The cosmological argument revisted.

[LegionOnomaMoi]

irrelevant,

it is still a fact that no scientists claims that virtual particles come from literally nothing

"any such emission [i.e., (virtual) particles from the quantum vacuum] is an irreducible, genuine instance of creation coming from nothing (ex nihilo); more precisely, in theological terms, the spontaneous emission of light and other particles amounts to an instance of creatio continua." (italics in original, emphasis added; p. 127)
Svozil, K. (2018). Physical (A)Causality: Determinism, Randomness and Uncaused Events (Fundamental Theories of Physics Vol. 192). Springer.

 

[Kooky]

Using that quote, we removed the impossible

1 the universe came from nothing

2 the universe is infitie in to the past

So we are only left with

3 the universe had a cause…….

Actually, 3 and 1 are equivalent, 3 just shifts the issue back one step.

 

[leroy]

So what?

You just gave my favorite sort of argument. After being corrected you brought up a point that is refuted with a "So what?"

And exactly which point did you correct?

As far as I can understand none of us claim that virtual particles pop in to existence from literally nothing.

So do we have any disagreement on this topic?

 

[leroy]

But eventhough you've dishonestly moved the goalpost, I reply with this. The triangles beginning to exist us effect that was caused by the square beginning to be cut in half.

Check mate!

I don’t think we disagree on anything, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[leroy]

I am confused, according to you, what is our point of disagreement?

You just realize that you're confused?

On the bright side of things, you're actually being honest about being confused. Try to do this more often.

What Is the point of quoting my question, if you are not going to answer the question?

 

[leroy]

So you just provided new attributes for your God. So according to your reasoning, this perfect and orderly universe was caused by a chaotic and imperfect cause, your God. You're the first theist that I know of to believe that their theistic God is chaotic and imperfect, but whatever floats your boat, I guess.


Some how, this reminds me so much of the argument that nonbelievers of evolution used.

I don't know how it is for you, but for me, the effect of me being a human was caused by my parents being humans.

Where did you get all that? When did I ever said something that implies that I belive that God is Chaotic?

All I am saying is that the cause of “time” by definition has to be something timeless.

Agree? / yes? no? why don’t you answer questions directly so that we can move on?

 

[leroy]

Can you explain what you mean with timeless?

.

That exists independently of time.

A timeless being would be a being that could exist in a “world” without time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And exactly which point did you correct?

As far as I can understand none of us claim that virtual particles pop in to existence from literally nothing.

So do we have any disagreement on this topic?

Sorry, you were given corrections. There are only so many times that people will do that for you. Your strategy of denial and detours no longer works.

 

[Heyo]

That exists independently of time.

A timeless being would be a being that could exist in a “world” without time.

So would that be a Platonic, ideal entity like numbers, and laws of logic?

 

[leroy]

Sorry, you were given corrections. There are only so many times that people will do that for you. Your strategy of denial and detours no longer works.

Aja keep up with your dishonest strategy

 

[leroy]

So would that be a Platonic, ideal entity like numbers, and laws of logic?

Platonic entities, and laws (if they exist) would be examples of timeless objects…………an unembodied mind (god) would also be an example of a timeless being. ……. Even wild hypothetical stuff like “timeless strings” (as in string theory) would also be timeless objects.

 

[Heyo]

Platonic entities, and laws (if they exist) would be examples of timeless objects…………an unembodied mind (god) would also be an example of a timeless being. ……. Even wild hypothetical stuff like “timeless strings” (as in string theory) would also be timeless objects.

I'd say that concepts, like the Platonic ideals, can be timeless, but "stuff" like strings can't when we keep to the idea that the cosmos had a beginning. And a mind can't be timeless either because you can't have timeless thoughts.

 

[McBell]

Aja keep up with your dishonest strategy

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

There's a myriad of problems with the cosmological argument that I always point out by default.
"infinite regression" isn't one of them.

So if all you change about it is some arbitrary use of words so as to "solve" that one, then you're still left with all the other problems, like assumed conclusion, argument from ignorance, unsupported premises, etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's take time out of the equation.

Then causality goes out the window along with it, as causality is inherently temporal in nature.
It's actually one of the many problems with this argument... It tries to posit a "cause" to the universe itself, while causality is a phenomenon that occurs IN the universe. And even only really at the classical level of physics, actually... it gets real blurry at the quantum level. To the point that it doesn't even apply.

Putting time and giving infinite chain in the past, doesn't change the inductive reasoning, that sees there needs to be an uncaused cause.

And the assumed conclusion is that that cause is god off course. Just "because"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's a legitimate argument and that's because the cosmological arguments argues for why the cosmos needs a cause and why God doesn't.

The problem is that this "argument" doesn't actually "argue" for that.
Instead, it just asserts it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have to make an exception. There has to be one cause that is not an effect.

Why?

Because your human mind can't conceive of anything else?
Because you require it to be like that for your assumed conclusion to be injected at the end?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it was an effect, it would require a cause. It's uncaused, but things in time like the universe,

The universe is not "in time". Instead, time is in the universe.
This is just one of the many, many problems of your trail of thought here.

all are in movement, and declare they need a cause previous to their state.

There is no "previous" to T = 0.

The same is not true about God.

Only because you arbitrarily declared it to be so.
Not because you've actually studied god and concluded it.
No... this is all just one bare assertion after the other.
Many of these assertions are religious in nature. Others are deeply rooted in scientific ignorance.

All in all, I give this an F--

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Most cosmologists believe that the universe (and time itself) begun to exist at the big bang .

This simply means that there was a time where the universe was 10 seconds old, a time where it was 5 seconds old, a time where it was 1 second old and a point where it was zero seconds old………………..any disagreement from your part?


to put it this was, there was a time where the universe was 10 seconds old ......................do you agree with this statement?

And there was no time when the universe didn't exist.
That's what the post that you are replying to is saying.
You seem to be ignoring that.

Take the very first moment of time. The universe existed at that time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I will just ignore the God rhetoric because it seems like just scripted apologetics.

Anyway I guessed you would respond to my question with something like that dismissing philosophy and philosophical discussion which are actually two things, but that's alright. So you think philosophy is a hypocritical creation of hypocrites (though you associated it with theism I will just dismiss it since it is not worthy of adopting for a discourse). How about philosophy of science? Do you think all kinds of philosophy are all hypocritical creations by hypocrites?

As Lawrence Krauss once put it:

Philosophy is great at asking questions. Science is great at answering them.