There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

Other scientists too are beginning to question whether there's a "guiding force" behind life and the universe-

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."-Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"- Paul Davies (British astrophysicist), The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"- George Greenstein (astronomer),1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27

"When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."- Tony Rothman (physicist),Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483

"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist, I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."- Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics), 1994 The Physics of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, preface.

"We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.."- Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician),Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57

"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one"- Ed Harrison (cosmologist),Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.

"Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed"- Barry Parker (cosmologist),Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.

"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe."- Galileo

Well, I will be cutting and pasting this into my notebook for future reference.

 

[Shad]

If one rejects neo-Lorentzian view which the KCA is now based on the argument fails. There is good reason to reject it in favor of SR. Neo-Lorentzian is based on a unproven and unfalsifiable metaphysical concept which anyone is free to reject.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Other scientists too are beginning to question whether there's a "guiding force" behind life and the universe-

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."-Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"- Paul Davies (British astrophysicist), The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"- George Greenstein (astronomer),1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27

"When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."- Tony Rothman (physicist),Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483

"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist, I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."- Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics), 1994 The Physics of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, preface.

"We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.."- Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician),Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57

"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one"- Ed Harrison (cosmologist),Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.

"Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed"- Barry Parker (cosmologist),Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.

"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe."- Galileo

This is called "quote mining". There is a world of difference between saying "scientists are beginning to believe there is a 'guiding force' in the universe" and "here is a bunch of random, out-of-context quotes by scientists that mention a conception of God or religion".

I would be very interested to see these scientists whom you have quoted response if you directly asked them "Does science indicate the existence of God". Once you get them all unanimously agreeing with you, THEN you might actually have a case. As it is, all this is just a poor, fallacious argument.

 

[cottage]

Form and matter is in want of a cause. That cause is the big bang.

As I’ve already explained, that is not being disputed.


The Kalam Argument

P1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
P2. The universe began to exist
P3. Therefore the universe has a cause

You cannot go from P2 to the conclusion: “Therefore, the universe has a cause”, without demonstrating (P1) “Everything that begins to exist has a cause”. And you cannot use the universe as an exemplar without arguing in a circle! But of course advocates of the argument tacitly understand this problem, and so the only recourse left to them is to make an argument from incredulity (which rather leaves the essence of argument high and dry) by appealing to causation as if it were a logically necessary truth, which of course it isn’t. That the universe began to exist does not logically imply necessity in the absolute statement "Anything that begins to exist has a cause"

So once again all that can be inferred is this:

1. The universe began to exist
2. Everything in the universe has a cause
C. Everything in the universe began to exist

ex nihilo nihil fit
The idea that “anything begins to exist has a cause” is basically an affirmation of ex nihilo nihil fit, which is Latin for “from nothing, nothing comes.” In other words, it is not the case that things pop into being uncaused out of nothing.

It doesn’t make sense that our own observable sphere puts constraints on nothingness where there would otherwise be none, because nothingness isn’t anything, so there’s literally nothing to constrain regardingre sensible to view nothingness qua nonbeing as simply having no potential for something to come into being out of it.) One can’t exactly inhibit the cause of something popping into being when there’s literally no cause. If things can pop into being uncaused (i.e. no efficient cause and no material cause), they can do so anywhere at any time precisely because there is no cause

I would like a crisp UK twenty Pound note for every occasion that I’ve had to deal with this misleading argument.

It is not being proposed that the world came into being ex nihilo in the sense that the world came into being from nothing. That is plainly absurd; “nothing” is not a productive or a causal principle. But there is no contradiction in something appearing where before there was nothing, that is to say existing uncaused.

The writer is saying, in his own words, that “it is not the case that things pop into being uncaused out of nothing.” No, there isn’t, not in the natural world. But if there was once nothing at all prior to the Big Bang, no natural world or anything else, then there would have been no contingent laws such as causation but also no logically necessary truths or mind dependent principles of thought. And thus with no demonstrable law of causation no objection can be made to the world existing uncaused, and for the same reason the entire causal principle is without meaning in prior nothingness. But if we reject the idea of a prior nothingness and propose a pre-existing cause of the world then the laws of thought apply to that cause just as they apply to the world, but that leads to an absurdity for not only will that First Cause be dependent upon the world and its contingent features in order to make the argument to the world a an effect but also upon the logical laws that enable their denial. So we can hypothesise from this actual world to think of it as once not existing and from which it follows that there would have been no logical laws to be affirmed or denied. Possible worlds exist or might exist and where there are possible worlds there will be logical principles entailing that possibility since ‘possibility’ is a logical predicate; but if there were no worlds other than this, the actual world, then necessity and contingency will only have meaning as concepts within the world and cannot therefore be an explanation for beings or causes external to the world.

With respect, I would rather you gave me an argument in your own words instead of copying and pasting articles from the internet. Otherwise the result is that I feel I'm just arguing with the writer who of course is not able to respond to my replies.

 

[cottage]

I do not believe that you have shown that that the cosmological arguments are specious on the two first premises and I do not recognise or hold to the other three premises, therefore, God is not proven to be logically wrong, but, I am sure that you didn't expect a devout Christian to accept your argument anyway. I to have done a great deal of study and Philosophy of Religion, probably without scepticism, and have concluded that a superior intelligence is the only real answer for our existence, that is, where did we come from, what is our purpose, and where are we going. A reason for being and not a death sentence on the death row of life.

Forgive me, but I would appreciate an actual argument to the points I've raised, rather than you simply saying "God is not proven to be logically wrong."

Also I would be interested to hear your conclusions on "our purpose" etc, because the very idea seems unintelligible to me.

 

[Serenity7855]

This is called "quote mining". There is a world of difference between saying "scientists are beginning to believe there is a 'guiding force' in the universe" and "here is a bunch of random, out-of-context quotes by scientists that mention a conception of God or religion".

I would be very interested to see these scientists whom you have quoted response if you directly asked them "Does science indicate the existence of God". Once you get them all unanimously agreeing with you, THEN you might actually have a case. As it is, all this is just a poor, fallacious argument.

Ah hah, just what the sceptic atheist say as soon as it looks like their belief is being exposed. Even if Jesus Christ were to descend right in front of your eyes and slap you across the face with a wet fish you would still come up with an excuse, a but, or a movement of the goal post, rather then lower your prise into believing it. How do you debate with such people whose minds are well and truly closed?

 

[Serenity7855]

Forgive me, but I would appreciate an actual argument to the points I've raised, rather than you simply saying "God is not proven to be logically wrong."

I have given the argument.

I do not believe that you have shown that that the cosmological arguments are specious on the two first premises and I do not recognise or hold to the other three premises, therefore, God is not proven to be logically wrong

I am challenging your interpretation of both premise one and two as you have not adequately refuted either of them, especially premise one.

I have then challenged your unsubstantiated statement saying that you have proven God is logically impossible. You have used a criteria that is alien to me, which I have never seen or ever laid claim to. I suppose you could prove God logically wrong by using it but that does not relate to me or my defence of KCA. It is nonsensical and outside of the remit of this debate. You cannot enter into a debate that you claim will render KCA as ineffective and then throw in a 5 part cosmological argument at me that barely resembles KCA. That is absurd.

Also I would be interested to hear your conclusions on "our purpose" etc, because the very idea seems unintelligible to me.

Our purpose for life is contained within the plan of Salvation. It is quite a complex plan that would require time and a great deal of effort to elucidate to you. It is all in the bible so if you have studied the philosophy of theism you will no doubt be fully familiar with it. It is the reason for our very existence and the goal of all Christians, eternal life with our father in heaven.

 

[Serenity7855]

See if you can post just a single response on topic and without a personal attack.

Flew was an atheist in regard to the Christian god, and died an atheist towards tye Christian god.
A few disreputable Christians deliberately misrepresented him.

What are you actually contesting about what I have claimed? Can you actually engage like an adult and respond ONLY to the point under contention?

You seem to actually agree with me - you say that you never said it wasn't true.
So if what I said is true, and you do not contest that -HOW WAS I DISCREDITING HIM? And what was aggressive about me pointing out facts that you are not even contesting?

Shuttlecraft quoted the words of Dr Flew in this debate. The correct response should have been to challenge his words, however, you, being a disruptive poster, went for Dr Flew jugular and critiqued his person and his integrity. Typical of the type of atheist you are. Win by any means possible whether honest or surreptitiously.

 

[Serenity7855]

As I’ve already explained, that is not being disputed.

So, can I confirm, for the record. You are not disputing that "Anything that begins to exist has a cause" or that."The universe began to exist". Am I correct?

The Kalam Argument

P1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
P2. The universe began to exist
P3. Therefore the universe has a cause

You cannot go from P2 to the conclusion: “Therefore, the universe has a cause”, without demonstrating (P1) “Everything that begins to exist has a cause”. And you cannot use the universe as an exemplar without arguing in a circle! But of course advocates of the argument tacitly understand this problem, and so the only recourse left to them is to make an argument from incredulity (which rather leaves the essence of argument high and dry) by appealing to causation as if it were a logically necessary truth, which of course it isn’t. That the universe began to exist does not logically imply necessity in the absolute statement "Anything that begins to exist has a cause"

Right, so at the instant, just prior to the big bang, what would we find? The singularity, which means what? Nobody knows what the singularity is, by deductive reasoning it is nothing. Absolutely nothing, no mass, energy, time or dimensions. What is this nothing doing in whatever sphere it exists. It is doing nothing. All the time it is doing nothing it will continue to do nothing because it is nothing. Only when it is acted upon by something will it stop being nothing. What was the something that acted upon the nothing to change its state of nothingness? Simple question. This is the extent of human reasoning. We can surmise and speculate all we like but we believe that a body will stay in its current state unless acted upon by another force or cause. If you say that it could have come into being without a cause then you are saying that a God could have caused it as both are equally speculative.

It’s important to keep in mind that “anything that begins to exist has a cause” is using the phrase “has a cause” in a way to include both material and efficient causes, such that it means “anything that begins to exist has a [material or efficient] cause.” Put another way, the first premise means “it is not the case that something begins to exist with no efficient cause and no material cause.” Something beginning to exist with no efficient cause and no material cause constitutes that something coming into being from nothing, with “something coming into being from nothing” meaning that something comes into being but it doesn’t come into being from anything (no efficient cause and no material cause). So the first premise is basically just an affirmation of ex nihilo nihil fit.

Back latter to finish it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So, can I confirm, for the record. You are not disputing that "Anything that begins to exist has a cause" or that."The universe began to exist". Am I correct?

The Kalam Argument

P1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
P2. The universe began to exist
P3. Therefore the universe has a cause

The Kalam argument fails terribly when we look at what its actually trying to say. The Kalam argument states "anything that begins to exist has a cause" but that is only within the construct of the universe. Nothing is being destroyed or created. Things are simply being re-arranged. We have never observed "something being created" from "nothing".

So the argument is already working on a false premise based on inaccurate usage of terms. So no. There is no logical argument saying the universe required a "cause". It may very well have required a cause but we don't know that for sure. Though if it did have a cause why would we ever assume it was god?

 

[cottage]

I have given the argument.

No you haven’t! Address the actual arguments please.

I am challenging your interpretation of both premise one and two as you have not adequately refuted either of them, especially premise one.

Then please give me your argument in reply to this:

The Kalam Argument

P1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
P2. The universe began to exist
P3. Therefore the universe has a cause

You cannot go from P2 to the conclusion: “Therefore, the universe has a cause”, without demonstrating “Anything that begins to exist has a cause”. For nothing in the universe begins to exist, and you cannot use the universe as a whole as an exemplar without arguing in a circle!
So all that can be stated is:

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

The premises are valid and the conclusion is sound. It is the only argument that can be soundly inferred, in fact it is tautological.

I have then challenged your unsubstantiated statement saying that you have proven God is logically impossible. You have used a criteria that is alien to me, which I have never seen or ever laid claim to.

Well I’m sorry but this is all just waffle. I didn’t give you an “unsubstantiated statement” I presented you with formal arguments, comprising premises and conclusions.
1.Assume God created the world
2. It is irrational to say a personal being freely and intentionally created the world for no purpose
3. He did create the world for a purpose (he wanted a relationship with mankind)
4. Therefore there was a need or purpose that benefitted God
5. The Supreme Being requires nothing since he is perfectly complete and entire
6. If 5 is not true then God is not the Supreme Being.
7. Premise 5 is true by definition
8. God had needs, desires, or unfulfilled wishes (4)
9. Therefore God is not the all-sufficient Supreme Being
If the premises are true then the conclusion that follows must also be true.

We can summarise the above argument like this:

P1: If God is the Supreme Being then he wants for nothing
P2: God wanted a relationship with his creation
Conclusion: God is not the Supreme Being

I suppose you could prove God logically wrong by using it but that does not relate to me or my defence of KCA. It is nonsensical and outside of the remit of this debate. You cannot enter into a debate that you claim will render KCA as ineffective and then throw in a 5 part cosmological argument at me that barely resembles KCA. That is absurd.

Oh come on now! The purpose of the cosmological arguments is to prove the existence of God. If God is logically impossible then the Kalam argument fails to do what its advocates’ claim. The Leibniz cosmological argument is not the Kalam, but is reckoned by many theist philosophers to be the strongest case for God, a necessary being. Might I suggest you Google it?

Our purpose for life is contained within the plan of Salvation. It is quite a complex plan that would require time and a great deal of effort to elucidate to you. It is all in the bible so if you have studied the philosophy of theism you will no doubt be fully familiar with it. It is the reason for our very existence and the goal of all Christians, eternal life with our father in heaven.

I didn’t study theology; I studied The Philosophy of Religion, which examines the arguments for and against the existence of God. And in regard to your last sentence I have already given you an argument up the page to demonstrate how God wanting a relationship with his creation is logically absurd.

 

[cottage]

So, can I confirm, for the record. You are not disputing that "Anything that begins to exist has a cause" or that."The universe began to exist". Am I correct?

No, you are not. I thought I’d already made absolutely plain to many times since we began this discussion that “The universe began to exist is not disputed.” The disputed premise is “Anything (i.e. everything) that begins to exist has a cause.”

Right, so at the instant, just prior to the big bang, what would we find? The singularity, which means what? Nobody knows what the singularity is, by deductive reasoning it is nothing. Absolutely nothing, no mass, energy, time or dimensions. What is this nothing doing in whatever sphere it exists. It is doing nothing. All the time it is doing nothing it will continue to do nothing because it is nothing. Only when it is acted upon by something will it stop being nothing. What was the something that acted upon the nothing to change its state of nothingness? Simple question.

Begging the question actually, or the fallacy of finding for an argument's conclusion in advance.

This is the extent of human reasoning. We can surmise and speculate all we like but we believe that a body will stay in its current state unless acted upon by another force or cause. If you say that it could have come into being without a cause then you are saying that a God could have caused it as both are equally speculative.

Well no, they very clearly are not the same in any respect. As I demonstrated in my argument God cannot cause something to exist from himself. And nor can he create something ex nihilo, i.e. from nothing. But something can exist where before there was nothing without involving any contradiction.

[I've put the following in italics as you are quoting another]It’s important to keep in mind that “anything that begins to exist has a cause” is using the phrase “has a cause” in a way to include both material and efficient causes, such that it means “anything that begins to exist has a [material or efficient] cause.” Put another way, the first premise means “it is not the case that something begins to exist with no efficient cause and no material cause.” Something beginning to exist with no efficient cause and no material cause constitutes that something coming into being from nothing, with “something coming into being from nothing” meaning that something comes into being but it doesn’t come into being from anything (no efficient cause and no material cause). So the first premise is basically just an affirmation of ex nihilo nihil fit.

Point 1.
No, because as I’m having to continually point out it isn’t being stated absurdly that something has come from nothing.

Point 2. An efficient cause can only be demonstrated if the conclusion is true, but you cannot move from P2 to the conclusion: “Therefore, the universe has a cause”, without demonstrating “Anything that begins to exist has a cause”. For nothing in the universe begins to exist, but only changes form, ex-materia, and therefore the universe as a whole beginning to exist cannot be used to argue for (P1) as an efficient cause without recourse to a circular argument.

 

[Serenity7855]

The Kalam argument fails terribly when we look at what its actually trying to say.

If the Kalam argument was to ever fail for any reason, which it could, as nothing is set in stone, it will never fail terribly. That is your belief based on your intellect and knowledge. It is also not trying to say anything, it is an argument.

The Kalam argument states "anything that begins to exist has a cause" but that is only within the construct of the universe.

The Kalam argument states nothing, it is an argument. Secondly, the universe is all we know. As I have already said, if you speculate that it cannot be cause and effect outside of the construct of the universe, then, you will be speculating. If you say that it works outside of the constructs of the universe then you are again speculating. By that logic that you are suggesting you can just as easily say that the universe was brought into existence by a God, as that to is speculation. Nobody knows what is possible I the state that existed pre-big bang so how can you say that cause ad effect were not possible. If you can then you have the floor as your knowledge is far greater then mine.

Nothing is being destroyed or created. Things are simply being re-arranged. We have never observed "something being created" from "nothing".

You are talking about the conservation of energy. That is that everything comes from energy but it changes it's form from a tree to a chair to a bone fire. Something cannot be made from nothing. It has to be created first. The creation of energy was at the point when t>=0. But you are forgetting one phenomena that science takes very seriously. Matter and anti-matter that when combined equals nothing. So ex nihilo nihil fit is not strictly true and in time maybe proven totally wrong. That is how science works.

So the argument is already working on a false premise based on inaccurate usage of terms. So no. There is no logical argument saying the universe required a "cause". It may very well have required a cause but we don't know that for sure. Though if it did have a cause why would we ever assume it was god?

Why not?

 

[Serenity7855]

Cottage

Originally Posted by Serenity7855 View Post
[I've put the following in italics as you are quoting another]It’s important to keep in mind that “anything that begins to exist has a cause” is using the phrase “has a cause” in a way to include both material and efficient causes, such that it means “anything that begins to exist has a [material or efficient] cause.” Put another way, the first premise means “it is not the case that something begins to exist with no efficient cause and no material cause.” Something beginning to exist with no efficient cause and no material cause constitutes that something coming into being from nothing, with “something coming into being from nothing” meaning that something comes into being but it doesn’t come into being from anything (no efficient cause and no material cause). So the first premise is basically just an affirmation of ex nihilo nihil fit.

There is no need for you to do that. If you were to read post 2553 you can see that I have already posted the paragraph and linked it. That is only 19 posts back. But thank you for your concern, I am sure that the future will bring an opportunity for me to receprocate the courtesy.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If the Kalam argument was to ever fail for any reason, which it could, as nothing is set in stone, it will never fail terribly. That is your belief based on your intellect and knowledge. It is also not trying to say anything, it is an argument.

The Kalam argument states "anything that begins to exist has a cause" but that is only within the construct of the universe.

The Kalam argument states nothing, it is an argument. Secondly, the universe is all we know. As I have already said, if you speculate that it cannot be cause and effect outside of the construct of the universe, then, you will be speculating. If you say that it works outside of the constructs of the universe then you are again speculating. By that logic that you are suggesting you can just as easily say that the universe was brought into existence by a God, as that to is speculation. Nobody knows what is possible I the state that existed pre-big bang so how can you say that cause ad effect were not possible. If you can then you have the floor as your knowledge is far greater then mine.

The point of an argument is to argue a point. To say the Kalam argument "says nothing" would be erroneous. However it is not simply an opinion but objectifiable fact that the basis for the Kalam argument is not based in what is "known" and therefore the "necessity" is not there.

We have not seen anything "created". Everything that the Kalam argument is based upon (which deals with cause and effect) has to do with the transference of energy. Causality only works with change. Not creation.

But yes. Its possible the universe was created by god. But there is no evidence to support this as of yet. It could have been created by unicorns, another dimension in a multiverse or something beyond our understanding or imagination.

You are talking about the conservation of energy. That is that everything comes from energy but it changes it's form from a tree to a chair to a bone fire. Something cannot be made from nothing. It has to be created first. The creation of energy was at the point when t>=0. But you are forgetting one phenomena that science takes very seriously. Matter and anti-matter that when combined equals nothing. So ex nihilo nihil fit is not strictly true and in time maybe proven totally wrong. That is how science works.

The way science works is that we must go off of the current best explanation. If and when science gathers enough evidence for the facts to change then they change. But stating that it may change in the future does nothing to strengthen an argument running counter to its current understanding.

Though if we are going to talk about science and exceptions to the rules quantum mechanics already proves that causality isn't always required and that things can happen without an understood cause.

Why not?

I don't know of anyone who is arguing that it would be impossible for the universe to have been created by a god. But I do know that I'm arguing that its both unlikely and unsupported by scientific understanding. Its no more likely thank unicorns.

 

[cottage]

Cottage

There is no need for you to do that. If you were to read post 2553 you can see that I have already posted the paragraph and linked it. That is only 19 posts back. But thank you for your concern, I am sure that the future will bring an opportunity for me to receprocate the courtesy.

Of course I knew the passage was a quote otherwise I wouldn’t have highlighted the fact here! But the point is that others just coming to the thread and reading it might not!

 

[Serenity7855]

No you haven’t! Address the actual arguments please.

I have given the argument.

I do not believe that you have shown that the cosmological arguments are specious on the two first premises and I do not recognise or hold to the other three premises, therefore, God is not proven to be logically wrong

Then please give me your argument in reply to this:

The Kalam Argument

P1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
P2. The universe began to exist
P3. Therefore the universe has a cause

You cannot go from P2 to the conclusion: “Therefore, the universe has a cause”, without demonstrating “Anything that begins to exist has a cause”.

Why do you believe you cannot go from premise 2 to the conclusion. It is a straight forward conclusion of two premises, one following the other. I am afraid that if you want me to answer it then you will have to explain better what it is that goes beyond your perception.

For nothing in the universe begins to exist, and you cannot use the universe as a whole as an exemplar without arguing in a circle!
So all that can be stated is:

You are laying down unreasonable constraints that attempt to curtail the truth. The universe began to exist from nothing. Nothing in our universe has ever began to exist from nothing, therefore, we have no presidence to ex nihilo nihil fit. And now I am back to what I have already posted.

Right, so at the instant, just prior to the big bang, what would we find? The singularity, which means what? Nobody knows what the singularity is, by deductive reasoning it is nothing. Absolutely nothing, no mass, energy, time or dimensions. What is this nothing doing in whatever sphere it exists. It is doing nothing. All the time it is doing nothing it will continue to do nothing because it is nothing. Only when it is acted upon by something will it stop being nothing. What was the something that acted upon the nothing to change its state of nothingness? Simple question, you would think. This is the extent of human reasoning. We can surmise and speculate all we like but we believe that a body will stay in its current state unless acted upon by another force or cause. If you say that it could have come into being without a cause then you are saying that a God could have caused it as both are equally speculative.

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

The premises are valid and the conclusion is sound. It is the only argument that can be soundly inferred, in fact it is tautological.

If it is, as you say, tautological, then you must have based it on the original KCA which must also be correct. It is not the same as KCA. The premises are erroneous and produce no sound argument.

1. The universe began to exist "correct"

2. Everything in the universe has a cause "incorrect" .

The universe has a cause, everything in it was caused by the same cause that caused the universe, your circular argument, not mine. Ultimately the cause of the universe, if there was one, is responsible for everything else in the universe existing. If that cause we're God, and there is no logical reason for it not to have been God, then your kitchen chair was created as a result of Gods causation. Even the intelligence of the craftsman who constructed it comes from God, God is th creator of everything, if he was responsible for causing the universe to come into existence, however, that is an unknown for me and for you which is why Kalams cosmological argument is just that, an argument.

C. Everything in the universe began to exist (including cause)

No, the universe began to exist, everything else stems from that one event.

Well I’m sorry but this is all just waffle.

would it be fair of me to say that your opinion is pure drivel, because that is what I now want to say in retaliation to your insult. I respect your opinion just because you believe in it. I naturally don't, but that does not give me a right to say it is waffle. Please stick to the debate. You might be right but I will never know unless to debate with a degree of decorum.

I didn’t give you an “unsubstantiated statement” I presented you with formal arguments, comprising premises and conclusions.
1.Assume God created the world
2. It is irrational to say a personal being freely and intentionally created the world for no purpose
3. He did create the world for a purpose (he wanted a relationship with mankind) "what makes you say this. He is a perfected being. He cannot go anywhere near us without his perfection being tarnished and his godhead being rescinded."
4. Therefore there was a need or purpose that benefitted God. Quite so, he did it all for us, his children.
5. The Supreme Being requires nothing since he is perfectly complete and entire true
6. If 5 is not true then God is not the Supreme Being.true
7. Premise 5 is true by definition
8. God had needs, desires, or unfulfilled wishes (4) Absolutely Not True
9. Therefore God is not the all-sufficient Supreme Being irrelevant, as premise 8 is not trueIf the premises are true then the conclusion that follows must also be true.irrelevant, as premise 8 is not true

We can summarise the above argument like this:

P1: If God is the Supreme Being then he wants for nothing
P2: God wanted a relationship with his creationa physical impossibility - not true
Conclusion: God is not the Supreme Being Not true or even a plausible consideration., therefore, God is the Supreme being

Oh come on now! The purpose of the cosmological arguments is to prove the existence of God.

That is not true. The purpose of KCA is to demonstrate that it could be God. That is why atheists are so determined to keep the door closed on the argument. They still the truth because to admit it would go against their entire ethos and the would have to bow down to a greater knowledge then science. I understand it. I would hate to spend all of the time I have spent and the commitments I have made to have it proven to me that I am wrong. I would hang on by the skin of my teeth. It is a pride thing

If God is logically impossible then the Kalam argument fails to do what its advocates’ claim.

And that is the whole problem with this line of debate. "IF"

The Leibniz cosmological argument is not the Kalam, but is reckoned by many theist philosophers to be the strongest case for God, a necessary being. Might I suggest you Google it?

Thank you for your suggestion, I most certainly will Google it but at this moment I am sceptical.

I didn’t study theology; I studied The Philosophy of Religion, which examines the arguments for and against the existence of God. And in regard to your last sentence I have already given you an argument up the page to demonstrate how God wanting a relationship with his creation is logically absurd.

it is not that he doesn't want a relationship with us as much as he cannot have a relationship directly with us. In the garden of Eden God walked and talked with Adam and Eve. As soon as they fell from grace his presence could not be made available to them. They had become immortal being and therefore sinners. God cannot dwell in defiled temples. That job is down to the influence of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Serenity7855]

No, you are not. I thought I’d already made absolutely plain to many times since we began this discussion that “The universe began to exist is not disputed.” The disputed premise is “Anything (i.e. everything) that begins to exist has a cause.”

So, can I confirm, for the record. You are not disputing that "Anything that begins to exist has a cause" or that."The universe began to exist". Am I correct?

With all due respects I cannot accept that everything In the universe had a cause simply because the initial cause was the big bang, everything else followed on from that

Begging the question actually, or the fallacy of finding for an argument's conclusion in advance.

I said;

Only when it is acted upon by something will it stop being nothing. What was the something that acted upon the nothing to change its state of nothingness?

Well it is hardly in advance when it was 13.7 billion years ago. I am speculating using the knowledge that is currently possessed by cosmology. Neither you or I can provide and factual evidence to corroborate our claims, which is why I can reasonably state that it could have been God as much as you can say that it is not. No different to me saying that God lives and you saying he doesn't

Well no, they very clearly are not the same in any respect.

If you can say that it came into being without a cause then you are speculating because you do not know that. It is equally as likely if I say that God brought it into existence because I do not know that. Both cases are pure speculation, therefore my statement that both are equally speculative is true.

As I demonstrated in my argument God cannot cause something to exist from himself.

I agree with that.

And nor can he create something ex nihilo, i.e. from nothing.

Then you know more about god then I do. It seems unlikely, however, I do not know that. There is a perfectly reasonable argument for the existence of matter and anti-matter that when combined equals nothing.

But something can exist where before there was nothing without involving any contradiction.

Sorry, but you have stumped me. I do not understand what point you are making.

Point 1.
No, because as I’m having to continually point out it isn’t being stated absurdly that something has come from nothing.

Then what are you saying, my friend, because I am not arguing that something coming from nothing is absurd I am saying that we do not know what nothing is so we do not know if something can come from it.

Point 2. An efficient cause can only be demonstrated if the conclusion is true, but you cannot move from P2 to the conclusion: “Therefore, the universe has a cause”, without demonstrating “Anything that begins to exist has a cause”.

I really am trying to see what you see, but I cannot see any reason why you cannot go from "the universe had a beginning, to" therefore, the universe had a cause", even if the cause was cause-less. It is impossible to demonstrate that everything that comes into existence has a cause because everything that exists has the same cause, the big bang. It really comes down to how you define what comes into existence. The chair in its current form has never existed until someone caused it to exist. The car did not exist as a car until t was manufactured. If you look at the car as a lump of elements then you can say that the began to exist at the big bang, but that is unrealistic.

For nothing in the universe begins to exist, but only changes form, ex-materia, and therefore the universe as a whole beginning to exist cannot be used to argue for (P1) as an efficient cause without recourse to a circular argument.

The universe is everything. The universe came into existence, everything that comes into existence has a cause. Seem like a perfectly sound premise to me.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

This is a typical atom, and there are four possibilities-
1- It blinked into existence out of nowhere of its own accord
2- It was created by a super-intelligence (God)
3- It has always existed
4- It's not real but is an illusion

Which is the most likely? And have I missed out any other possibilities?

 

[Serenity7855]

The point of an argument is to argue a point.

Yes, I agree with you and I am enjoying hearing the challenges, some of which have caused me to seriously contemplate their implications.

To say the Kalam argument "says nothing" would be erroneous.

Again I agree, however, it is metaphysical in nature and therefore unprovable.

However it is not simply an opinion but objectifiable fact that the basis for the Kalam argument is not based in what is "known" and therefore the "necessity" is not there.

That it is a possibility is irrelevant as it cannot be proven. It is a argument that is worthy of consideration but we do not know anything about the singularity so my speculation that it was God is a metaphysical speculation, as is any supposition.

We have not seen anything "created". Everything that the Kalam argument is based upon (which deals with cause and effect) has to do with the transference of energy. Causality only works with change. Not creation.

You don't know that any more than I do. That is pure conjecture based on our current knowledge of universal laws, but we do not have any knowledge about the singularity.

But yes. Its possible the universe was created by god. But there is no evidence to support this as of yet. It could have been created by unicorns, another dimension in a multiverse or something beyond our understanding or imagination.

And this is the point I am making. " Its possible the universe was created by god" that is all that I am saying. That it could have been created by a unicorn is unrealistic and insulting to an inquiring mind, however, the possibility of a multiverse is very interesting and a possibility that I would also consider.

The way science works is that we must go off of the current best explanation. If and when science gathers enough evidence for the facts to change then they change. But stating that it may change in the future does nothing to strengthen an argument running counter to its current understanding.

Then why do you suppose that so many scientists make that very claim. That dark energy and matter are phenomena that is currently beyond the explanation of science, but that in the future they will aquire the knowledge to know exactly what they are

Though if we are going to talk about science and exceptions to the rules quantum mechanics already proves that causality isn't always required and that things can happen without an understood cause.

Quantum physics does no such thing of the sort. Naturalistic laws do not apply to quantum sub-automic levels. That excludes cause and effect.

I don't know of anyone who is arguing that it would be impossible for the universe to have been created by a god. But I do know that I'm arguing that its both unlikely and unsupported by scientific understanding. Its no more likely thank unicorns.

It is unsupported by science because God is undefinable and therefore is not a consideration. I know posters right here who are so aggressive in their non-belief that they are certain that the universe was not brought into existence by a God. You are obviously not one of those atheists. I would, however, disagree with your belief that it runs equal to unicorns.