal of a triangle. They "just are". But where has a 1 or a triangle a free will? They don't. The idea of free will is incompatible with timelessness. Free will is the possibility to be something else. But things that "just are" don't have that option - by definition.
Thus "free will" can't help you with a timeless ideal. You have to switch back to eternal, confusing the two.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is just semantics,

lol!

No, it's not semantics. It's making nonsensical claims.
An "unembodied mind" is something you just invented. It is something you have zero evidence for.
Yet, you assume its existence and even appeal to it as having a role in a certain phenomenon.

All without evidence, in a conclusion that doesn't even follow.

This is not mere "semantics". This is rather deeply fallacious nonsense.

you can call it an unembodied mind, God, or however you want.

Or Gooblydockgoo.

If you grant that the universe / cosmos (including time) had a cause…

I don't grant that at all because in context of modern physics, causality does not apply in a setting where no space-time exists.

…..it logically and inescapably follows that this cause has to be timeless, inmaterial, space less, personal etc

Even if I would grant the absurd "causality" claim, then by no means does it follow "logically and inescapably" that this cause is "personal". Not even remotely.

It makes zero sense.

………………………you can label this as an unembodied mind or however you want.

Or, alternatively, you could stop simply making sh!t up.

With “always” I mean permanent………….if the cause is permanent, why not the effect?

Why would a "permanent effect" require a cause?
Why even call it an "effect"?

How have you determined that the universe is even an "effect"?

Yes, this is deep philophosical and its hard to explain and hard to understand, but this is the very reason I provided a detailed explaining the argument………………why didn’t you read it?

I did read it. It's fallacious mumbo jumbo that only serves to cater to your assumed conclusion

In the context of this conversation we are assuming (granting) that the universe had a beginning and a cause……………

No, YOU are assuming that the universe had a cause. Which is kind of funny that you say this, as this completely undermines the cosmological argument. .

if you don’t grant this assumptions (at least for the sake of this conversation) then please do not participate in the dialogue that I am having with Hayo.

You basically just said that the cosmological argument is just an assumption.
With that, the dialogue is actually kind of over.

How do you know that?

Logic

Even from you own admission, you don’t understand the argument,

I never admitted to any such thing.

………..so how do you know that the argument fails? How do you know that the argument is fallacious?

Logic...
Assumed conclusion, question begging, argument from ignorance...
Earlier in this post, you yourself admitted that the very core of the argument (the universe has a cause) is just an assumption.

This is a classic example of “confirmation bias”…………….. you are basically saying “I don’t understand the argument, but since the argument has theological implications that I don’t like, then the argument most be wrong”

I said no such thing.

So in short

1 First understand the argument for why the cause must be timeless, personal inmaterial space less etc. (you can ether use my source or any other that you trust)

2 prove to me that you understand the argument (explain the argument with your own words)

3 the show the fallacies and the mistakes of the argument

If you don’t do that, then please do not comment anymore on this topic.

I already did all that, but all you can do with my posts, apparently, is pretty much ignore the points made and then reply arguing strawmen.

So yeah....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

With Cause I mean what Aristotle defined as “efficient cause”

“X” is the cause of “Y” when the existence of Y Is (or was) dependent upon “Y” …. Such that without X you can’t have Y ………this is what I mean by Cause.

This doesn't change anything about the point I made:
Causality requires temporal conditions to occur, as causes happen before effects.

Given this definition, would you agree that you don’t need “flow of time” as part of the definition of causality?

No.

To say that God is the cause of the universe simply means that without God the universe would have not exsted.

Which is a religious statement for which zero evidence exists.
And fallacious arguments using special pleading, assumed conclusions, arguments from ignorance and question begging is not going to help with that.

It seems to me that all your objection has to do with semantics.

No.

It has to do with not ignoring reality and favoring arguments that don't read like textbook examples of logical fallacies.

 

[leroy]

I thought we agreed that "timeless" and "eternal" are different concepts? In fact they are polar opposites. One is "no time", the other is "infinite time".[
]

Ok ok
I just change the word eternal for permanent

The question is, how can the cause be permanent and the effect be temporal?

The idea of free will is incompatible with timelessness. Free will is the possibility to be something else

God excisted timelessly (permanently) with the intention of creating the universe 14b years ago...what is contradictory about that.?

 

[leroy]

lol!

No, it's not semantics. It's making nonsensical claims.
An "unembodied mind" is something you just invented. It is something you have zero evidence for.
Yet, you assume its existence and even appeal to it as having a role in a certain phenomenon.

All without evidence, in a conclusion that doesn't even follow.

This is not mere "semantics". This is rather deeply fallacious nonsense.




Or Gooblydockgoo.



I don't grant that at all because in context of modern physics, causality does not apply in a setting where no space-time exists.



Even if I would grant the absurd "causality" claim, then by no means does it follow "logically and inescapably" that this cause is "personal". Not even remotely.

It makes zero sense.



Or, alternatively, you could stop simply making sh!t up.



Why would a "permanent effect" require a cause?
Why even call it an "effect"?

How have you determined that the universe is even an "effect"?




I did read it. It's fallacious mumbo jumbo that only serves to cater to your assumed conclusion



No, YOU are assuming that the universe had a cause. Which is kind of funny that you say this, as this completely undermines the cosmological argument. .




You basically just said that the cosmological argument is just an assumption.
With that, the dialogue is actually kind of over.






Logic



I never admitted to any such thing.




Logic...
Assumed conclusion, question begging, argument from ignorance...
Earlier in this post, you yourself admitted that the very core of the argument (the universe has a cause) is just an assumption.



I said no such thing.



I already did all that, but all you can do with my posts, apparently, is pretty much ignore the points made and then reply arguing strawmen.

So yeah....

Again you admitted that you don't understand the objection

"So I don't understand your objection here. The 14b is only applicable within the confines of the space-time continuum."

So given that you don't understand you are in no position to tell if the argument is fallacious.

So
1 First understand the argument for why the cause must be timeless, personal inmaterial space less etc. (you can ether use my source or any other that you trust)

2 prove to me that you understand the argument (explain the argument with your own words)

3 the show the fallacies and the mistakes of the argument

If you don’t do that, then please do not comment anymore on this topic.


Point 2 is specially important, if you don't explain the argument with your own words I will assume that you don't understand it .

 

[leroy]

:
Causality requires temporal conditions to occur, as causes happen before effects.

Well not granted,

Atleast hypothetically you can have simultaneous cause and effect.

The claim "causes always happen before the effects " is controversial to say the list,

You need more than just an assertion to support that claim.

This article explores both possibilities Causation as Simultaneous and Continuous on JSTOR

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In modern physics, "time" is considered an intrinsic part of the dimensions of the universe.
It's called space-time for a reason you know.

This is simply not true. It is quite radically incorrect for a number of important reasons, some of which are actually relevant to this discussion.

First, if one had to characterize “time” in modern physics in such a manner as you did, one would say that it is a parameter, not a coordinate or dimension. Not only are vast amounts of research and study in physics devoted to non-relativistic physics (e.g., quantum mechanics and non-relativistic quantum field theory, thermodynamics, statistical physics, etc.), but even in relativistic (“spacetime”) physics, time is still introduced as a parameter.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, Classical Newtonian physics, the spacetime of special relativity, and the spacetime of general relativity all share the same spacetime manifold. Where they differ is the additional structure this manifold is equipped with, i.e., the geometry of these spaces. Classical Newtonian mechanics, for example, is built out of a Galilean spacetime, both of which (the Galilean and Newtonian spacetimes) constitute an ℝ4 manifold identical to the manifold at this level of relativistic spacetime. But in Classical Newtonian mechanics, the spacetime is decomposed into the product spaces 3 x 1. Indeed, if you take sections in Galilean spacetime that are simultaneous to be fibers with time as the base manifold of the total space of the vector bundle of the topological product space, then you can construct Newtonian spacetime from the total space of the vector bundle of Galilean spacetime by introducing “curvature” into these sections using Newtonian equations of motions written with the Christoffel (affine) connection.

Put more simply, both Galilean spacetime and Newtonian spacetime are 4D and have more in common with the spacetime of special relativity (which is also a 4D manifold, but now can be constructed without the product topology using the metric tensor with the appropriate signature/sign convention). In general relativity, the gravitational interaction neither determines nor is limited to four dimensions. In general relativity, the metric (which, put simply and only somewhat naively, determines the geometry of a space) is dynamic. This is another way of saying that the distances between points varies in time.

Which brings me to point 3, which is that time plays a double role in the spacetime of general relativity (without getting into proper time- see below). Firstly, there is the geometrical structure of spacetime given by the metric, but secondly and for this thread more importantly there is the manner in which the global spacetime structure “evolves” in time. This doesn’t happen in the spacetimes of Galilean relativity, Newtonian mechanics, or the spacetime of special relativity, all of which have “static” spacetimes.

But even here, this “static” background spacetime isn’t enough to adequately express how, in modern relativistic physics, we actually use time as a parameter. Almost as soon as Einstein’s teacher reformulated his work from 1905 on special relativity into a geometric one a few years later, physicists developed another form of time as a parameter generally called “proper time.”

This is because it is not that spacetime means (even as a mathematical model) that in modern physics we must treat space and time as one structure or “space.” As noted above, we can and could have done this with Newtonian mechanics. Indeed, what the layperson has in mind when thinking of “spacetime” is, thanks to popular physics presentations, somewhat closer to the spacetime of Newtonian mechanics or Galilean relativity.

In relativistic physics, we include a time dimension in the space (even when working with 2D spacetimes or 5D or whatever) because of the ways in which we require our equations of motion to be invariant under appropriate sets of transformations. Symmetries and invariants under transformations allow us to determine things like the group structures of the theory and therefore conservation laws (among many other important things).

And this leads to the final and perhaps most important issue with the claim: just because we formulate certain theories using particular geometries with particular dimensions and so forth does not mean that we are making ontological claims. The metaphysics of spacetime is certainly interesting but it isn’t settled by the manner in which we (physicists) or other scientists use particular spaces, be they vector spaces or function spaces or complexified spaces or whatever.

In every sense of the word, in context of modern physics, you can't logically invoke "causality" to address the origins of the universe, as "causality" as we know it requires the universe to exist.

In the context of modern physics, we frequently invoke causality with radically different (often practically contradictory) meanings, including applied to universes which may exist at some future point or could have existed or which had yet to exist. Even in basic QM, the relative state interpretation still satisfies the causality constraints imposed by quantum theory yet also requires explanations for the causes of universes that do not yet exist. In standard cosmology, it is quite common to speak of causes independently of whether or not the universe (variously defined) existed. The basis for the flow of time is by some thought to be in some manner a cause of the initial conditions of our universe (or causally disconnected "pocket" thereof, or particular instance of a larger parameter space of possible universes), thereby essentially attributing the nature of time itself (which, intuitively, is something that causality requires) to initial conditions that had no such directionality. Much of this (IMO) is nonsense, but the point is that appeals to modern physics fail here, as you are getting into metaphysics at best and mostly ignoring actual physics literature and theory while doing so.