The first cause argument

[KWED]

Strawman (in red letters above) no body is claiming that "everything needs a cause" just everything that begins to excist requires a cause

Same problem.
If you are claiming that everything begins to exist, except the one thing you need to not begin to exist, we can apply that same special pleading to the next thing up the chain, thus doing away with the claimed "first cause" and introducing a different one, leading to the same problem again.

 

[KWED]

But it is not demonstrated physically.

Good luck with "physically demonstrating" any philosophical argument for god.
You can't even demonstrate your initial premise!

 

[leroy]

Same problem.
If you are claiming that everything begins to exist, except the one thing you need to not begin to exist, we can apply that same special pleading to the next thing up the chain, thus doing away with the claimed "first cause" and introducing a different one, leading to the same problem again.

This is not special pleadding , we have good testable evidence that the universe began yo exist.


You can ether
1 refute the arguments typically given to support premise 2

2 provide your own testable and conclusive arguments in favor of a beginningless universe

3 show that the cause of the universe also began to exist (which would show that it requires a cause)

4 do what most new atheists do, play semantics, avoid the burden proof at all cost, and reoeat like a parrot 'there is no evidence "

 

[KWED]

Its a logical impossibility.

Tell me. If you divide infinity, with 14 billion, whats the answer?

Either you accept that infinite existence is possible, or you don't.
Which is it?

 

[KWED]

This is not special pleadding , we have good testable evidence that the universe began yo exist.

That is not the special pleading element. It is the bit where you claim that everything begins to exist - except the one thing you require not to begin to exist.

You can ether
1 refute the arguments typically given to support premise 2

*sigh*, that is not the premise in question. It is P1 - "Every thing that has a beginning has a cause for its beginning."

Neither the red not blue parts of the premise have been demonstrated. They are mere assumptions.

2 provide your own testable and conclusive arguments in favor of a beginningless universe

What are your "testable and conclusive arguments" that everything has a beginning, or that everything has a cause?

3 show that the cause of the universe also began to exist (which would show that it requires a cause)

You haven't demonstrated a cause.

4 do what most new atheists do, play semantics, avoid the burden proof at all cost, and reoeat like a parrot 'there is no evidence "

You seem to misunderstand the issue here.
You are proposing an argument. I am pointing out flaws in that argument. It is not my responsibility to provide a better argument. It is your responsibility to support your own.

Note: If you are making a claim then the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If you fail to provide any evidence to support it, then that is a legitimate reason for dismissing the claim. Ask any judge or lawyer if you are unsure how the concept works.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Either you accept that infinite existence is possible, or you don't.
Which is it?

An infinite universe is possible, but not likely.
The evidence shows us that the universe started off with a singularity which expanded.

Infinite existence is a concept which does not have to include space. Is time an emergent property of the universe?
That cannot be ascertained one way or another.
It cannot be categorically proved that 'time' is meaningless if the physical universe does not exist.
All we can say is that our scientific observations of the universe involve a relationship between time and space.

 

[ratiocinator]

This is not special pleadding , we have good testable evidence that the universe began yo exist.

Actually we don't.

What we have evidence for is that about 13.5 billion years ago it was in a hot dense state and that if we extrapolate backwards using general relativity only, we get a singularity, which is generally accepted to mean that our theory has broken down. We know that quantum effects will be important and we don't have a theory that deals both GR and quantum field theory, so what we know is that we don't know what happened, we only have hypotheses (many of which would allow time to be extended backwards, possibly infinity so).

Even if we just stick with GR and accept the singularity, then the whole space-time manifold is itself timeless, so didn't begin to exist anyway, it would just be finite in the past direction.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

An infinite universe is possible, but not likely.
The evidence shows us that the universe started off with a singularity which expanded.

Infinite existence is a concept which does not have to include space. Is time an emergent property of the universe?
That cannot be ascertained one way or another.
It cannot be categorically proved that 'time' is meaningless if the physical universe does not exist.
All we can say is that our scientific observations of the universe involve a relationship between time and space.

I haven't come across that evidence so far. Please provide some sort of link, which some sort of credibility. Not just some random human with an opinion.

 

[ratiocinator]

The evidence shows us that the universe started off with a singularity which expanded.

No, it doesn't, see my previous post.

 

[KWED]

your original objection of "what caused a suprime being" is dumb , after you admit it we can move on to a different topic .

People may find it easier to accept it is a "dumb objection" if you actually explain why it is a dumb objection rather than just asserting it and expecting people to accept it.
You know, burden of proof, evidence, etc?

 

[KWED]

In order to have an eternal multiverse you most:

0 show that multiverses exist

1 avoid the BGV theorem

2 avoid the second law of thermodynamics

3 avoid the bolzman brain paradox.

..

And then deal with the philosophical arguments
That point to a finite universe.

It seems easier to simply accept that the universe is not eternal.

You seem to misunderstand the concept of hypothesis. And irony.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I haven't come across that evidence so far. Please provide some sort of link, which some sort of credibility. Not just some random human with an opinion.

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.
...
Extrapolating this cosmic expansion backwards in time using the known laws of physics, the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning (typically named "the Big Bang singularity").
-wiki-

It's called a theory .. and its widely accepted by scientists as being the best model, although not conclusively correct.

 

[ratiocinator]

It cannot be categorically proved that 'time' is meaningless if the physical universe does not exist.

Science doesn't do 'categorical proof', but there is plentiful evidence that space-time is an aspect of the universe and there is no such thing a time by itself. Trying to imply that some sort of time exists apart from the universe is an evidence-free assumption (blind guess).

 

[ratiocinator]

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.
...
Extrapolating this cosmic expansion backwards in time using the known laws of physics, the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning (typically named "the Big Bang singularity").
-wiki-

It's called a theory .. and its widely accepted by scientists as being the best model, although not conclusively correct.

From later in the same article (which you really should have linked to):

"Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This irregular behavior, known as the gravitational singularity, indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. Models based on general relativity alone can not extrapolate toward the singularity—before the end of the so-called Planck epoch." [emphasis added].​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.
...
Extrapolating this cosmic expansion backwards in time using the known laws of physics, the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning (typically named "the Big Bang singularity").
-wiki-

It's called a theory .. and its widely accepted by scientists as being the best model, although not conclusively correct.

Yeah, wiki is fun, just read all of the page. What now?
Initial singularity - Wikipedia

2 different articles claim differently. So what now?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

From later in the same article (which you really should have linked to):

"Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This irregular behavior, known as the gravitational singularity, indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. Models based on general relativity alone can not extrapolate toward the singularity—before the end of the so-called Planck epoch." [emphasis added].​

You found a better one, then I did. Thumps up.

 

[KWED]

Why do you bring up and hash over so many irrelevancies?

Infinity divided by 14 billion, zero divided by zero, focusing on 'fish' in a turn of phrase rather than dealing with the argument?

Because deflection, diversion, red herrings, non sequiturs, straw men, etc, are all he's got. He really seems to think that the "bucket'o'fallacies" approach achieves something other than highlighting his own inability to understand or address the issues.

The problem often arises when a religious apologist reads an article or sees a video where someone appears to make a convincing philosophical or "scientific" argument for god. They then repeat it on forums such as this without examining it in detail, not realising that the article was aimed at convincing existing believers rather than people with an actual knowledge of the points raised. Their own lack of understanding is soon exposed but they are loath to accept it because they had personally pinned so much on it. The more their mistake is demonstrated, the more hubristic and patronising their responses often become.

 

[KWED]

Thats an intentional mischaracterisation. You yourself googled, cut and pasted from somewhere a statement "appears absurd, but is demonstrated to be true nonetheless" but later changed it to "true, nonetheless".

You dropped the "demonstrated to be" part intentionally. See, it cant be a mistake. Because a cut and paste should not "DROP" words in sentences. Magic.

Quick googling, cut and paste, drop a word, cut and paste again.

This is no valid argument. Paradoxes are good for thinking, but by definition end in "self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion". Its in the same page you cut and pasted from. I also googled your cut and paste.

And, I have said 10 times or more. This is a strawman. Repeat it. No worries.

We know things to be "true" because they have been demonstrated to be true.
Demonstrate - Clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence. (OED)

This really isn't going very well for you, it is?

 

[firedragon]

You still don't seem to get what a deductive argument is.

OH I do.

But still, you have to validate "All toasters are items made of gold. was your first premise".

Let me show you a deductive argument.

P1. All toasters are not made of gold.
P2. Anyone who says "all toasters are gold" is just making it up.
Q. THe person is not to be trusted because he/she is making it up.

 

[firedragon]

You don't understand the difference between valid and sound.

Really? I didnt know that you had some divine powers to read my brain mate. Maybe you are indeed God.

Show me where I said this is a sound argument.

If you want to teach logic, I have told you many times, open a new thread "teaching logic" or name it what ever you wish to name it.

Do you think this is sound deductive logic? Why not address this? Teach them some logic because from the beginning of this thread that is what you wanted to do?

Here you go.

"All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices."

Please go to that person and teach.

Cheers.