The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[metis]

Same things struck me too in the past. Also, looking at the vast space of the universe. Our solar system is a tiny one. Our sun an average to small sized star. It's basically 99.99999...% wasted matter, space, time, just to produce this little "special" humans.

But it doesn't stop there. Out of 10 billion people that ever lived on Earth (current + past estimate), only some of them will go to Heaven. Most of them, 99.9999...% will go to Hell.

Hey, since there are so many of us, that's where the BIG PARTY is going to be!

 

[Ouroboros]

Hey, since there are so many of us, that's where the BIG PARTY is going to be!

Yup. And I've been promised there will be beer at the big barbecue in Hell. Alcohol is from Hell, isn't it? And smoking. And all the other fun stuff. So we'll have the best time for the next eternity.

 

[1robin]

2. if the Bible was so vitally for us humans to know and follow, then why is it that humans for 1999/2000th of the time we've existed as humans there was no such "Word of God"?

3. if one believes that one must believe in Jesus in order to be "saved", then why is it that 2999/3000th of the time humans have been here that there was no such message?

Note that I am not saying or imply that there cannot be a god or gods, but that the certain commonly held beliefs simply defy logic to me.

Thoughts?

This is not even close to being true. God has never left mankind without revelation. At least 90% and I think far more have lived since Christ than before even given your assumptions about a 100,000 year history. Christ came the exact moment the population curve went from almost flat to parabolic curve and when an empire exited to allow fast transmission of knowledge. You ever seen a population curve. It was an explosion. Even further Christ was all over the place in OT history. He went by the spirit of the Lord at that time and had a different role. On top of even this that by what has been made the wisdom of it's creator has been clearly see so that no man is without excuse. One apostle said enough evidence exists in a piece of straw for faith. This was worse than an abortive effort. BTW those before Christ were saved by faith in a future messiah the same as we are by a past one.

 

[1robin]

Inadequate metaphor. Imagine there might have been a plane crash with unknown pasengers, may or may not have crashed, and you don't know what country or even what Planet it was on.

Inadequate for the bizarre use you put it to. Perfect for mine. In fact Whittle is the agency cause of a Jet engine and I am not left with only a crash sites worth of evidence. Your response was inadequate.

For you to speculate it was Whittle would be a more adequate explanation.

Only if my total knowledge base consisted of one crash site. It doesn't.

Except it is not the "best" explanation. It can be your opinion but it doesn't make it fact. It is a convenient explanation. It is about as "good" of an explanation as assuming the gods made it rain from heaven and the earth was flat.

It is not only the best. It is the only one with coherent evidence or deduction.

Rain? What? Bronze age men without science in the OT knew that hydrological cycles produce rain long before any scientist did. That is actually proof your wrong.

I specifically stated it was an argument from Ignorance. Not that you were ignorant. By extent of course it does mean that as we are all ignorant. As you have stated you are totally ignorant (in that you don't claim knowledge or evidence based reasoning of the matter) yet still state "God" is the best explanation.

I know what an argument from ignorance is, and mine is not one. Mine is an argument from deductions which have enormous philosophical justifications but lack certainty. I have seen every rule by which an argument is considered valid applied to the cosmological argument. Don't make it true but does not make it one of ignorance. Just non-certainty.

The legal system aside, personal opinion and statements not backed by evidence or sound arguments are invalid. In cases where we don't know it would be nothing more than an argument from Ignorance.

This is a perfect example of a double standard. You live no part of your life by this criteria. No one ever has. Nothing is known except that you think.

Now if you would either conceded you only believe that we think is true or dismiss the ridiculous absurdity of this double standard I would be fine. However you use one standard for God and another for every other aspect of your life. Have you ever told a doctor not to give you medicine until it was proven exactly what you had? If you ever took medicine then you did not. Do you not leave the house because you can't know you will not have a wreck? Did you not propose until proof was available? Did you not have kids until you had proof what they would become? Fat chance.

I have corrected you several times about the usage of "uncertainty" in your claims about my position. I hold "god" and "everything else" on equal ground. Most of "everything else" still passes. God usually does not.

Passes what. The arbitrary uncertainty level you consider certain. Not one thing ever believed is certain except we think. Some nihilist may even object to that. Everything else only has degrees of reliability. What exactly do you think it is you are certain of. I will show you that you are not.

I am uncertain that cars won't swerve on the road and kill me. But I have good reason and evidence to believe that won't be the norm. I am not "certain" that the sun will rise tomorrow. But I have good reason to believe it will based on prior events.

I have geed reason to believe intelligence created the universe. BTW hat is not my opinion. It passes every test for what makes a deduction valid. You are in fact ignorant whether a car will swerve or not, you believe it won't. Almost every claim ever made outside a little math is part faith. Did you know faith in universal rationality is necessary to do any science and is not even remotely provable?

However It isn't simply a lack of "certainty" that god made the universe it is that I don't know one way or the other and no evidence has been provided in either direction to fully sway that. Does that make sense to you now ?

Not knowing one way or the other is uncertainty. Mountain's of probabilistic, inferential, deductive, etc arguments can and are still made and relied upon to determine the most important issues possible. Your world view would negate the entire jury system and most academics. But all I care about is sticking to one system. Be a nihilistic minimalist if you want but do so consistently. Don't demand certainty for God but reasoned faith for traffic.

 

[1robin]

Here is the phrase: "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause."

I thought this required a response all on its own, as it is an evergreen cliché, quoted without reference to anything else Hume wrote or without understanding the point he was making in an entire chapter and a theme that was continued throughout the Enquiries and the Treatise.

So theists like to point out that David Hume didn’t seriously believe that causation could be rejected. He didn’t! And neither do I. Hume was an empiricist, he actually gave an intelligible analysis of cause and effect and his mitigated scepticism acknowledged that while causation is a necessary element in the empirical world, from there on we can progress no further with the principle, for on contingent matters he said: "whatever is may not be."

‘“Whatever has a beginning has also a beginning of existence.”’ Here is an argument, which proves at once that the foregoing proposition is neither intuitively or demonstrably certain. We can never demonstrate the necessity of cause to every new existence, or every modification of existence, without shewing [sic] at the same time the impossibility there is, that anything can ever begin to exist without some productive principle; and where the latter proposition cannot be proved, we must despair of ever being able to prove the former. Now that the latter proposition is utterly incapable of a demonstrative proof, we satisfy ourselves by considering, that as all distinct ideas are separable from each other, and as the ideas of cause and effect are evidently distinct, ‘twill be easy for us to conceive any object to be non-existent, and existent the next, without conjoining to it the distinct idea of a cause or a productive principle. The separation, therefore, of the idea of a cause from that of the beginning of existence is plainly possible for the imagination; and consequently the actual separation of these objects is so far possible that it implies no contradiction or absurdity; and is therefore incapable of being refuted by any reason from mere ideas.” David Hume, Treatise of Human Nature

I have assumed since you did not guess the statement I was referring to correctly that what followed would not have applied. If different let me know. The statement I was referring to was:

“If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
~David Hume

The one your quoted is the most constant of statements. I agree with Hume many times.

I am pressed for time so let me know if I have misfired him somewhere.

 

[1robin]

Because humans hadn't evolved brains big enough to make up such messages yet.

Please see post 1806. I do not agree.

 

[cottage]

I have assumed since you did not guess the statement I was referring to correctly that what followed would not have applied. If different let me know. The statement I was referring to was:

“If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
~David Hume

The one your quoted is the most constant of statements. I agree with Hume many times.

I am pressed for time so let me know if I have misfired him somewhere.

What you've quoted is one of the most famous passages in the history of analytical philosophy (which I know off by heart, and verbatim). So I'm extremely interested to know why you say it is "one of of the most self contradictory phrases you've ever heard"? (!) Please explain?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Inadequate for the bizarre use you put it to. Perfect for mine. In fact Whittle is the agency cause of a Jet engine and I am not left with only a crash sites worth of evidence. Your response was inadequate.

Only if my total knowledge base consisted of one crash site. It doesn't.

This is what I am saying. You don't know the crash site. You know one tiny molecule in the whole crash site. The fact you even know its a "crash site" is blowing the proportions of your knowledge on the subject out of wack.

It is not only the best. It is the only one with coherent evidence or deduction.

when did you do that? Because "causality means causation needed a cause therefor god" isn't a coherent argument based on deduction or evidence.

Rain? What? Bronze age men without science in the OT knew that hydrological cycles produce rain long before any scientist did. That is actually proof your wrong.

sources needed.

I know what an argument from ignorance is, and mine is not one. Mine is an argument from deductions which have enormous philosophical justifications but lack certainty. I have seen every rule by which an argument is considered valid applied to the cosmological argument. Don't make it true but does not make it one of ignorance. Just non-certainty.

You are either not listening or lying. What exactly do I take with my life that I don't take with your claim?

There is sufficient evidence the sun will rise tomorrow. I don't have sufficient evidence god is the best answer to our universe. I AM putting this at the same level as I do everything else. It is you who keeps making exceptions and using faulty logic to provide a point.

The presuppositions in which you attempt to arrive at your conclusion is an argument from ignorance. You don't know if there is a being that created the universe. For example a better answer than "god" would be one that there is am universe and somehow in this Aether of the multiverse it has properties not seen within our universe that somehow has the ability to "create" universes either out of pre-existing wreckage of past universes or by totally new processes.

This is a perfect example of a double standard. You live no part of your life by this criteria. No one ever has. Nothing is known except that you think.

Now if you would either conceded you only believe that we think is true or dismiss the ridiculous absurdity of this double standard I would be fine. However you use one standard for God and another for every other aspect of your life. Have you ever told a doctor not to give you medicine until it was proven exactly what you had? If you ever took medicine then you did not. Do you not leave the house because you can't know you will not have a wreck? Did you not propose until proof was available? Did you not have kids until you had proof what they would become? Fat chance.

I have evidence for all of the examples. I have have driven before and know that the statistical chance of me wrecking is minute at any given chance so long as I follow the well thought out laws regulating motor vehicle travel. I trust my doctor because I have gone to him before and I can trust him to know more than I.

However I don't have any evidence to support your theory that god made the universe. "We exist" isn't good enough. There are any number of other answers that are just as good if not better answer. However we don't know enough to even assume what they are. Its not "certainty" in that we have an idea but aren't sure its "uncertainty" in that its a shot in the dark of a room that may not even exist.

Passes what. The arbitrary uncertainty level you consider certain. Not one thing ever believed is certain except we think. Some nihilist may even object to that. Everything else only has degrees of reliability. What exactly do you think it is you are certain of. I will show you that you are not.

Your talking about extreme skepticism or "Total Skepticism" which was a philosophical stance that we couldn't be sure of anything and thus was the nature of knowledge. While that may be true in some regards it is useless as a philosophy and hasn't actually brought any fruits to bear intellectually. And as a result mostly died out as a primary way of looking at the world in the mid 50's. Well it has a bit of a resurgence in the 60's but that wasn't with the philosophical crowd rather than the drug induced crowd.
I can apodictically know something. But your reductio ad absurdum argument "we can't be totally sure of anything in our regular lives as well" doesn't give your argument that we should look at to be true or valid.
For example the majority of what you are spewing comes from Parmenides and his philosophies. However many of his other philosophers and current scientists understand that many of his theories, while brilliant for his time, do not equate to reality.

And you are running across the same problem that Zeno had when he claimed movement was impossible because of philosophical reasoning that, by all accounts, was sound. However when applied to the real world didn't add up.

I have geed reason to believe intelligence created the universe. BTW hat is not my opinion. It passes every test for what makes a deduction valid. You are in fact ignorant whether a car will swerve or not, you believe it won't. Almost every claim ever made outside a little math is part faith. Did you know faith in universal rationality is necessary to do any science and is not even remotely provable?

1) what is the evidence in which you make this assumption?
2) You are making the grammatical mistake of misusing the term "faith" just as most people do with the word "theory". "Faith" that you are talking about requires a belief without evidence. Then there is "faith" or "trust" that things will be a certain way based off of prior evidence. You can have "faith" that the Christian God exists and that Christianity is the one true religion of the world and then you can have "Faith" that your foot won't turn into a snake and eat you alive. They are not the same thing.

Not knowing one way or the other is uncertainty. Mountain's of probabilistic, inferential, deductive, etc arguments can and are still made and relied upon to determine the most important issues possible. Your world view would negate the entire jury system and most academics. But all I care about is sticking to one system. Be a nihilistic minimalist if you want but do so consistently. Don't demand certainty for God but reasoned faith for traffic.

Again with the misuse of your terms. You use "faith" in evidence based claims and "faith" based in non-evidence based claims as the same or as equal and then cry about how I'm providing a double standard. Your right I'm providing a double standard as the meaning of the words in different contexts mean different things.

Beyond that there is no double standard in terms of evidence acceptance. Either its there or its not.

Though I also think it is an important distinction to make that my "world view" doesn't throw out academics at all. In fact it is shaped by the academics. And if you believe the court system is a perfect system that actually generates the "truth" (especially before science) then I will refer you to the Witch Trials. How did that work out? No scientific evidence required. Just word of mouth and uncertainty. But hey the uncertainty of a DNA test is just the same as calling someone a Witch right?

 

[1robin]

What you've quoted is one of the most famous passages in the history of analytical philosophy (which I know off by heart, and verbatim). So I'm extremely interested to know why you say it is "one of of the most self contradictory phrases you've ever heard"? (!) Please explain?

I knew you would be and I know what your response will be. I have noticed that non-theists will defend the statement like scripture. It was not me who found the statement or pointed out the contradiction. It was a philosopher with more degrees that Hume ever dreamed of. Ravi Zacharias.

The contradiction is that the statement is a violation of it's own standard. The statement is not a claim of the type the statement accepts. It condemns it's self. Do me a favor if you will. I may not have the education to contend with what your response will be in this specific case. Please look up Ravi's critique and lets use it. When in the company of an Einstein it is kind of futile to depend on my poor efforts.

Regardless fire away.

 

[1robin]

This is what I am saying. You don't know the crash site. You know one tiny molecule in the whole crash site. The fact you even know its a "crash site" is blowing the proportions of your knowledge on the subject out of wack.

I understand what your saying. What I am saying is that a single crash site is not equal with the universe, philosophy, revelation, history, etc.... I have more stuff to study that could be done in every life time in history. I literally can never run out of evidence.

when did you do that? Because "causality means causation needed a cause therefor god" isn't a coherent argument based on deduction or evidence.

When did I do what? If causality need s cause then God would once again be the best candidate. Causality is a finite chain of events that necessarily ends in an uncaused first cause. You do not have a better candidate than God. The one thing we know for a fact is there is no infinite regress of causation.

sources needed.

Was it not obviously the bible? Eccl 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6.

You are either not listening or lying. What exactly do I take with my life that I don't take with your claim?

Less than certainty. Do not accuse me of lying if you want a debate. You can't know I was doing it if I was. It is in effect a lie used as an accusation of lying. So far you have not been emphatic but this was a precaution.

There is sufficient evidence the sun will rise tomorrow. I don't have sufficient evidence god is the best answer to our universe. I AM putting this at the same level as I do everything else. It is you who keeps making exceptions and using faulty logic to provide a point.

Sufficient is a relative term. It only approaches an objective realm given philosophical argumentation validity. The cosmological argument passes every single test for validity that philosophy has. From properly basic to rationality. Your opinion about what is sufficient is not common ground for anything.

The presuppositions in which you attempt to arrive at your conclusion is an argument from ignorance. You don't know if there is a being that created the universe. For example a better answer than "god" would be one that there is am universe and somehow in this Aether of the multiverse it has properties not seen within our universe that somehow has the ability to "create" universes either out of pre-existing wreckage of past universes or by totally new processes.

The argument premise' are far more reliability than much of what is in science. If dark matter, multiverses, and abiogenesis are valid argument the cosmological argument is ten arguments. Even the quantum contains larger assumptions at times. I do not care what standard you use just keep it consistent. Either the cosmological argument and 80% of human knowledge is out or both are in.

I have evidence for all of the examples. I have have driven before and know that the statistical chance of me wrecking is minute at any given chance so long as I follow the well thought out laws regulating motor vehicle travel. I trust my doctor because I have gone to him before and I can trust him to know more than I.

I have more evidence for the arguments premise' than you have for thinking you will not encounter a driver who swerved. My premise' have no known exceptions.

However I don't have any evidence to support your theory that god made the universe. "We exist" isn't good enough. There are any number of other answers that are just as good if not better answer. However we don't know enough to even assume what they are. Its not "certainty" in that we have an idea but aren't sure its "uncertainty" in that its a shot in the dark of a room that may not even exist.

We exist is not even a component of the argument.

Your talking about extreme skepticism or "Total Skepticism" which was a philosophical stance that we couldn't be sure of anything and thus was the nature of knowledge. While that may be true in some regards it is useless as a philosophy and hasn't actually brought any fruits to bear intellectually. And as a result mostly died out as a primary way of looking at the world in the mid 50's. Well it has a bit of a resurgence in the 60's but that wasn't with the philosophical crowd rather than the drug induced crowd.

Yes, I am saying your extreme skepticism and reasonable skepticism are inconsistent and arbitrary. We have a tie in that your opinion n about what is sufficient is as arbitrary as mine. I win the tie in that philosophy it's self validates the argument on every level. Unless you show me some of the greatest experts in philosophy from Greece to modern times were all out of their minds I hold every advantage. That argument has not survived perfectly in tact for 3000 years without cause.

I can apodictically know something. But your reductio ad absurdum argument "we can't be totally sure of anything in our regular lives as well" doesn't give your argument that we should look at to be true or valid. For example the majority of what you are spewing comes from Parmenides and his philosophies. However many of his other philosophers and current scientists understand that many of his theories, while brilliant for his time, do not equate to reality.

apodictically? That's a new one. You do not have to think it is true, what you can't or shouldn't think is it is invalid. Validity and truth are not the same thing.

And you are running across the same problem that Zeno had when he claimed movement was impossible because of philosophical reasoning that, by all accounts, was sound. However when applied to the real world didn't add up.

The fact the argument is philosophically valid by any test is not to say it is true. It is to say I can rationally hold it with every justification. You can't say that about movement because it is demonstrably false.

1) what is the evidence in which you make this assumption?

The universe is rational, it contains information, it has every sign of intent, it contains consciousness, it contains moral perception, it contains life, it contains fine tuning, etc..... None of those are possible or shown to be without intelligence. I could add hundreds but that is boring.

2) You are making the grammatical mistake of misusing the term "faith" just as most people do with the word "theory". "Faith" that you are talking about requires a belief without evidence. Then there is "faith" or "trust" that things will be a certain way based off of prior evidence. You can have "faith" that the Christian God exists and that Christianity is the one true religion of the world and then you can have "Faith" that your foot won't turn into a snake and eat you alive. They are not the same thing.

Faith applies to believe without evidence AND it applies to believe with evidence but not proof. I use the word in both ways and it can be used to cover both.

Again with the misuse of your terms. You use "faith" in evidence based claims and "faith" based in non-evidence based claims as the same or as equal and then cry about how I'm providing a double standard. Your right I'm providing a double standard as the meaning of the words in different contexts mean different things.

I use it both ways.

Beyond that there is no double standard in terms of evidence acceptance. Either its there or its not.

Yes there is but I am tired of pointing it out.

Though I also think it is an important distinction to make that my "world view" doesn't throw out academics at all. In fact it is shaped by the academics. And if you believe the court system is a perfect system that actually generates the "truth" (especially before science) then I will refer you to the Witch Trials. How did that work out? No scientific evidence required. Just word of mouth and uncertainty. But hey the uncertainty of a DNA test is just the same as calling someone a Witch right?

The word world view does throw out academics in most cases if it contains a demand for certainty.
However I don't think you have one world view. Or maybe you do but it has no certain form but is morphed into whatever is needed and it's criteria is opinion. For God it becomes so narrow it contains almost nothing and assumes a different aspect for whatever is needed beyond God. I try and hold a single unchanging criteria. I am probably not completely successful but mine is more consistent than most.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I understand what your saying. What I am saying is that a single crash site is not equal with the universe, philosophy, revelation, history, etc.... I have more stuff to study that could be done in every life time in history. I literally can never run out of evidence.

However in the context of the argument you don't actually have any as what we are talking about is the "pre universe" era which every scrap of evidence suggests that it was drastically different than our current universe. So everything you go on is in fact presuppositions not based in fact or deductions.

When did I do what? If causality need s cause then God would once again be the best candidate. Causality is a finite chain of events that necessarily ends in an uncaused first cause. You do not have a better candidate than God. The one thing we know for a fact is there is no infinite regress of causation.

We do know that all the time that has ever existed or will exists, exists within our universe. Does that make sense to you? The universe is eternal as it has ALWAYS existed and WILL ALWAYS EXIST. There is never a time the universe did not exist.

I would take a guess that the multiverse makes far more sense. Far more than a being with sentience creating the universe. Or a force, or something even stranger. However we still do not know and do not know enough to guess.

Was it not obviously the bible? Eccl 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6.

I call BS. Its the same thing as any tribal god of any other religion. I read all of theme and none of them sound like an ancient people who knew anything about the water cycle except "goddidt".

Less than certainty. Do not accuse me of lying if you want a debate. You can't know I was doing it if I was. It is in effect a lie used as an accusation of lying. So far you have not been emphatic but this was a precaution.

I have explained numerous times how I have precisely done exactly the opposite of what you keep accusing me of. So either your not getting it or your being dishonest. Hopefully it will be revealed later in this post.

Sufficient is a relative term. It only approaches an objective realm given philosophical argumentation validity. The cosmological argument passes every single test for validity that philosophy has. From properly basic to rationality. Your opinion about what is sufficient is not common ground for anything.

What does it pass? On where have you seen god make something? Where have you witnessed "creation" of matter or energy from nothing? We have only observed what already exists and how it interacts with each other. We have zero information of the process of "creating matter" or "creating energy". Therefore everything you have brought forth with the cosmological argument is based on presuppositions with no information or reasoning to back it up.

Give me one example of the argument that passes. Don't say "it passes' prove to me it passes. And yes you can prove things in philosophy.

The argument premise' are far more reliability than much of what is in science. If dark matter, multiverses, and abiogenesis are valid argument the cosmological argument is ten arguments. Even the quantum contains larger assumptions at times. I do not care what standard you use just keep it consistent. Either the cosmological argument and 80% of human knowledge is out or both are in.

All of the aforementioned theories are BASED ON EVIDENCE. The cosmological argument is not based in evidence. IF you have any list it. And "inference" and "assumption" is not the same thing. Do not make that mistake in the debate about the sciences. We can infer from the evidence but we cannot "assume" something simply to be true. No science does that.

I have more evidence for the arguments premise' than you have for thinking you will not encounter a driver who swerved. My premise' have no known exceptions.

And yet you can't list a single one.

We exist is not even a component of the argument.

Actually it is. If you say it isn't then you need to research more into the claim. But tell me, list by list what is the argument's points that have never been refuted and I shall refute them.

Yes, I am saying your extreme skepticism and reasonable skepticism are inconsistent and arbitrary. We have a tie in that your opinion n about what is sufficient is as arbitrary as mine. I win the tie in that philosophy it's self validates the argument on every level. Unless you show me some of the greatest experts in philosophy from Greece to modern times were all out of their minds I hold every advantage. That argument has not survived perfectly in tact for 3000 years without cause.

Few things in order.
1) I do not adhere to "Total skepticism" as a philosophy. You haven't proven or even given a single example of how the philosophy applies to my views.
2) Philosophy itself does not validate your argument. Philosophies can conflict with both reality and other philosophies. I mentioned Zeno for this exact reason. Zeno proclaimed and PROVED philosophically that movement was impossible and yet...it isn't so. Your "argument from ignorance", which is a fallacy of logic that was derived from philosophy, counters your argument. So which Philosophical argument is better? Even if that was a clear shot answer why should that matter if purely philosophically based arguments don't equate to the real world?
3) The argument has not surived 300 years. It has been propagated over and over within the community that sing it like an Anthem but people have been refuting and debunking it within a year of its inception. Popular ones I haven't even mentioned

"How can the first cause not have a first cause? What caused the first cause or why is the first cause exempt"
only answer thus far to this is "goddidit" which isn't a coherent answer.

"Identification of a first cause is impossible to determine" which states that even if your argument IS true philosophically it does not lend credibility to god. It is like finding a painting and stating it only could have been painter "x" when the number of painters and their skill levels are totally unknown.

"Causal loop" which should be pretty self explanitory

And the one I have been arguing which has only come to light after scientific discovery has made more sense of the nature of time, "there was no 'before' the universe".

apodictically? That's a new one. You do not have to think it is true, what you can't or shouldn't think is it is invalid. Validity and truth are not the same thing.

Are you stating there is no way to differentiate validates of different levels?

The fact the argument is philosophically valid by any test is not to say it is true. It is to say I can rationally hold it with every justification. You can't say that about movement because it is demonstrably false.

I am stating that your claim that it is the "best" explanation in a demonstrable way is false. Not that it is impossible. Though it is good to know that you do understand that your argument isn't bulletproof.

The universe is rational, it contains information, it has every sign of intent, it contains consciousness, it contains moral perception, it contains life, it contains fine tuning, etc..... None of those are possible or shown to be without intelligence. I could add hundreds but that is boring.

"information" is only "information" through our eyes. To a rock the universe has no "information". "Information" simply means "measurements" or specifically "movements or dimensions we can measure"

How do you know there is "intent". What would a universe without "intent" be? And what is this "intent"?

Faith applies to believe without evidence AND it applies to believe with evidence but not proof. I use the word in both ways and it can be used to cover both.


I use it both ways.

Not interchangeably. You cannot equate "faith" in the bus arriving on time with "faith" in god. Just as you cannot equate "theory" as in an assumption of some kind with "theory" a well versed and practiced scientific explanation based on mountains of evidence.

Yes there is but I am tired of pointing it out.

When you get to one let me know. So far you have made a lot of logically fallacies and misuses of terms. If I had never seen a bus and I had never seen a bus stop and had never had any kind of information about them I would not have "faith" that it would be on time. However I have tons of evidence to back up that it will (or at least show up within five minutes as they tend to be late)

The word world view does throw out academics in most cases if it contains a demand for certainty.
However I don't think you have one world view. Or maybe you do but it has no certain form but is morphed into whatever is needed and it's criteria is opinion. For God it becomes so narrow it contains almost nothing and assumes a different aspect for whatever is needed beyond God. I try and hold a single unchanging criteria. I am probably not completely successful but mine is more consistent than most.

I haven't demanded certainty. I have demanded an argument or reason or evidence of the slightest to make you think that "god" is the answer rather than the multiverse, aether or something beyond our understanding. IT is not that you have made the claim in general it is the title that you are arguing that it is "most likely" that bothers me. Is it "possible" yes. But is it "likely" no more so than anything else.

 

[1robin]

However in the context of the argument you don't actually have any as what we are talking about is the "pre universe" era which every scrap of evidence suggests that it was drastically different than our current universe. So everything you go on is in fact presuppositions not based in fact or deductions.

They are deductions not pre-supposition by the strictest definitions of the words. If theology had never existed I would wind up in need of a timeless, space less, immaterial cause of unimaginable power and intelligence as a cause that nothing in nature has ever shown to be a fraction of. That is just pure philosophy. Now applying the exact description of my God to my God is neither deduction not presupposition.

We do know that all the time that has ever existed or will exists, exists within our universe. Does that make sense to you? The universe is eternal as it has ALWAYS existed and WILL ALWAYS EXIST. There is never a time the universe did not exist.

NO we do not but unlike you I can grant things that probably are. All of space-time existing within this universe is fine with me. My God is independent of time. I have no idea what that means but it does not mean time is binding on him in any way. The universe shows every sign that it will always exist, it shows every sign it has not always existed. It had a beginning and will always be finite but may not cease to exist. What the universe happens to do in the future is no part of this issue. My believing it will be made new and perfect is presupposition based on the reliability of the claims source but my conclusions about it's beginning are deductive not presuppositions.

I would take a guess that the multiverse makes far more sense. Far more than a being with sentience creating the universe. Or a force, or something even stranger. However we still do not know and do not know enough to guess.

The only potential merit the multiverse has is I am not sure if it is impossible. Vilenkin seemed to shoot down every theory offered to counter one finite universe but I am not qualified to. What I can do is claim there is infinite more evidence for God and a single finite universe that multiple universes. Faith is about the best conclusions given the evidence. Multiverses (while actually making God more probable) never the less have no evidence.

I call BS. Its the same thing as any tribal god of any other religion. I read all of theme and none of them sound like an ancient people who knew anything about the water cycle except "goddidt".

What?

New International Version
He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. He calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out over the face of the land-- the LORD is his name. All the rivers flow into the sea.

I only quoted half of them and I have every stage in a water cycle. You have both agency and mechanism described in a book that never intended to be scientific. Unless it is a meteorological textbook you are unjustified in demanding more.

Add to this from a non science book:

Air has weight.
Germ theory.
Oceanic currents.
The order of creation/evolution.
The earths shape.
It's being held by invisible forces.
The countless number of stars despite only 3000 being visible.
Visible things are composed out of things not visible.
The universe and everything in it including time began to exist.

There may be hundreds of these quasi-scientific facts known hundreds or thousands of years before secular scientists figured them out. Reading the bible could have saved hundreds of thousands or millions who died of infections alone. Now if you challenged a few that is reasonable but trying to dismiss them all is pure desperation.

I have explained numerous times how I have precisely done exactly the opposite of what you keep accusing me of. So either your not getting it or your being dishonest. Hopefully it will be revealed later in this post.

This personal stuff is a great waste of time. I claim your inconsistent. I will think you are no matter how many times you deny it. Either agree or disagree but let's move on to something more relevant.

What does it pass? On where have you seen god make something? Where have you witnessed "creation" of matter or energy from nothing? We have only observed what already exists and how it interacts with each other. We have zero information of the process of "creating matter" or "creating energy". Therefore everything you have brought forth with the cosmological argument is based on presuppositions with no information or reasoning to back it up.

It does not matter what cause your talking about. Every event observed (whether creation, a state change, movement, even the quantum) not one of them or any other type has ever been observed without a sufficient cause. It makes no sense to say well two did but the other two have not been seen, or vice versa. It does not matter what it's nature is, no event has ever been seen to lack a cause. In fact you suggest that a professional atheist like Hume is even suggesting it and they will not stand for it. I can't see any difference I the elements in my car beginning to exist or them coming together to be my car. Any change requires a cause. I can get way deeper but I need some reason to feel it will find fertile ground.

Give me one example of the argument that passes. Don't say "it passes' prove to me it passes. And yes you can prove things in philosophy.

I know you can. That is the one single way I said it does pass. If I show you a board sitting philosopher with several degrees listed the ways which arguments are evaluated and found it to pass them all is that enough to concede the point? If not how many would it take? I have to go through written material by the volume. If you make it worth while I will concentrate on the validity of the argument its self. If nothing can be gained you will just have to remain unconvinced. This type of thing is not easily found but I will do so if you concede the point.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

All of the aforementioned theories are BASED ON EVIDENCE. The cosmological argument is not based in evidence. IF you have any list it. And "inference" and "assumption" is not the same thing. Do not make that mistake in the debate about the sciences. We can infer from the evidence but we cannot "assume" something simply to be true. No science does that.

Your generalizing. Parts are demonstrated by every piece of evidence there is. Some are deduced, and the last part is inferred.

And yet you can't list a single one.

Good lord the universe has nothing known that violates the principle. If I have to prove cause and effect with examples the discussion is not worth having.

Actually it is. If you say it isn't then you need to research more into the claim. But tell me, list by list what is the argument's points that have never been refuted and I shall refute them.

If I, you, or anyone ceased to exist it would have no effect on the argument what so ever. What are you talking about.

Few things in order.
1) I do not adhere to "Total skepticism" as a philosophy. You haven't proven or even given a single example of how the philosophy applies to my views.
2) Philosophy itself does not validate your argument. Philosophies can conflict with both reality and other philosophies. I mentioned Zeno for this exact reason. Zeno proclaimed and PROVED philosophically that movement was impossible and yet...it isn't so. Your "argument from ignorance", which is a fallacy of logic that was derived from philosophy, counters your argument. So which Philosophical argument is better? Even if that was a clear shot answer why should that matter if purely philosophically based arguments don't equate to the real world?
3) The argument has not surived 300 years. It has been propagated over and over within the community that sing it like an Anthem but people have been refuting and debunking it within a year of its inception. Popular ones I haven't even mentioned

Not 300 but 3000years plus. The argument probably always existed but first appears in writing in Greece, and has never broken down yet. It not only is among the best arguments available for God but professional atheists recognize it as such. I have seen them bring it up without prompting, time and again. They do not even refute it. They punt and claim multiverses or some other hypothetical get out of God free card that has no evidence. I do not recall a single one that claimed the argument is invalid though I imagine some do. They rarely do in formal debate.

"How can the first cause not have a first cause? What caused the first cause or why is the first cause exempt"
only answer thus far to this is "goddidit" which isn't a coherent answer.

Because it must. Infinite causal chains are incoherent non-sense. They never even potentially result in anything. I have given an analogy that demonstrates this so often I juts can't justify doing it again.

"Identification of a first cause is impossible to determine" which states that even if your argument IS true philosophically it does not lend credibility to god. It is like finding a painting and stating it only could have been painter "x" when the number of painters and their skill levels are totally unknown.

It's impossible to determine to a certainty. It is easily deduced.

"Causal loop" which should be pretty self explanitory

Name one.

And the one I have been arguing which has only come to light after scientific discovery has made more sense of the nature of time, "there was no 'before' the universe".

There was no space time. That is all you can say.

Are you stating there is no way to differentiate validates of different levels?

I think that was a type-O. I don't get it.

I am stating that your claim that it is the "best" explanation in a demonstrable way is false. Not that it is impossible. Though it is good to know that you do understand that your argument isn't bulletproof.

Demonstrative in what sense?

"information" is only "information" through our eyes. To a rock the universe has no "information". "Information" simply means "measurements" or specifically "movements or dimensions we can measure"

I work for a Phd in information theory and know what it is. It is specified complexity. It requires not only semiotic code but must have a decoder tuned to it. Nature can't do either.

How do you know there is "intent". What would a universe without "intent" be? And what is this "intent"?

One that does not win billions of lotteries. Actually any universe from nothing suggests intent. This one just suggests it even stronger.

Not interchangeably. You cannot equate "faith" in the bus arriving on time with "faith" in god. Just as you cannot equate "theory" as in an assumption of some kind with "theory" a well versed and practiced scientific explanation based on mountains of evidence.

Now your getting it. There is an infinite range of reliability not two classes of claim. I never equated the two you suggest I did.

I haven't demanded certainty. I have demanded an argument or reason or evidence of the slightest to make you think that "god" is the answer rather than the multiverse, aether or something beyond our understanding. IT is not that you have made the claim in general it is the title that you are arguing that it is "most likely" that bothers me. Is it "possible" yes. But is it "likely" no more so than anything else.

So the great Greek, Latin, Islamic, Christian, etc..... thinkers are all idiots I guess. I did not say it is the most likely. I said given what is known it is the best conclusion. I have no idea how to assign a probability to it and my major was math. It is better than any counter conclusion and IMO probable but I would not know how to gage it's likelihood objectively. Faith only requires the absence of a defeater but I raise it to best conclusion. That argument (at this time) is the best. I can't even think of a close second.

 

[cottage]

I knew you would be and I know what your response will be. I have noticed that non-theists will defend the statement like scripture. It was not me who found the statement or pointed out the contradiction. It was a philosopher with more degrees that Hume ever dreamed of. Ravi Zacharias.

The contradiction is that the statement is a violation of it's own standard. The statement is not a claim of the type the statement accepts. It condemns it's self. Do me a favor if you will. I may not have the education to contend with what your response will be in this specific case. Please look up Ravi's critique and lets use it. When in the company of an Einstein it is kind of futile to depend on my poor efforts.

Regardless fire away.

This is a fairly standard criticism of Hume’s work, although mainly by theist objectors, that Hume didn’t deliver what he seemed to be promising. We have to remember that Hume’s entire philosophy rests on the principle that nothing can be known for certain, and this must of course also apply to his own utterances, but his contention is that this doesn’t prevent us from looking for solutions to explain how we reason to particular conclusions.

And while it is of course true that empirical proof cannot be a proof for empiricism, Hume certainly never pretended to give us a complete epistemology in the way that Rene Descartes presumed to do, but he supposed that all our reasoning concerned inductively derived experience and self-evident truths and argued that experience is what we depend upon, notwithstanding the lack of certainty.

Hume proposes that the objects of human reason or enquiry may be divided into two kinds, what he calls the Relations of Ideas and also Matters of Fact. By the Relations of Ideas he means those things that are intuitively or demonstrably certain, tautologies, definitions or mathematical truths such as 2 + 2 = 4. Matters of fact, though they give us a high degree of probability can never provide evidence of their truth in the same manner as the foregoing because the contrary of every matter of fact is conceivable.

Hume goes on to say all our reasoning concerning matters of fact seem to be founded on cause and effect. He gives many examples and then asks how we arrive at this knowledge of cause and effect? He answers his own question by proposing that this knowledge is not attained a priori but must therefore arise entirely from experience. Arguments of existence, he says, are founded on cause and effect but with no rule from the past being a rule for the future, and if we cannot give a satisfactory reason why we believe after a thousand experiments that a stone will fall, or fire burn, then we can never satisfy ourselves by any determination with regards to the origin of worlds. And note that reasoning from cause and effect, a custom and a habit as he says, is nevertheless still “reasoning” albeit from experience, but even when allied with the truths of mathematics and logic cannot give us a necessary cause of all causes other than on the before-mentioned infirm basis.

Hume’s mitigated scepticism was critical of the representative theory of perception as held by Lock and others since how can it be said that there is conformity between the object and the image that provides evidence if we only have the mental images at our disposal? And even if there is such a representation of objects we have no way of judging the accuracy of our perceptions. Nevertheless the anti-sceptical view means there must be something to which we refer. By “experimental reasoning” Hume means where a theory is either tested to destruction or we arrive at a fact with a very high degree of probability, such as the rising of the son, gravity, water containing two elements of hydrogen and one of oxygen or even the universe having a beginning; and the Relations of Ideas being those things which are true because that cannot logically be false as described up the page.

If we agree with the above then this statement follows, not as an a priori assertion, or a necessary truth, but as a well founded conclusion that, in Hume’s words, and in the absence of any alternative, we refer to everyday in “common life”. “Does [a proposition] contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? NO. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact or existence? NO. Commit it then to the flames for it can be nothing but sophistry and illusion." But if not then I think it is for the objector to say on what basis our reasoning can be demonstrated.

Sorry for the length of this.

 

[cottage]

It does not matter what cause your talking about. Every event observed (whether creation, a state change, movement, even the quantum) not one of them or any other type has ever been observed without a sufficient cause. It makes no sense to say well two did but the other two have not been seen, or vice versa. It does not matter what it's nature is, no event has ever been seen to lack a cause. In fact you suggest that a professional atheist like Hume is even suggesting it and they will not stand for it. I can't see any difference I the elements in my car beginning to exist or them coming together to be my car. Any change requires a cause. I can get way deeper but I need some reason to feel it will find fertile ground.

I apologise for interjecting here but the Kalam argument is seriously (and probably intentionally) misleading. Now it is important to note that I'm saying this from a non-partisan position; even if I were a committed theist I would still have to acknowledge the primary premise is false inference. In other words I'm critical of the argument not as a religious sceptic but form a purely philosophical viewpoint as I explain below.

The primary premise is presumptuous in what it sweepingly asserts. And we are entitled to ask from which sense impression do we derive: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”? No present experience can confirm what the statement confidently announces to be the case as a general proposition leading to the conclusion: “The universe has a cause”. The argument can only apply to the particular, and that is to say by inference from what actually exists. Clearly there is an evident omission the premise. So let’s pop in the missing clause to the primary premise to see if that helps us out of the difficulty.

P1. Whatever begins to exist in the universe has a cause.

P2. The universe began to exist

Conclusion: The universe has a cause

Even with the inserted clause the primary premise (P1) is false. We don’t observe objects beginning to exist; we only see material objects that change their form. In all cases the new objects are formed from already existent matter. The universe is expanding, but I’m aware of no argument that conclusively informs us that matter in the universe is being added to, as in the Aristotelian concept of an efficient cause, and so the objects cannot therefore be described as beginning to exist in the way the argument misleadingly supposes. And if we don’t see things beginning to exist then we certainly can’t ascribe a cause to them!

So if we only see changes or alteration in matter. So, then, let’s try this:

1. Whatever changes form has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause

Clearly that doesn’t work either, since #1 cannot imply #3 even though we accept #2. “The universe has a cause simply does not follow.”

So to repeat what I’ve already said elsewhere, at the very most, all we can say is this:

1. The universe began to exist
2. Everything in the universe has a cause
C. Everything in the universe began to exist (including cause and effect)

 

[1robin]

This is a fairly standard criticism of Hume’s work, although mainly by theist objectors, that Hume didn’t deliver what he seemed to be promising. We have to remember that Hume’s entire philosophy rests on the principle that nothing can be known for certain, and this must of course also apply to his own utterances, but his contention is that this doesn’t prevent us from looking for solutions to explain how we reason to particular conclusions.

I have seen many attempts to make the most self refuting claim I can think of not conflict with it's self. You are right that it has almost always been theists but that is irrelevant. I would not matter if it was painters, engineers, or astronauts the statement holds a vast contradiction.
Hume was a minimalist when it came to knowledge but as usual it seems his criteria were arbitrary, self contradicting, and pliable.

And while it is of course true that empirical proof cannot be a proof for empiricism, Hume certainly never pretended to give us a complete epistemology in the way that Rene Descartes presumed to do, but he supposed that all our reasoning concerned inductively derived experience and self-evident truths and argued that experience is what we depend upon, notwithstanding the lack of certainty.

As I said I agree with Hume in many places. My chief complaint is the moving bar he seems to have and the inconsistency with which his propositions are used. I really do not care if we use minimalistic approaches, generous assumption, or some middle ground. I just want the same standard used for everything.

Hume proposes that the objects of human reason or enquiry may be divided into two kinds, what he calls the Relations of Ideas and also Matters of Fact. By the Relations of Ideas he means those things that are intuitively or demonstrably certain, tautologies, definitions or mathematical truths such as 2 + 2 = 4. Matters of fact, though they give us a high degree of probability can never provide evidence of their truth in the same manner as the foregoing because the contrary of every matter of fact is conceivable.

I don't know about his categories but the middle ground criteria I have posit a wide range of reliability for claims. For example I think may by 99% reliable, the primary arguments for God from 40% - 80%, and Aliens visiting the earth at maybe 10%. The scientific arguments against God I place below 10%. My primary complaint is the less than 10% is artificially boosted to 80% and the 40% - 80% is artificially reduced to less than 10% or 0% depending on the level of bias. The above was only about the primary arguments for God. The bible contains tens of thousands that range from 1% - 90% in reliability aside from those primary, time honored, and well known primary ones we usually discuss. I just think these hypothetical percentages or reliability are artificially re-arranged by non-theists, but I do agree with Hume that there is a sliding scale of reliability, I just have less need for labeling the types.

Hume goes on to say all our reasoning concerning matters of fact seem to be founded on cause and effect. He gives many examples and then asks how we arrive at this knowledge of cause and effect? He answers his own question by proposing that this knowledge is not attained a priori but must therefore arise entirely from experience. Arguments of existence, he says, are founded on cause and effect but with no rule from the past being a rule for the future, and if we cannot give a satisfactory reason why we believe after a thousand experiments that a stone will fall, or fire burn, then we can never satisfy ourselves by any determination with regards to the origin of worlds. And note that reasoning from cause and effect, a custom and a habit as he says, is nevertheless still “reasoning” albeit from experience, but even when allied with the truths of mathematics and logic cannot give us a necessary cause of all causes other than on the before-mentioned infirm basis.

It appears here that he says nothing true of the past no matter hos constantly it occurs is grounds for believing it will occur in the future. Now this I wholly reject. No human operates in that way, we all act exactly the opposite and are justified in doing so. I think Hume may be describing what is true of an arbitrarily chose extremely rigorous criteria imposed without cause.

Hume’s mitigated scepticism was critical of the representative theory of perception as held by Lock and others since how can it be said that there is conformity between the object and the image that provides evidence if we only have the mental images at our disposal? And even if there is such a representation of objects we have no way of judging the accuracy of our perceptions. Nevertheless the anti-sceptical view means there must be something to which we refer. By “experimental reasoning” Hume means where a theory is either tested to destruction or we arrive at a fact with a very high degree of probability, such as the rising of the son, gravity, water containing two elements of hydrogen and one of oxygen or even the universe having a beginning; and the Relations of Ideas being those things which are true because that cannot logically be false as described up the page.

I think that is lacking because many things have other tests by which to validate a perception. For example if seeing a puddle is not enough to conclude it is water, maybe a recent rain storm, feeling it, boiling it, or a hundred other test can add layers of reliability for the conclusion. I may have missed your intent here a bit but that is what I saw.

If we agree with the above then this statement follows, not as an a priori assertion, or a necessary truth, but as a well founded conclusion that, in Hume’s words, and in the absence of any alternative, we refer to everyday in “common life”. “Does [a proposition] contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? NO. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact or existence? NO. Commit it then to the flames for it can be nothing but sophistry and illusion." But if not then I think it is for the objector to say on what basis our reasoning can be demonstrated.

But no one acts as if this is true. I can certainly see what it is driving at but do not agree with his conclusion. The conclusion he condemns as worthless in real life are not considered to be so. They just assume a lower reliability factor.

That is the choice.

1. Relegate anything in Hume's categories to the dung heap. No one does this. Academia does not do it, legal institutions don't do this. no one lives their lives like this.
2. Keep what Hume would rule out (which included his statement) but apply it an appropriate level of reliability lower than what his statement does not condemn. This is the way everything actually operates beyond a few weirdo's in labs some place.

There are not two black and white categories but an infinite number of gray shades.

Sorry for the length of this.

No problem. If I apologized for length every time that would be all I did.

 

[1robin]

I apologise for interjecting here but the Kalam argument is seriously (and probably intentionally) misleading. Now it is important to note that I'm saying this from a non-partisan position; even if I were a committed theist I would still have to acknowledge the primary premise is false inference. In other words I'm critical of the argument not as a religious sceptic but form a purely philosophical viewpoint as I explain below.

Interject away. I have no idea how Kalam is flawed as many professional philosophers use it, but I can't even begin to see how it was potentially intentional. What is the motivation? Several other versions of the same argument already existed. I do not know about you but this argument is as partisan as they come. I find every denier is a non-theist and every supporter a theist plus a few non-theists who at least grant the arguments soundness but end run around the conclusion to a multi-verse or something similar. Regardless my position is not dependent on Kalam. There exist at least ten versions of this argument from Greece to modern times. My position is a loose generalization on the principles involved not wedded to any specific version. If it was I would go with Leibniz but have no necessity to adopt a particular one.

The primary premise is presumptuous in what it sweepingly asserts. And we are entitled to ask from which sense impression do we derive: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”? No present experience can confirm what the statement confidently announces to be the case as a general proposition leading to the conclusion: “The universe has a cause”. The argument can only apply to the particular, and that is to say by inference from what actually exists. Clearly there is an evident omission the premise. So let’s pop in the missing clause to the primary premise to see if that helps us out of the difficulty.

I do not think we are entitled to ask which sense perception. The entire field of mathematics is not derived by sensory organs. Let me state something here I think is very relevant. Muslims arbitrarily picked "begins to exist" is juts semantics and not important. That is why I like Leibniz because he suggests all things have explanations. That includes everything, not just beginnings. Not that there exists any problem with beginnings as every reason exists to posit causes for them but it makes a far more generalized claim. Any change of state, material, informational, or in energy has an explanation. Beginnings are mere subcategories of a general principle. State changes always require explanations and explanations include causes. Even most atheists (including Hume I believe) bristle when it is suggested they think something began to exist without a cause. However my claim simply throws beginnings into a huge category of state changes and does not sink or swim with beginnings.

P1. Whatever begins to exist in the universe has a cause.

P2. The universe began to exist

Conclusion: The universe has a cause

Even with the inserted clause the primary premise (P1) is false. We don’t observe objects beginning to exist; we only see material objects that change their form. In all cases the new objects are formed from already existent matter. The universe is expanding, but I’m aware of no argument that conclusively informs us that matter in the universe is being added to, as in the Aristotelian concept of an efficient cause, and so the objects cannot therefore be described as beginning to exist in the way the argument misleadingly supposes. And if we don’t see things beginning to exist then we certainly can’t ascribe a cause to them!

So if we only see changes or alteration in matter. So, then, let’s try this:

1. Whatever changes form has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause

Clearly that doesn’t work either, since #1 cannot imply #3 even though we accept #2. “The universe has a cause simply does not follow.”

So to repeat what I’ve already said elsewhere, at the very most, all we can say is this:

1. The universe began to exist
2. Everything in the universe has a cause
C. Everything in the universe began to exist (including cause and effect)

I think we have repeated everything here many times and my clarification above sort of short circuited all this, so I will leave it here. Change requires an explanation. Aquinas for example makes the same argument from motion alone.

 

[idav]

So to repeat what I’ve already said elsewhere, at the very most, all we can say is this:

1. The universe began to exist
2. Everything in the universe has a cause
C. Everything in the universe began to exist (including cause and effect)

Yes everything in the universe but we can't say for the universe itself, we are trying to look outside our box and that box is the universe.

Points to an outside of the universe possibly which is where theists are happy to jump in. Therefore anything outside the universe does not have to begin to exist. The universe itself is on that outside so....the universe did not begin to exist. What theists really try to do is say God is outside the universe therefore never god never needed to begin being in this region, well the universe is in this same eternal timeless region. What we end up is simply a region outside cause and effect where things don't need causes and I would call that region a creator type.

 

[ArtieE]

1robin:

So what is the probability of getting a universe where not only life but exactly YOU exist 1robin? Can you calculate the odds against that? They must be much lower than getting a universe with just some sort of "life" in it. So the only explanation is that exactly YOU were designed and created on purpose. Correct?

 

[idav]

1robin:

So what is the probability of getting a universe where not only life but exactly YOU exist 1robin? Can you calculate the odds against that? They must be much lower than getting a universe with just some sort of "life" in it. So the only explanation is that exactly YOU were designed and created on purpose. Correct?

Can I get the odds of a being even having the ability to calculate that during the big bang stages?