• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Cosmological Argument

javajo

Well-Known Member
The beining of this universe could have been caused by the "unusable" energy of the universe before this, at the end of al it´s entrophy.

Have you read Isaac Asimov´s last question by the way?

You´d probably like it I would assume :D
Hi, that's a good point, and no I've not read that. I need to read more, its so hard to get time! I want to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving! :)

Java, even without considering Poincare recurrence it approaches certainty that parts of the universe will have decreased entropy through chance alone. Again, this goes back to thermodynamics being completely probablistic.

Consider what happens when you knock a billiard ball into a pocket in a pool game: the ball loses energy rolling across the table, converts its gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy as it falls, converts *that* energy in the collision with the pocket in the form of sound, heat, and the deformation of the ball's structure -- so on and so forth.

What's to prevent the ball from jumping back onto the table and rolling back to the cue stick?

In truth, nothing is besides statistics. If all the sound energy, heat energy, elastic energy and so forth were applied to the ball in the same places where they left it, it would have exactly the right amount of energy to be propelled up onto the table and roll over to the tip of the cue stick that originally knocked it in.

The interesting thing is that if some physicist were to watch these interactions happening on an atomic level, nothing would look different: there would be no way to tell whether the tape was rolling backwards or forwards (so to say). The arrow of time only gets its meaning from the entropic gradient, and the entropic gradient only gets its meaning from statistics.

Given an infinite amount of time, anything with a non-zero probability of occurring approaches certainty of happening: furthermore, it approaches certainty of happening infinitely often.

What is the probability that some pocket of the megaverse will reduce its entropy enough to look something like a big bang or like the visible universe we're familiar with today? It's so exceedingly, laughably small that it might as well be zero -- but it's not zero. Since we're talking about the possibility of an infinite time span, it then approaches certainty that yes, even given the heat death of the universe, there will eventually be pockets that reverse their entropy through sheer chance alone all the way to Big Bang Event states an infinite number of times.

This is not the same as "cyclical universe" models with a Big Bang and a Big Crunch; though there are some similarities.
Meow, thanks for all that. I get what you are saying, eventually some force will act upon that cue ball, maybe someone will pick it up :). Your ideas make sense, better I think than the cyclical models. I don't know if the constant loss of energy would undercut all that but its interesting to think about. Of course I have my own beliefs about it from my belief in a God, but its still fascinating stuff. I wanted to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving and it was nice 'talking' to you. :)
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Satori in the Zen Tradition was my example.

Arational is distinct from irrational. Irrationality is the misuse of reason. Arationality is outside of reason as in, does not appeal to reason.

I tried "satori" in wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica; from which it looks a lot like introspection to me -- in what way is satori different from instropsection? It seems to be an awareness that something is known, is it not?

As for rationality, "arational" and "irrational" must be the same thing since "irrational" not only means the misuse of reason but also the absence of reason.

I don't see how there could be non-rational knowledge because knowledge incorporates reason by definition: in order to know something, that thing must be justified -- and the use of justification is the use of reason (also by definition). To believe without the use of reason is necessarily to believe without checking for internal and external consistency; it's nothing short of irrational gibberish without the use of reason.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Hi, that's a good point, and no I've not read that. I need to read more, its so hard to get time! I want to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving! :)

Meow, thanks for all that. I get what you are saying, eventually some force will act upon that cue ball, maybe someone will pick it up :). Your ideas make sense, better I think than the cyclical models. I don't know if the constant loss of energy would undercut all that but its interesting to think about. Of course I have my own beliefs about it from my belief in a God, but its still fascinating stuff. I wanted to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving and it was nice 'talking' to you. :)

Hi java,

Re: the constant loss of energy, that was my point: once the system reaches equilibrium, there will be spontaneous (but local) gains in energy capable of providing work.

Imagine a classic hot gas in a box: the amount of work the gas in the box can do diminishes inexorably over time until it reaches equilibrium. You understand entropy up to this point: once it reaches equilibrium, however, there can indeed be local decreases in entropy by sheer chance.

For instance, once the gas in the box reaches equilibrium and is at some low temperature, there will occasionally be a few molecules that by sheer chance lump together such that there are more molecules per unit volume in that part of the box than there are in others; they might bump into one another and cause random motion (and what is random kinetic motion other than heat?), thus causing a corner of the box to raise in temperature and have lower entropy than the rest of the box -- all through sheer chance, without ever violating the laws of thermodynamics.

Also, happy thanksgiving to you too! Hope it's a good one for you and yours! :)
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
What if this universe is not all there is. What if there are things outside this universe that are timeless and can cause this universe to exist? So why do we need God for?

This does not exclude god from existing outside the universe. I think more of god as an unknown than option 1. But what else can we call it besides god right now, if it is inconceivable in its entirety? Personally, I except this argument and am a panendeist, not a simple theist.
 

Commoner

Headache
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
This is a tautology because "beginning" generally implies a cause. All you've stated was that everything that has a cause has a cause, which really doesn't do much. If a beginning doesn't imply a cause, then you've not shown that everything that has a beginning has a cause. What's a "beginning" in the absence of time? What is "exist" in the absence of space?
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
It might or it might not or this might be a nonsensical statement.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
It might or it might not.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Or not. Unless you define it to be - which would also mean that I just saw God if I define God to be a cup of coffee - a useless argument and intentionally misleading.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
Yet even if you could come to this conclusion, what would it mean? "God" is simply a word to which you've assigned the meaning of "cause of universe". It could then be literally anything - like a speck of dust. The argument is not only wrong, it's useless.
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
I tried "satori" in wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica; from which it looks a lot like introspection to me -- in what way is satori different from instropsection? It seems to be an awareness that something is known, is it not?

Zen is not uniform. Even so, any ultimate knowledge state is not theoretical or based on an introspective model. Meditative practice is decidedly non-introspective in that thinking, mulling over a particular etc. are decidedly contra the goal and impediments to reaching it. Rather, the thrust is an absence of self (introspective or otherwise) or identification. Buddhist epistemology is different from the standard Aristotelian model. The Buddhist tetralemma is:

A
-A
-A and A
- (-A or A)

The –(-A or A) is the arena of satori. Another example would be the koan. These are the various statements I would guess you’ve heard on occasion: ‘What is the sound of one hand clapping?’ ‘If one meets the Buddha, kill him’ etc. These types of statements and short tails are another Zen technique designed to move the subject away from the arena of mind or thought.


As for rationality, "arational" and "irrational" must be the same thing since "irrational" not only means the misuse of reason but also the absence of reason.

I don't see how there could be non-rational knowledge because knowledge incorporates reason by definition: in order to know something, that thing must be justified -- and the use of justification is the use of reason (also by definition). To believe without the use of reason is necessarily to believe without checking for internal and external consistency; it's nothing short of irrational gibberish without the use of reason.


The distinction between rational, irrational and arational is the same as with moral, immoral and amoral. It allows one to divide between what is coherent vs. what violates coherence vs. what does not operate according to coherence, just as the moral adheres to the good vs. the immoral that has breached the good vs. the amoral where good and evil do not apply. Now, a rationalist may reject both irrational and arational stances as equally flawed, however noting the distinction is useful for understanding where a particular view/stance comes from.

The divide between the rational and arational is very old. For the Greeks this was the contest between poesis and philosophia. Plato spent some energy in discussing this. Poesis is the Greek for poetry. This contest therefore turns on aesthetic appeals to apprehending the true vs. theoretical models via logic. A more recent example would be the Romantic Movement that began in Germany and spread to England etc. One can think of Lord Byron as an example of the one, and Hegel as a fierce opponent on the other.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Zen is not uniform. Even so, any ultimate knowledge state is not theoretical or based on an introspective model. Meditative practice is decidedly non-introspective in that thinking, mulling over a particular etc. are decidedly contra the goal and impediments to reaching it. Rather, the thrust is an absence of self (introspective or otherwise) or identification. Buddhist epistemology is different from the standard Aristotelian model. The Buddhist tetralemma is:

A
-A
-A and A
- (-A or A)


This is illogical though; and hence irrational to believe. It's not possible to assert (A ^ ¬A) or to assert ¬(A v ¬A). These are contradictory non-statements. In attempting to assert these things one also couldn't possibly arrive to knowledge by definition of what knowledge is -- since they wouldn't be able to justify anything with it (since it itself is unjustified by being irrational/illogical).

Should we start a thread regarding the rationality of trying to deny self-identity's corollaries? It seems to me that you're arguing against them here as if there can exist some sort of "alternative option." I can demonstrate how that can't possibly be true.

Orontes said:
The –(-A or A) is the arena of satori. Another example would be the koan. These are the various statements I would guess you’ve heard on occasion: ‘What is the sound of one hand clapping?’ ‘If one meets the Buddha, kill him’ etc. These types of statements and short tails are another Zen technique designed to move the subject away from the arena of mind or thought.

I can't comment on how useful they are for attaining some different state of mind, but I can certainly comment that they aren't useful for discerning truths -- which is the realm of reason/rationality/logic.

Asking a question like "what's north of the north pole" might indeed be "arational" in that it doesn't reach for an answer about truth (since there is no answer, the question itself is wrong); but it isn't capable of generating knowledge in and of itself. It might be able to generate knowledge secondarily; e.g., "Some questions are meaningless and don't necessarily have answers," but hopefully you understand what I mean.

Orontes said:
The distinction between rational, irrational and arational is the same as with moral, immoral and amoral. It allows one to divide between what is coherent vs. what violates coherence vs. what does not operate according to coherence, just as the moral adheres to the good vs. the immoral that has breached the good vs. the amoral where good and evil do not apply. Now, a rationalist may reject both irrational and arational stances as equally flawed, however noting the distinction is useful for understanding where a particular view/stance comes from.
Orontes said:
The divide between the rational and arational is very old. For the Greeks this was the contest between poesis and philosophia. Plato spent some energy in discussing this. Poesis is the Greek for poetry. This contest therefore turns on aesthetic appeals to apprehending the true vs. theoretical models via logic. A more recent example would be the Romantic Movement that began in Germany and spread to England etc. One can think of Lord Byron as an example of the one, and Hegel as a fierce opponent on the other.

I think I understand the distinction you're making now. However, neither the arational or irrational can lead to knowledge of any sort unless we're talking about rational reflections on what happens when we try.
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
As for rationality, "arational" and "irrational" must be the same thing since "irrational" not only means the misuse of reason but also the absence of reason.

Not so. When someone is accused of being irrational, we generally mean that they are acting contrary to reason, not simply without appeal to reason.

I don't see how there could be non-rational knowledge because knowledge incorporates reason by definition: in order to know something, that thing must be justified -- and the use of justification is the use of reason (also by definition). To believe without the use of reason is necessarily to believe without checking for internal and external consistency; it's nothing short of irrational gibberish without the use of reason.

We had this discussion a long time ago, you and I. :) You cannot rule out knowledge through arational means by defining knowledge in such a way as to deny the possibility outright. That's begging the question.
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
[/font]

This is illogical though; and hence irrational to believe. It's not possible to assert (A ^ ¬A) or to assert ¬(A v ¬A). These are contradictory non-statements. In attempting to assert these things one also couldn't possibly arrive to knowledge by definition of what knowledge is -- since they wouldn't be able to justify anything with it (since it itself is unjustified by being irrational/illogical).

Should we start a thread regarding the rationality of trying to deny self-identity's corollaries? It seems to me that you're arguing against them here as if there can exist some sort of "alternative option." I can demonstrate how that can't possibly be true.

Buddhism is not a product of the West. There was no Parmenides on the Subcontinent. Zen as an arational system is not concerned with coherence let alone contradiction. It puts forward another model, the goal of which has nothing to do with validity. I am not a Buddhist. I am not an advocate. I simply used a sect of Buddhism to demonstrate there is another source of justification* aside from sense perception and reason (I believe your other three enfold within these two) with a long standing tradition behind it: literally milllenia. I could have used Taoism ala Chuang Tzu's thought to the same general effect. One doesn't have to agree with the conclusions, but arational epistemic models do exist and predate the Academy.


*Justification was your term. I use it in it's most basic sense: right. Of course what constitutes right is the rub.



I can't comment on how useful they are for attaining some different state of mind, but I can certainly comment that they aren't useful for discerning truths -- which is the realm of reason/rationality/logic.
Asking a question like "what's north of the north pole" might indeed be "arational" in that it doesn't reach for an answer about truth (since there is no answer, the question itself is wrong); but it isn't capable of generating knowledge in and of itself. It might be able to generate knowledge secondarily; e.g., "Some questions are meaningless and don't necessarily have answers," but hopefully you understand what I mean.



I think I understand the distinction you're making now. However, neither the arational or irrational can lead to knowledge of any sort unless we're talking about rational reflections on what happens when we try.



I clarified arational and irrational as meaningful distinctions.


As to whether arational models can lead to knowledge: there are of course literally hundreds of millions, even billions, who would disagree with your categorical. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism etc. all have epistemic components that arose independent of Western Theoretical norms. One can say the same of the larger mystical tradition as well as aesthetic appeals that I mentioned earlier. It would therefore seem that any taxonomy on epistemic models must taken these others into account.
 
Last edited:

St Giordano Bruno

Well-Known Member
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Are there any errors in this reasoning?

Depends what we call "God" what is wrong with the universe causing itself? I subscribe to a belief the universe we observe came into existence because it was only an insignificant minority of possible configurations that appears finetuned for our existence but there happens to be a plethora of junk universes which lacked this fine tuning and as such no observers to speculate on their universes fine tuning parameters.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
Buddhism is not a product of the West. There was no Parmenides on the Subcontinent. Zen as an arational system is not concerned with coherence let alone contradiction. It puts forward another model, the goal of which has nothing to do with validity.
Then it isn't justification. You're only allowed to justifiably manipulate statements if you preserve their truth value while doing so.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
[/font]

This is illogical though; and hence irrational to believe. It's not possible to assert (A ^ ¬A) or to assert ¬(A v ¬A). These are contradictory non-statements. In attempting to assert these things one also couldn't possibly arrive to knowledge by definition of what knowledge is -- since they wouldn't be able to justify anything with it (since it itself is unjustified by being irrational/illogical).
Oh! There you are, Greyface. :D
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Not so. When someone is accused of being irrational, we generally mean that they are acting contrary to reason, not simply without appeal to reason.

I generally use the term irrational either way, but I've come to accept Orontes' distinction between irrational and arational. Still, neither is capable of generating knowledge.

Dunemeister said:
We had this discussion a long time ago, you and I. :) You cannot rule out knowledge through arational means by defining knowledge in such a way as to deny the possibility outright. That's begging the question.

That's not "begging the question," that's what definitions of words are for: to distinguish what they are from what they are not. When we say "I know X," we are saying that we're in some state by which we believe X is true, we have [epistemic] justification for X, and X really is true (either absolutely or as far as is possible for us to know given what is available to us at the time). (I suppose if someone is a coherentist or something we can branch out the conversation to cover that topic as well, but for now, JTB should be sufficient)

Since irrational thinking and arational thinking are incapable of generating epistemic justification they can't by any contortion of the mind ever lead to knowledge since any beliefs arrived to by their use will fail to be justified.

Perhaps someone might have an arational epiphany and then turn around and check that thought with the use of reason, or something, but then why bother with the middle-man?
 
Last edited:

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Buddhism is not a product of the West. There was no Parmenides on the Subcontinent. Zen as an arational system is not concerned with coherence let alone contradiction. It puts forward another model, the goal of which has nothing to do with validity. I am not a Buddhist. I am not an advocate. I simply used a sect of Buddhism to demonstrate there is another source of justification* aside from sense perception and reason (I believe your other three enfold within these two) with a long standing tradition behind it: literally milllenia. I could have used Taoism ala Chuang Tzu's thought to the same general effect. One doesn't have to agree with the conclusions, but arational epistemic models do exist and predate the Academy.


*Justification was your term. I use it in it's most basic sense: right. Of course what constitutes right is the rub.

Then this is simply a semantic dispute: I'm talking about justification in the epistemic sense -- that which gives us warrant to accept a belief; the evidence, metaphysical or empirical, that causes us to acknowledge, reject, or deny that a proposition is true.

Arational and irrational thought are incapable of providing this because "truth" can't be arrived at by these things: this is because to arrive at a truth one would already have to accept that ¬(A ^ ¬A) to call it a truth at all, in which case they would have to check their proposition for internal and external consistency -- which is the use of reason altogether and not the use of "arational" thought.

Orontes said:
As to whether arational models can lead to knowledge: there are of course literally hundreds of millions, even billions, who would disagree with your categorical. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism etc. all have epistemic components that arose independent of Western Theoretical norms. One can say the same of the larger mystical tradition as well as aesthetic appeals that I mentioned earlier. It would therefore seem that any taxonomy on epistemic models must taken these others into account.

There could be a googol plex people that assert arational thought could lead to knowledge and they would still be incorrect.

If I were to make a taxonomy of epistemic models I may feel obliged to include self-contradictory ones for the sake of completeness, but I wouldn't find it prudent to include such models in lists of epistemes that actually do approach knowledge and truth.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
I generally use the term irrational either way, but I've come to accept Orontes' distinction between irrational and arational. Still, neither is capable of generating knowledge.
A belief doesn't have to be justified to be true.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Oh! There you are, Greyface. :D

Is that a Discordian reference?

A belief doesn't have to be justified to be true.

That's true, but a true belief which isn't justified isn't known, either.

Consider what would happen if I were curious about what the capitol city of Missouri is, so I flip open a book that lists cities in Missouri. To my surprise it doesn't happen to list which one is the capitol, though, so I pick two that look pretty: St. Louis and Jefferson City.

I then decide for whatever reason that I'll flip a coin (heads = St. Louis and tails = Jefferson City) to determine which of these is the capitol. I flip a coin, it lands tails up, so I therefore decide that Jefferson City is the capitol of Missouri.

I hold a true belief, but not a justified belief: obviously, coin-flipping isn't a valid justifier. Therefore, regardless of having the true belief that Jefferson City is the capitol of Missouri, I don't actually know that to be the case. Considering the grievous holes in my ability to justify, I'm simply lucky to have included the correct city in my coin-flip in the first place -- let alone lucky to have had the coin land tails up to give me the correct answer.

I'm sure people might sometimes get lucky with their unjustified beliefs, but to me that's as asinine as grasping at the wind.
 

Dan4reason

Facts not Faith
According to those 2 laws (of thermodynamics) it could not have been around for an infinite amount of time so it had to have a beginning, and therefore, a cause. We are finding amazing design in the universe, which, I believe shows forth a wise creator.

The design in the universe has to do with the teleological argument, not the cosmological argument. Do you want do me to start at discussion of the teleological argument?

The second law of thermodynamics does not say that the universe is finite.


That is what we can conclude. Something outside space and time created the universe.

Do you want me to start a discussion of prophecies in Islam and Christianity too?
 

Dan4reason

Facts not Faith
This does not exclude god from existing outside the universe. I think more of god as an unknown than option 1. But what else can we call it besides god right now, if it is inconceivable in its entirety? Personally, I except this argument and am a panendeist, not a simple theist.

A better word for the unknown is the unknown. I do not see any more reason to call it God than to call it "hamburger."
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
A better word for the unknown is the unknown. I do not see any more reason to call it God than to call it "hamburger."



Calling it the unknown puts no importance on it. A god is still a god, if it has intelligence and power to create this. Whether it is an idea of god we have, or one beyond what we can comprehend, is it not?
 
Top