Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That why he needs you to speak for him then eh?
He already did. Sadly it appears that you did not understand the post.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why the Cosmological Argument Fails
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
He already did. Sadly it appears that you did not understand the post.
Yet here you are speaking for him again. Very odd.
This syllogism is a rather disingenuous rendering of the cosmological argument. It requires that “the universe” is just a particular example of “everything,” in the same way that the famous syllogism about Socrates' mortality requires that he is a particular example of “all men”. But, in fact, “universe” is commonly defined as “everything”--at least everything that is spatially and temporally bounded. Thus, I reject the syllogism as sound.
And I certainly do not conceive of any “failure” in positing God as the ultimate or primary cause, as the cosmological argument spells out. “Primary cause” is just basically the idea (or an important aspect of the idea) that one is trying to express by the term “God,” analogous to the fact that a structure where people live is the basic idea one is trying to express by use of the word “house”.
Correct. The concept of "God" then resolves the problem of what caused what you refer to as the "Natural Laws".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, i am trying to figure out why you could not understand a very straight forward post.
Is that a scientific proposal? How would we go about testing that hypothesis? Is "multiverse" actually a distinct concept from "God"?
I understood it perfectly. I just disagree and your can't accept that.
I assume what you mean here is that humans' current understanding of "the laws of physics" and "the history of the universe" is a "work in progress". Or are you saying that "the laws of physics" and "the history of the universe" change?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Scientists Think They Know How to Test The Parallel Universes Theory - For Real
And no, the multi-verse would not be "God". Gods are thought to be autonomous beings where the multi-verse may simply exist.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If you understood it you could support your claim. Your inability to do so informs us that that is not the case.
This.
If you don't understand my objection from my post you don't understand his idea either. So therefore I am not wasting my time arguing with people who don't even fully understand their own ideas. Let him speak for himself and zip it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I understood your objection. It was based upon a false assumption of yours.
Cool, we agree to disagree then. Moving on.
As to 1. No, that's wrong. QM tells us that cause (as the word is used in classical physics) is not involved in an uncountable number of phenomena that happen every second. One example is the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay. Another is the spontaneous formation of particle-antiparticle pairs that instantly self-annihilate, giving rise to the Casimir effect (which thus has an uncaused cause).
As to 2. The universe may have had a beginning. Or it may be that the concept is misleading.
If mass-energy preexisted the Big Bang, then our universe was not the beginning we're talking about (though it's often taken to be the 'beginning' that Genesis starts with). It seems an irresistible conclusion to me that it did pre-exist. The alternative is not Krauss's 'nothing', which allows the existence of underlying quantum phenomena and thus implies a place for them to exist in. A true nothing would have neither mass-energy nor dimensions, would not be anywhere or anywhen or within any frame where such ideas could apply, but would instead be non-existent in every sense.
And if time is a quality of mass-energy, then time exists because mass-energy does, not vice versa, hence time is not an independent element of our continuum but simply a mass-energy phenomenon, with no particular beginning, or with as many beginnings as you please. That hypothesis is neither demonstrated nor rebutted.
As to 3. Therefore the universe may or may not have had a cause (as the word is used in classical physics). But whether there ever was a 'beginning', or simply mass-energy, or something else, is an open question.
Last edited:
The claim @Polymath257 made was that "in most descriptions, the multiverse doesn't have a beginning." The idea that the multiverse doesn't have a beginning is what I was asking about as to whether it is scientific and how one would test that hypothesis. What do you say--is the hypothesis that the multiverse doesn't have a beginning falsifiable?
Why don't you try responding to the question I asked? I didn't ask any question about any multitude of "Gods".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The article I linked explained how the multiverse hypothesis may be tested. The idea of a perpetual multiverse may be impossible to test, but the idea of a mutliverse may be testable. At best I can say that the perpetual hypothesis is not falsifiable today. That does not mean that will always be the case.
And you asked if the multiverse was "God" if I remember correctly, or something to that effect.
ETA: You asked this:
"Is "multiverse" actually a distinct concept from "God"?"
And my answer of how a multiverse would not be autonomous did answer that question.
I don't know how to test it, either. It doesn't sound like a scientific hypothesis to me.
"Autonomous" means "not subject to control from outside; independent". the definition of autonomous What supposedly controls "the multiverse" from the outside? What outside of itself is "the multiverse" supposedly dependent upon?
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I don't correlate necessary being with any religion myself. I find that outlandish. But the liebnizian cosmological argument succeeds in that a necessary being is likely to have caused organic life on earth. It's not deductive, but it works inductively. I wouldn't call necessary being God whatsoever.
As currently stands induction is all humans have. But it's enough to determine likelihood of a necessary being.