@H

[Omega]

Should I even bother to address El Jonno's ad hominem filled diatribe against WLC, or should I merely dismiss it for what it so painfully obviously is - an embarrassing, ironically self-righteous, hate filled, emotional attack which is filled with scientific gaffes skewered upon misunderstandings of arguments, scientific theories, philosophical matters piled upon even more ad hominems?

Oh and spelling errors and the use of the word "lolz"?

?

[Sigz]

Alright, let me get this straight: it's inconceivable that the/a multiverse (or our universe, if you're going to subscribe to something like CCC) had no beginning, thus the only solution is that some other "timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent" entity caused it?

[El JoNNo]

You said if yourself; our universe began to exist. This means that space, time, energy, and matter began to exist. This necessitates the cause of the universe to be beyond time, energy, space and matter. Denying this would only lead to the fallacious conclusion that the universe, before coming into existence, began to exist. That conclusion is, though patently and ludicrously illogical.

No it would not, get off your WLC high. Our universe came to being but there was existence before the universe. Why do you not understand this? We cannot measure beyond the Big Bang because of our current state of technology but scientist are working on doing so right now. 

So let's say that the universe is part of a multiverse, for which there is no evidence for and which was thought up merely to attempt to evade the conclusion of the beginning of existence of our universe.

No it wasn't. Why the hell would you think that? There is no reason to believe that the Big Bang hasn't happened else where, at the moment we only have evidence of one.

But all you are doing is merely extending the same problem and the same conclusion to the problem at once; the existence of the multiverse itself would require an explanation. So all you are doing is merely extending the problem of beginning of existence to the multiverse.

Yes, exactly! Why is that an issue? You see science follows evidence, it doesn't make stuff and then attempt to twist the evidence in it's favour.

Should I even bother to address El Jonno's ad hominem filled diatribe against WLC, or should I merely dismiss it for what it so painfully obviously is - an embarrassing, ironically self-righteous, hate filled, emotional attack which is filled with scientific gaffes skewered upon misunderstandings of arguments, scientific theories, philosophical matters piled upon even more ad hominems?

Oh and spelling errors and the use of the word "lolz"?

?

No please, I would like to know exactly where I'm wrong considering I actually read the article in which WLC is attempting to use as a defense. I do find it funny that you are are claiming that I am self-righteous when all you have done is put me down and not address any of my arguments. If you think merely reposting what WLC said in his video is a rebuttal, you are sorely mistaken. 

[Omega]

You said if yourself; our universe began to exist. This means that space, time, energy, and matter began to exist. This necessitates the cause of the universe to be beyond time, energy, space and matter. Denying this would only lead to the fallacious conclusion that the universe, before coming into existence, began to exist. That conclusion is, though patently and ludicrously illogical.

No it would not, get off your WLC high. Our universe came to being but there was existence before the universe. Why do you not understand this? We cannot measure beyond the Big Bang because of our current state of technology but scientist are working on doing so right now. 

So let's say that the universe is part of a multiverse, for which there is no evidence for and which was thought up merely to attempt to evade the conclusion of the beginning of existence of our universe.

No it wasn't. Why the hell would you think that? There is no reason to believe that the Big Bang hasn't happened else where, at the moment we only have evidence of one.

But all you are doing is merely extending the same problem and the same conclusion to the problem at once; the existence of the multiverse itself would require an explanation. So all you are doing is merely extending the problem of beginning of existence to the multiverse.

Yes, exactly! Why is that an issue? You see science follows evidence, it doesn't make stuff and then attempt to twist the evidence in it's favour.

Should I even bother to address El Jonno's ad hominem filled diatribe against WLC, or should I merely dismiss it for what it so painfully obviously is - an embarrassing, ironically self-righteous, hate filled, emotional attack which is filled with scientific gaffes skewered upon misunderstandings of arguments, scientific theories, philosophical matters piled upon even more ad hominems?

Oh and spelling errors and the use of the word "lolz"?

?

No please, I would like to know exactly where I'm wrong considering I actually read the article in which WLC is attempting to use as a defense. I do find it funny that you are are claiming that I am self-righteous when all you have done is put me down and not address any of my arguments. If you think merely reposting what WLC said in his video is a rebuttal, you are sorely mistaken.

I have highlighted the areas of your post that made me do this a couple of times: 

[El JoNNo]

Wow, you don't have a rebuttal, you just have a closed mind. You don't have a rebuttal or an explanation beyond Craig's lies. Please think for yourself or continue to enjoy your ignorance. It's your choice.

[Ħ]

Alright, let me get this straight: it's inconceivable that the/a multiverse (or our universe, if you're going to subscribe to something like CCC) had no beginning, thus the only solution is that some other "timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent" entity caused it?

In my thinking, two issues of our universe need to be explained.

- Our universe had a cause.  Pretty intuitive, I don't think anyone disagrees.
- Time had a beginning, whether it began with our universe or outside our universe.  I can't remember the name of the argument for this, but I remember how it went.  Basically, if the past is infinite, we'd never be in the present, because it would take an infinite amount of time for the past to become the present.  Hopefully someone who is better-versed in this argument can help me out.

Our universe's cause can be explained by God, a multiverse, or whatever you want.  What is clear is that our universe's cause must be "extrauniversal".  Yes my vocabulary's shoddy but I'm working on it and hopefully you get my point.  Our universe's cause must be (or must have been, at the time) outside of our universe.  And, to go a step further, whatever caused our multiverse must be "extramultiversal".  If you really want to get technical, there's a line that stops the otherwise infinite regress of causes, whether that be at the universal level, the multiversal level, or beyond.  But for now, I'll just use the word "extrauniversal" as an adjective to describe the first cause to everything.

The fact that time began to exist must mean it had a cause to its existence.  Because time did not exist before it was caused to exist, the cause of time existed without time.  So, the cause of time is "timeless" (at least when time did not exist).

We can call the cause to time "God".  We can attribute to God the qualities of "extrauniversal" and "timeless".  In other words, there was an extrauniversal, timeless cause to everything we know today.  Something can't cause itself, so God must be these things.

Through philosophy, I agree that we can't call God "changeless", "immaterial", "omnipotent", "omniscient", "loving", "holy", "just" or whatever.  That stuff comes with religion.  But what is clear is that there exists (or had existed) an extrauniversal, timeless thing that caused both our universe/multiverse/etc and time.

[GuineaPig]

Alright, let me get this straight: it's inconceivable that the/a multiverse (or our universe, if you're going to subscribe to something like CCC) had no beginning, thus the only solution is that some other "timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent" entity caused it?

In my thinking, two issues of our universe need to be explained.

- Our universe had a cause.  Pretty intuitive, I don't think anyone disagrees.

I don't think this is intuitive.  I don't see why the universe always existing is just as plausible.  Either way, there's no way one can say for sure.

- Time had a beginning, whether it began with our universe or outside our universe.  I can't remember the name of the argument for this, but I remember how it went.  Basically, if the past is infinite, we'd never be in the present, because it would take an infinite amount of time for the past to become the present.  Hopefully someone who is better-versed in this argument can help me out.

Part of the problem may be that there's a lot of complex physics that you don't understand (and frankly, I don't either).  Time isn't absolute.  It's relative, and does not exist without matter.  To say that "time had a beginning" like someone started a cosmic stopwatch is pretty off-base.

The fact that time began to exist must mean it had a cause to its existence.  Because time did not exist before it was caused to exist, the cause of time existed without time.  So, the cause of time is "timeless" (at least when time did not exist).

Expanding from before, the expansion of the universe from the focal point of the Big Bang brought "time" to what we'd today pinpoint as the relative location of the Earth in spacetime.  It ain't that simple.

[Ħ]

I don't think this is intuitive.  I don't see why the universe always existing is just as plausible.  Either way, there's no way one can say for sure.

From a philosophical perspective, everything that is some way had a cause to it being that way.  All you need to do is assume consistency (which is what we see in nature), and we can say that the universe began at some point.  From a scientific perspective, evidence points to the universe expanding (and accelerating) outward. 

Part of the problem may be that there's a lot of complex physics that you don't understand (and frankly, I don't either).  Time isn't absolute.  It's relative, and does not exist without matter.  To say that "time had a beginning" like someone started a cosmic stopwatch is pretty off-base.

Good point.  This argument could change in the future if we discover new things about the nature of time.  But going off what we know, time must have had a beginning.  It's relative speed means nothing.  Whether time is moving quickly or slowly makes no difference in the infinite space between the past and the present if we assume that time has always existed.

Expanding from before, the expansion of the universe from the focal point of the Big Bang brought "time" to what we'd today pinpoint as the relative location of the Earth in spacetime.  It ain't that simple.

Not sure what you're getting at here.  I think I agree.  What you're saying is that the universe had a beginning and now we're here.  Okay.  Great.

[Sigz]

From a scientific perspective, evidence points to the universe expanding (and accelerating) outward. 

It does seem that the evidence points to this particular instance of our universe having a beginning (a distinction I should have made earlier), however that does not necessarily mean that the universe itself had to have a beginning.

[Ħ]

From a scientific perspective, evidence points to the universe expanding (and accelerating) outward. 

It does seem that the evidence points to this particular instance of our universe having a beginning (a distinction I should have made earlier), however that does not necessarily mean that the universe itself had to have a beginning.

How so?  If we assume consistency, does it matter what particular instance we're in to make a call on whether or now the universe had a beginning?

[GuineaPig]

Philosophy doesn't have much bearing on science.

[Sigz]

From a scientific perspective, evidence points to the universe expanding (and accelerating) outward. 

It does seem that the evidence points to this particular instance of our universe having a beginning (a distinction I should have made earlier), however that does not necessarily mean that the universe itself had to have a beginning.

How so?  If we assume consistency, does it matter what particular instance we're in to make a call on whether or now the universe had a beginning?

What I mean is if you assume something like CCC theory or big crunch, the universe as it is now had a start (the big bang), but can still have been in existence forever.

[Ħ]

Philosophy doesn't have much bearing on science.

Science is based on philosophy.

From a scientific perspective, evidence points to the universe expanding (and accelerating) outward. 

It does seem that the evidence points to this particular instance of our universe having a beginning (a distinction I should have made earlier), however that does not necessarily mean that the universe itself had to have a beginning.

How so?  If we assume consistency, does it matter what particular instance we're in to make a call on whether or now the universe had a beginning?

What I mean is if you assume something like CCC theory or big crunch, the universe as it is now had a start (the big bang), but can still have been in existence forever.

Okay.  I'll admit I'm not 100% familiar with all the start-of-the-universe theories, but, no matter what, something caused it to either exist or to "start" (if there's a difference between the two) and that something has to be outside the universe for anything to make sense.

[Omega]

Philosophy doesn't have much bearing on science.

You'd be surprised. Especially when speaking of uncaused causes, and the nature of nothingness.

[Omega]

From a scientific perspective, evidence points to the universe expanding (and accelerating) outward. 

It does seem that the evidence points to this particular instance of our universe having a beginning (a distinction I should have made earlier), however that does not necessarily mean that the universe itself had to have a beginning.

How so?  If we assume consistency, does it matter what particular instance we're in to make a call on whether or now the universe had a beginning?

What I mean is if you assume something like CCC theory or big crunch, the universe as it is now had a start (the big bang), but can still have been in existence forever.

No, because there is not enough entropy in the universe to warrant a re-coalescence of space-time. We know the fate of our universe; heat death.

[GuineaPig]

Philosophy doesn't have much bearing on science.

Science is based on philosophy.

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Philosophy doesn't have much bearing on science.

You'd be surprised. Especially when speaking of uncaused causes, and the nature of nothingness.

Then maybe it could clear up some of the gaps in our logic about gravitation.

[Omega]

It does seem that the evidence points to this particular instance of our universe having a beginning (a distinction I should have made earlier), however that does not necessarily mean that the universe itself had to have a beginning.

Translated:

"Yes, I concede that scientific evidence points overwhelmingly to the beginning of existence of our universe, yet I'm not about to accept that our universe had a beginning because I stubbornly refuse to do so."

[Omega]

I don't think this is intuitive.  I don't see why the universe always existing is just as plausible.  Either way, there's no way one can say for sure.

Because science has revealed that it is entirely implausible! Re-iterating once again; if the universe were here for an infinite amount of time, all its free energy would be spent and the universe would have reached heat death an infinite amount of time ago, not to mention the problem of an infinite amount of past time-events!

Expanding from before, the expansion of the universe from the focal point of the Big Bang brought "time" to what we'd today pinpoint as the relative location of the Earth in spacetime.  It ain't that simple.

If a universe exhibits space-time expansion greater than 0, the universe began to exist.

[El JoNNo]

Again.. Space existed before the big bang, the inflation of the universe did not come from nothing. Lawrence Krauss explains this in his lecture "A universe from nothing".

[Ħ]

Philosophy doesn't have much bearing on science.

Science is based on philosophy.

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

You're flat-out wrong on this one.  Physics and chemistry were once called "natural philosophy".

[Sigz]

From a scientific perspective, evidence points to the universe expanding (and accelerating) outward. 

It does seem that the evidence points to this particular instance of our universe having a beginning (a distinction I should have made earlier), however that does not necessarily mean that the universe itself had to have a beginning.

How so?  If we assume consistency, does it matter what particular instance we're in to make a call on whether or now the universe had a beginning?

What I mean is if you assume something like CCC theory or big crunch, the universe as it is now had a start (the big bang), but can still have been in existence forever.

No, because there is not enough entropy in the universe to warrant a re-coalescence of space-time. We know the fate of our universe; heat death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_Cyclic_Cosmology

Just because you believe that you know the beginning and the end of the universe doesn't mean that there aren't valid theories that disagree with you.

[GuineaPig]

Philosophy doesn't have much bearing on science.

Science is based on philosophy.

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

You're flat-out wrong on this one.  Physics and chemistry were once called "natural philosophy".

And the modern-day scientific method bears very little resemblance to it.  "Scientific philosophy" nowadays is called pseudoscience.

[El JoNNo]

Philosophy doesn't have much bearing on science.

Science is based on philosophy.

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

You're flat-out wrong on this one.  Physics and chemistry were once called "natural philosophy".

And the modern-day scientific method bears very little resemblance to it.  "Scientific philosophy" nowadays is called pseudoscience.

Good sir I would quite go that far, at least the colloquial definition of pseudoscience. On the whole i agree the Scientific method and Philosophy are very different. 

[Ħ]

Science is based on the assumptions that the laws of physics are consistent, that logic works, and that empiricism can be used to prove anything at all.  Those assumptions are all reached through philosophy.

[Omega]

From a scientific perspective, evidence points to the universe expanding (and accelerating) outward. 

It does seem that the evidence points to this particular instance of our universe having a beginning (a distinction I should have made earlier), however that does not necessarily mean that the universe itself had to have a beginning.

How so?  If we assume consistency, does it matter what particular instance we're in to make a call on whether or now the universe had a beginning?

What I mean is if you assume something like CCC theory or big crunch, the universe as it is now had a start (the big bang), but can still have been in existence forever.

No, because there is not enough entropy in the universe to warrant a re-coalescence of space-time. We know the fate of our universe; heat death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_Cyclic_Cosmology

Just because you believe that you know the beginning and the end of the universe doesn't mean that there aren't valid theories that disagree with you.

Yes, I know of the other proposed theories. Yet they've proven to be completely unlikely to occur. The most likely end-universe scenario is the heat death scenario. Most reputable physicists agree on this.

[eric42434224]

Interesting that some must assume that the universe had a "beginning" and "cause", and that a "god" must have caused it, making "god" timeless and without cause.  And every regression back enevitable leads to the prime mover.  Why cant it be just as reasonable that the universe/multiverse/megaverse/at&t-u-verse/whatever itself is the prime mover?  Why must one use the explanation of a "god" when it isnt really necessary?  Why cant the universe itself be the timeless entity itself?

[Sigz]

Yet they've proven to be completely unlikely to occur.

Any source for this at all?


Either way though, it's irrelevant. Even if you assume that the universe has a distinct beginning (which is quite possible/likley), it's a massive leap in logic to assume that that beginning must have been caused by something "omnipotent, immaterial, timeless, and changeless", i.e. God - as much so to assume that there's a multiverse, or anything else. I know you argue that whatever multiverse may exist would have to have a beginning itself, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that besides the fact that it's convenient for you.

[Ħ]

Interesting that some must assume that the universe had a "beginning" and "cause", and that a "god" must have caused it, making "god" timeless and without cause.  And every regression back enevitable leads to the prime mover.  Why cant it be just as reasonable that the universe/multiverse/megaverse/at&t-u-verse/whatever itself is the prime mover?  Why must one use the explanation of a "god" when it isnt really necessary?  Why cant the universe itself be the timeless entity itself?

How can something cause itself?  We know of nothing in the natural world that can do that.  It's a huge leap of faith to attribute something like that to the universe.

Yet they've proven to be completely unlikely to occur.

Any source for this at all?


Either way though, it's irrelevant. Even if you assume that the universe has a distinct beginning (which is quite possible/likley), it's a massive leap in logic to assume that that beginning must have been caused by something "omnipotent, immaterial, timeless, and changeless", i.e. God - as much so to assume that there's a multiverse, or anything else. I know you argue that whatever multiverse may exist would have to have a beginning itself, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that besides the fact that it's convenient for you.

It's about consistency.  Everything we know has a beginning, and (especially if the universe has a beginning) it follows that a hypothetical multiverse would also have a beginning.

[eric42434224]

]How can something cause itself? 

It doesnt cause itself.  It has always existed.  It is the prime mover.  My point is that the prime mover doesnt have to be a god.  It can be the universe itself, or the multiverse, or whatever.  It doesnt have to be a personified omnipotent entity.  It could just "be".

]
We know of nothing in the natural world that can do that.  It's a huge leap of faith to attribute something like that to the universe.

Wait, it is a huge leap of faith to attribute it to the universe, but it is acceptable to attribute it to a personified omnioptent being that takes personal interest in the lives of humans on a non-descript rock, in an arm of a one non-descript galaxy out of trillions?  Ok.

[Sigz]

Everything we know has a beginning

How so? Technically speaking no one has proven that matter has a beginning, so in reality nothing we know has a beginning.

[Ħ]

It doesnt cause itself.  It has always existed.  It is the prime mover.  My point is that the prime mover doesnt have to be a god.  It can be the universe itself, or the multiverse, or whatever.  It doesnt have to be a personified omnipotent entity.  It could just "be".

Cool.  You gave me a new word.  "Prime mover".  Nice.  Well, I was explicit to not attribute anything to "God" (i.e. the Prime Mover) other than he must be outside of space and time.  You guys keep saying that I'm calling God "omnipotent" or "personal", which is something I've been careful to not do.  Please don't bring it up again.

Everything we know has a beginning

How so? Technically speaking no one has proven that matter has a beginning, so in reality nothing we know has a beginning.

Sorry.  What I should have said is that everything we know has a cause for being what it is and in the state that it's in.

[eric42434224]

It doesnt cause itself.  It has always existed.  It is the prime mover.  My point is that the prime mover doesnt have to be a god.  It can be the universe itself, or the multiverse, or whatever.  It doesnt have to be a personified omnipotent entity.  It could just "be".

Cool.  You gave me a new word.  "Prime mover".  Nice.  Well, I was explicit to not attribute anything to "God" (i.e. the Prime Mover) other than he must be outside of space and time.  You guys keep saying that I'm calling God "omnipotent" or "personal", which is something I've been careful to not do.  Please don't bring it up again.

I didnt say that you said anything.  And dont tell me what I can or cant bring up.  OK Thnx.

[GuineaPig]

Everything we know has a beginning

How so? Technically speaking no one has proven that matter has a beginning, so in reality nothing we know has a beginning.

Sorry.  What I should have said is that everything we know has a cause for being what it is and in the state that it's in.

Not really.  Besides the things that happen randomly (can't really call those "causes"; mechanisms would be more apt), there's plenty of stuff that happens on the quantum level that has no rhyme nor reason.

[Ħ]

It doesnt cause itself.  It has always existed.  It is the prime mover.  My point is that the prime mover doesnt have to be a god.  It can be the universe itself, or the multiverse, or whatever.  It doesnt have to be a personified omnipotent entity.  It could just "be".

Cool.  You gave me a new word.  "Prime mover".  Nice.  Well, I was explicit to not attribute anything to "God" (i.e. the Prime Mover) other than he must be outside of space and time.  You guys keep saying that I'm calling God "omnipotent" or "personal", which is something I've been careful to not do.  Please don't bring it up again.

I didnt say that you said anything.  And dont tell me what I can or cant bring up.  OK Thnx.

This is what you said:

Wait, it is a huge leap of faith to attribute it to the universe, but it is acceptable to attribute it to a personified omnioptent being that takes personal interest in the lives of humans on a non-descript rock, in an arm of a one non-descript galaxy out of trillions?  Ok.

That has nothing to do with this discussion.

Everything we know has a beginning

How so? Technically speaking no one has proven that matter has a beginning, so in reality nothing we know has a beginning.

Sorry.  What I should have said is that everything we know has a cause for being what it is and in the state that it's in.

Not really.  Besides the things that happen randomly (can't really call those "causes"; mechanisms would be more apt), there's plenty of stuff that happens on the quantum level that has no rhyme nor reason.

To that I'd say that we can't say for sure whether or not there is a cause.  At any rate, behavior is still predictable, in the sense that there are probabilities associated with quantum mechanics and the randomness is governed by those probabilities.  But everything else has a definitive cause, so I'd say that "All things have a cause" is a fair default position. With something as macroscopic as the universe, I think a Newtonian approach is best anyway.

[Vivace]

And Hef will vomit with laughter at this guy, he's a joke. I can handle some of the other apologists because they at sound like they genuinely believe what they are saying. There is something about Craig that anything he says makes him sound like an ass. It's bad enough that most of his statements/claims are terrible.

I think the same things about Dawkins. Scanning through the wiki page I find Craig intriguing. The guy actually is using syllogistic arugmentation when it comes to philosophy which basically means he's Aristotelian in his background. That's a plus right there. For those who disagree with him, please provide your counter argument.