DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Ħ on March 20, 2012, 09:29:22 PM
-
The KCA:
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
So far, I haven't seen a single good objection to the second premise. And I think most people are on board here - the universe began to exist a finite amount time ago. It's the first premise that has been the bigger target here on DTF. I don't think it's an implausible premise, myself, but mostly because its only alternative ("Whatever begins to exist does not have a cause") is absurd.
But there is one objection that's been raised which really gets me. and it's rooted in "mereological nihilism". That's the view that no individual 'thing' actually exist as things more than the materials that make it up; rather, they are material arrangement in the shape of those things. Because the human brain is evolutionarily trained to think macroscopically, humans have designated names for commonly encountered material arrangements in the human experience. These names are ultimately arbitrary categories. Thus, things like 'chairs', 'stars', and the concept of 'I' do not exist in reality as anything other than the arrangement of matter into the shape of those things.
On this view, nothing ever begins to exist. 'I' did not begin to exist at conception, when my first cell's 46 chromosomes got mashed together for the first time. 'I' have existed since the beginning of the universe, because the material that makes up 'me' has existed since the beginning of the universe. Therefore, the premise "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" has no ground in what we see in reality, because nothing has ever actually begun to exist.
tldr; just click the link v
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism)
It's probably better at explaining this than me.
So...what do we think about this? If it's true, I believe it could destroy the KCA, as we are then simply speculating about Premise 1. But the KCA still could be true, and I'm willing to buy Premise 1 because its opposite just doesn't make sense at all.
If it's false, then I think the KCA stands quite firmly where it's at.
One possible objection that came to mind as possible key to refuting MN is that if "only basic building blocks without parts" exist, then, well, you're led to the eventual conclusion that nothing exists at all. You could chop matter in half an infinite number of times and show that everything is made of 'parts'. Even atoms, while not technically divisible, can be chopped up into the 'right half of the atom' and the 'left half of the atom', etc.
Of course, if the eventual conclusion 'nothing exists' is false, then one of the premises of MN is false. No idea which one, though.
Aaaaand..........we're open for debate.
-
I didn't know there was a name for it, but this argument has been touched on before by myself and others here, and it's definitely a big reason I oppose (1). To me, we have no actual basis to believe that that 'existence' has a cause. Everything we know as being 'caused' to exist has, in reality, just been rearranged. We are, after all, made of star stuff.
-
Video Titled: "6. Worst Objection to Kalam Cosmological Argument: Nothing Ever Begins to Exist!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qn5V6Cgg1o
-
Yeah that's where I got the term. But I don't think Craig dislodges it at all.
-
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Nothing ever begins to exist.
-
Sweet mother of strawmen that was bad. The first half wasn't even an argument, and when he finally did get around to serious argument he just reasserted his initial premise.
-
Okay, so if you're an mereological nihilist, you have to say, "I do not exist." But by saying 'I' you are saying you exist. So you're basically saying 'My existence does not exist' which is a contradiction?
EDIT:
1) If fundamental particles arranged universe-wise begin to exist, they have a cause.
2) The fundamental particles arranged universe-wise began to exist.
3) Therefore, fundamental particles arranged universe-wise have a cause.
Well, there you go.
-
Okay, so if you're an mereological nihilist, you have to say, "I do not exist." But by saying 'I' you are saying you exist. So you're basically saying 'My existence does not exist' which is a contradiction?
You're using either two or three definitions of existence interchangeably. 'Sigz' does not exist. A collection matter that lots of people call and recognize as Sigz does exist.
Basically, saying "I was born therefore I began to exist" is not analogous to saying that matter itself began to exist.
-
After meeting Sigz personally, I can attest that Sigz does in fact not exist.
Either way, axiom 1 that is being used in either of these things hasn't been proven.
-
After meeting Sigz personally, I can attest that Sigz does in fact not exist.
Same. I mean, I thought I met a dude with glasses and an awesome beard. But in reality, I, as a collection of fundamental particles, just met another collection of fundamental particles and 'enjoyed' an evening experiencing energy waves transmitted through a collection of fundamental particles that collections of fundamental particles called "humans" call "air", witnessing three separate collections of fundamental particles called "Sheri", "Stacy" and "Chauntelle" interacting with their respective collections of fundamental particles called "instruments", thereby producing the aforementioned energy waves. But none of these things actually existed, of course. Well, maybe the beard.
-
That's the view that no individual 'thing' actually exist as things more than the materials that make it up; rather, they are material arrangement in the shape of those things. Because the human brain is evolutionarily trained to think macroscopically, humans have designated names for commonly encountered material arrangements in the human experience. These names are ultimately arbitrary categories. Thus, things like 'chairs', 'stars', and the concept of 'I' do not exist in reality as anything other than the arrangement of matter into the shape of those things.
I agree with this, I just don't agree that with where you take it. A "chair" is indeed a fabrication of our own minds and experiences, which are perceptive to certain features of reality (but obviously not all), but it is a fabrication using parts we did not make. There is something which is, which we all perceive, but that something is not what we experience, and so falls outside of the realm of proof. I remember an Indian professor I had, who gave me an old Buddhist? metaphor, comparing mankind to blind men all touching and holding different parts of an elephant, while attesting that what they feel is all that an elephant is.
As I brought up before, color is an amazing example of how this is true. We see color, but color is not some feature of reality. Magenta even more so. Yet, color is reproducible because it comes from something which is a feature of reality. How can we be sure other features which we experience aren't similar to color? Time seems like a prime candidate. It's not constant, it's relative, and our experience of it is rather... sporadic. There appears to be some feature of reality which gives rise to our experience of time - which is why we can measure it; and we can all show up at the same spot, at the same time (well, not exactly the same time). But yet what that is? The same thing as space?
But the KCA still could be true, and I'm willing to buy Premise 1 because its opposite just doesn't make sense at all.
Why does it need to be the opposite?
You could chop matter in half an infinite number of times and show that everything is made of 'parts'. Even atoms, while not technically divisible, can be chopped up into the 'right half of the atom' and the 'left half of the atom', etc.
Well that atom is divisible (unless you mean the theoretical atom, which traditionally meant the smallest, nondivisble particle of matter). So far, the more we look microscopically at the world, the more we find; and the more we look at the universe macroscopically, the we find. To say there has to be a limit to this is just assuming that there is an end, and ignores that things "end" and "begin" due to a human mind and a human perspective defining them as ending and beginning.
-
But the KCA still could be true, and I'm willing to buy Premise 1 because its opposite just doesn't make sense at all.
Why does it need to be the opposite?
The way I see it you have three options.
(a) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(b) Whatever begins to exist does not have a cause.
(c) Whatever begins to exist sometimes has a cause.
(a) just makes the most sense to me.
Well that atom is divisible (unless you mean the theoretical atom, which traditionally meant the smallest, nondivisble particle of matter). So far, the more we look microscopically at the world, the more we find; and the more we look at the universe macroscopically, the we find. To say there has to be a limit to this is just assuming that there is an end, and ignores that things "end" and "begin" due to a human mind and a human perspective defining them as ending and beginning.
Are you agreeing with me? The way I see it, there's no limit to how far you can break something down. And if there's no limit to breaking something down, then either (a) everything exists in composite form or (b) nothing exists at all.
-
Video Titled: "6. Worst Objection to Kalam Cosmological Argument: Nothing Ever Begins to Exist!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qn5V6Cgg1o
This objection obviously confuses a thing with the matter or stuff of which the thing is made.
If a "thing" is not the same as what it is made up of, then that "thing" merely amounts to form. Form is in constant flux; as soon as one form begins to exist, it also ceases to be.
-
I guess one way to look at it is that a composite may have different properties than its parts. An individual water molecule is light. Put together a bunch of individual water molecules to make a composite that is heavy. I watched a different vid of this analogy, but can't find it...basically it's a fallacy to say the properties of a composite are identical to the properties of the parts.
-
Nothing ever begins to exist.
This thread has descended into people claiming they don't exist.
I guess one way to look at it is that a composite may have different properties than its parts. An individual water molecule is light. Put together a bunch of individual water molecules to make a composite that is heavy. I watched a different vid of this analogy, but can't find it...basically it's a fallacy to say the properties of a composite are identical to the properties of the parts.
Yes, the fallacy of composition. Yet another fallacy is being committed here: the taxicab fallacy; atheists often claim that everything that begins to exist is true of everything in the universe but is not true of the universe itself. Everything in the universe has an explanation, but the universe has no explanation. But you can't say that everything has an explanation for its existence and then suddenly exempt the universe. It would be arbitrary for the atheist to claim that the universe is the exception to the rule. Merely increasing an object to the size of the universe does nothing to remove the need for some explanation for its existence.
Also
Video Titled: "4. Worst Objection to Kalam Cosmological Argument: Fallacy of Composition"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjIfCEBDbG0&list=PL916E17EE70E98A68&index=70&feature=plpp_video
Why Everything That Begins To Exist Has a Cause:
1.) Something cannot come from nothing.
2.) If something can come from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing.
3.) Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1.
-
Since this thread is about the universe, then maybe it needs to be properly defined. This is what wiki says:
The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists, including all matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space.
If we're talking about the totality of everything that exists, then that would include God if God is something that exists. I propose we use "Universe" for totality and "universe" for other definitions such as only all matter.
-
I would hesitate to include unprovable and unobserved entities into the definition of the universe.
rumborak
-
1.) Something cannot come from nothing.
2.) If something can come from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing.
3.) Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1.
Have't you lectured us a dozen times on how space isn't 'nothing'? By that we have absolutely no experience, personal or scientific, of nothing.
-
I would hesitate to include unprovable and unobserved entities into the definition of the universe.
There doesn't need to be any argument about what it does or doesn't include other than if it includes everything that exists or only potentially everything that exists.
-
1.) Something cannot come from nothing.
2.) If something can come from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing.
3.) Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1.
Have't you lectured us a dozen times on how space isn't 'nothing'? By that we have absolutely no experience, personal or scientific, of nothing.
This is actually a good point.
For the sake of clarity, let us define two terms.
1) nothing = matterless area that occupies space
2) Nothing = no thing, including material, space, time, etc.
We can say quite a bit about "nothing", because it's all around us. We know that "nothing" can produce particles out of energy on the quantum level. We know that something can come from "nothing", and yes, Craig and Omega affirm this.
But the argument actually revolves around whether or not something can come from "Nothing", one of the conditions involving the beginning of the universe. It is tempting to ask that "if something could come from 'Nothing', why don't we observe this all the time?" But in reality, now that the universe is here, "Nothing" doesn't actually exist! So how could we possibly know if something can't come out of "Nothing"?
Nevertheless, even though we don't have any experience of "Nothing", I still think it's more plausible that (a) something cannot come from "Nothing" than (b) something can come from "Nothing". And if we assume (a) is true, then I think that cosmological argument thinking (not necessarily the KCA for MN reasons) flows pretty smoothly.
-
However, keep in mind that we see exactly that "something comes from nothing" behavior when we try to get the nothing as close to Nothing as possible. That is, we see the generation of particles when we try to completely empty space.
So, one could argue that maybe "something from Nothing" is actually more natural.
Additionally, there are also formulations of physics that don't have a concept of space(time). That's called Relationism. In that viewpoint nothing is the same as Nothing, and thus the generation of particles actually would come from the true Nothing.
rumborak
-
I find relationshism hard to fathom though, considering that the geometry/curvature of space itself affects the motions of bodies.
-
It relies on Mach's principle, which I find fascinating. I've been meaning to read up on Ernst Mach.
Regarding spacetime itself, it is somewhat superfluous though, isn't it? It doesn't "exist" in the way particles do, and we can only ever infer its supposed existence by how it acts on particles. And the shape of it is determined by the particles around it.
rumborak
-
However, keep in mind that we see exactly that "something comes from nothing" when we try to get the nothing as close to Nothing as possible. That is, we see the generation of particles when we try to completely empty space.
So, one could argue that maybe "something from Nothing" is actually more natural.
So the pattern is that as you approach Nothing, you see more particles. Could you source this? I'm not calling you out; I just don't have a tremendous amount of knowledge regarding quantum mechanics aside from a few elementary physics courses.
Besides, remember that in Nothing, you have zero energy. From my (limited) understanding of quantum mechanics, I know that energy is a requirement.
Additionally, there are also formulations of physics that don't have a concept of space(time). That's called Relationism. In that viewpoint nothing is the same as Nothing, and thus the generation of particles actually would come from the true Nothing.
Could you explain this bit?
-
But the KCA still could be true, and I'm willing to buy Premise 1 because its opposite just doesn't make sense at all.
Why does it need to be the opposite?
The way I see it you have three options.
(a) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(b) Whatever begins to exist does not have a cause.
(c) Whatever begins to exist sometimes has a cause.
(a) just makes the most sense to me.
Well, it making sense to you doesn't really mean much, if what I say is true.
And in the given discussion, part of the debate is about weather or not the thing in question began to exist. You and I began to exist, but does that mean the thing which makes us up began to exist? We can still exist as an emergent property of a form, while not being the exact thing which makes us up.
Well that atom is divisible (unless you mean the theoretical atom, which traditionally meant the smallest, nondivisble particle of matter). So far, the more we look microscopically at the world, the more we find; and the more we look at the universe macroscopically, the we find. To say there has to be a limit to this is just assuming that there is an end, and ignores that things "end" and "begin" due to a human mind and a human perspective defining them as ending and beginning.
Are you agreeing with me? The way I see it, there's no limit to how far you can break something down. And if there's no limit to breaking something down, then either (a) everything exists in composite form or (b) nothing exists at all.
[/quote]
You could also say that everything exists as part of something else. The puts the emphasis on the whole of which we are a part, instead of the parts that make us up.
And why is this is a big deal? A never ending universe is just as stupefying as one that ends and began.
1) nothing = matterless area that occupies space
Is that possible? Unless you mean that said area of space doesn't contain some energy, which would mean outside of the known universe.
I guess one way to look at it is that a composite may have different properties than its parts. An individual water molecule is light. Put together a bunch of individual water molecules to make a composite that is heavy. I watched a different vid of this analogy, but can't find it...basically it's a fallacy to say the properties of a composite are identical to the properties of the parts.
Exactly, which is also another good reason why we can't talk about the whole nature of the universe, given that what we know is just a minuscule, tiny part of it. That would be like trying to define the whole, based upon the properties of part of it.
Yet another fallacy which the Cosmological argument relies upon.
-
But the KCA still could be true, and I'm willing to buy Premise 1 because its opposite just doesn't make sense at all.
Why does it need to be the opposite?
The way I see it you have three options.
(a) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(b) Whatever begins to exist does not have a cause.
(c) Whatever begins to exist sometimes has a cause.
(a) just makes the most sense to me.
Well, it making sense to you doesn't really mean much, if what I say is true.
And in the given discussion, part of the debate is about weather or not the thing in question began to exist. You and I began to exist, but does that mean the thing which makes us up began to exist? We can still exist as an emergent property of a form, while not being the exact thing which makes us up.
Dude, the OP and the majority of posts in the thread address this very issue.
Well that atom is divisible (unless you mean the theoretical atom, which traditionally meant the smallest, nondivisble particle of matter). So far, the more we look microscopically at the world, the more we find; and the more we look at the universe macroscopically, the we find. To say there has to be a limit to this is just assuming that there is an end, and ignores that things "end" and "begin" due to a human mind and a human perspective defining them as ending and beginning.
Are you agreeing with me? The way I see it, there's no limit to how far you can break something down. And if there's no limit to breaking something down, then either (a) everything exists in composite form or (b) nothing exists at all.
You could also say that everything exists as part of something else. The puts the emphasis on the whole of which we are a part, instead of the parts that make us up.
And why is this is a big deal? A never ending universe is just as stupefying as one that ends and began.
It's a big deal because it's at the heart of what "existence" means. And a universe that had a beginning and will eventually fizzle may be stupefying to you, but that's reality.
1) nothing = matterless area that occupies space
Is that possible? Unless you mean that said area of space doesn't contain some energy, which would mean outside of the known universe.
Quantum particles emerge out of energy gradient. That is what "nothing" refers to in this case. Matterless space that is affected by energy gradients.
I guess one way to look at it is that a composite may have different properties than its parts. An individual water molecule is light. Put together a bunch of individual water molecules to make a composite that is heavy. I watched a different vid of this analogy, but can't find it...basically it's a fallacy to say the properties of a composite are identical to the properties of the parts.
Exactly, which is also another good reason why we can't talk about the whole nature of the universe, given that what we know is just a minuscule, tiny part of it. That would be like trying to define the whole, based upon the properties of part of it.
Yet another fallacy which the Cosmological argument relies upon.
Actually, you're very wrong here.
"X began to exist" is our second premise. "X" constitutes an object. The universe is an object. To say the universe began to exist is well-supported and rational.
-
However, keep in mind that we see exactly that "something comes from nothing" behavior when we try to get the nothing as close to Nothing as possible. That is, we see the generation of particles when we try to completely empty space.
So, one could argue that maybe "something from Nothing" is actually more natural.
Additionally, there are also formulations of physics that don't have a concept of space(time). That's called Relationism. In that viewpoint nothing is the same as Nothing, and thus the generation of particles actually would come from the true Nothing.
rumborak
Rumborak, H, I think it would be better to make the distinction
a.) Being / Existence
b.) Non-Being / Non-existence
rather than
a.) nothing
b.) Nothing
A contingent object cannot come from non-being into being. Quantum fluctuations, again, are not events that occur in the absence of being, or existence, but rather in its presence. Something cannot come into being from non-being. Existence cannot come into being from non-existence. This is a rather basic philosophical and logical principle established long ago by the ancient Greek philosophers that is always supported by modern science, common experience, and the same, underlying pillars of logic and philosophy that are maintained today. This principle is also never falsified.
From personal experience, I understand that you hate it when I sound like a broken record ( :sadpanda:) yet I think it bears re-iterating that quantum events quite obviously do not occur in the absence of existence, being.
-
However, keep in mind that we see exactly that "something comes from nothing" when we try to get the nothing as close to Nothing as possible. That is, we see the generation of particles when we try to completely empty space.
So, one could argue that maybe "something from Nothing" is actually more natural.
So the pattern is that as you approach Nothing, you see more particles. Could you source this? I'm not calling you out; I just don't have a tremendous amount of knowledge regarding quantum mechanics aside from a few elementary physics courses.
Virtual particles, the ones we're talking about here, manifest themselves around the level of the vacuum energy, which is the lowest amount the space can have because it can't go below (which comes to my point that nature doesn't seem to like nothingness). At that level particles (and their symmetric anti-particles) are spontaneously generated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
Additionally, there are also formulations of physics that don't have a concept of space(time). That's called Relationism. In that viewpoint nothing is the same as Nothing, and thus the generation of particles actually would come from the true Nothing.
Could you explain this bit?
In Relationism, the point is taken up that spacetime aren't really necessary to describe interactions between particles and energy. You can completely describe physical processes solely as functions of the interacting particles, with no need for spacetime at all. And if you don't something, then you should do away with (Occam).
So, if there really is only interacting particles, and no real "space" between them, the spontaneous generation of virtual particles means that those were truly coming from Nothing.
rumborak
-
But the KCA still could be true, and I'm willing to buy Premise 1 because its opposite just doesn't make sense at all.
Why does it need to be the opposite?
The way I see it you have three options.
(a) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(b) Whatever begins to exist does not have a cause.
(c) Whatever begins to exist sometimes has a cause.
(a) just makes the most sense to me.
Well, it making sense to you doesn't really mean much, if what I say is true.
And in the given discussion, part of the debate is about weather or not the thing in question began to exist. You and I began to exist, but does that mean the thing which makes us up began to exist? We can still exist as an emergent property of a form, while not being the exact thing which makes us up.
Dude, the OP and the majority of posts in the thread address this very issue.
I know, it's why I responded to your argument about it? I'm addressing the assumptions made in your argument, and addressing how those assumptions are just. We could easily, and logically, and justifiably, make other assumptions that reach different conclusions, or reach no conclusion at all.
Well that atom is divisible (unless you mean the theoretical atom, which traditionally meant the smallest, nondivisble particle of matter). So far, the more we look microscopically at the world, the more we find; and the more we look at the universe macroscopically, the we find. To say there has to be a limit to this is just assuming that there is an end, and ignores that things "end" and "begin" due to a human mind and a human perspective defining them as ending and beginning.
Are you agreeing with me? The way I see it, there's no limit to how far you can break something down. And if there's no limit to breaking something down, then either (a) everything exists in composite form or (b) nothing exists at all.
You could also say that everything exists as part of something else. The puts the emphasis on the whole of which we are a part, instead of the parts that make us up.
And why is this is a big deal? A never ending universe is just as stupefying as one that ends and began.
It's a big deal because it's at the heart of what "existence" means. And a universe that had a beginning and will eventually fizzle may be stupefying to you, but that's reality.
I'm sorry, but that theory is not proven, and you're using any theory on the matter wrong, in order to claim that it's reality that the universe began and will eventually fizzle.
1) nothing = matterless area that occupies space
Is that possible? Unless you mean that said area of space doesn't contain some energy, which would mean outside of the known universe.
Quantum particles emerge out of energy gradient. That is what "nothing" refers to in this case. Matterless space that is affected by energy gradients.
E = mc2
I guess one way to look at it is that a composite may have different properties than its parts. An individual water molecule is light. Put together a bunch of individual water molecules to make a composite that is heavy. I watched a different vid of this analogy, but can't find it...basically it's a fallacy to say the properties of a composite are identical to the properties of the parts.
Exactly, which is also another good reason why we can't talk about the whole nature of the universe, given that what we know is just a minuscule, tiny part of it. That would be like trying to define the whole, based upon the properties of part of it.
Yet another fallacy which the Cosmological argument relies upon.
Actually, you're very wrong here.
"X began to exist" is our second premise. "X" constitutes an object. The universe is an object. To say the universe began to exist is well-supported and rational.
The universe is not an object. It is the sum all off objects. When physicists say the Universe began with the big-bang, they're not using the same definition of universe as we are when discussing theology and the existence of God. You're avoiding this issue.
And your argument is indeed using it. When you state that everything which exists, has a cause, you're drawing upon your personal experience. You're personal experience is simply one view, and one part, of the world we both exist in. You're using that experience to then make a statement about the whole.
--
Omega:
A contingent object cannot come from non-being into being. Quantum fluctuations, again, are not events that occur in the absence of being, or existence, but rather in its presence. Something cannot come into being from non-being. Existence cannot come into being from non-existence. This is a rather basic philosophical and logical principle established long ago by the ancient Greek philosophers that is always supported by modern science, common experience, and the same, underlying pillars of logic and philosophy that are maintained today. This principle is also never falsified.
Except when you try to claim that the universe was created, that God created the universe, even though God does not have universe like qualities, and is supernatural. You basically just said in a couple of sentences exactly why this argument is fallacious, while arguing for why the argument is right.
-
It's a big deal because it's at the heart of what "existence" means. And a universe that had a beginning and will eventually fizzle may be stupefying to you, but that's reality.
I'm sorry, but that theory is not proven, and you're using any theory on the matter wrong, in order to claim that it's reality that the universe began and will eventually fizzle.
Oh, I totally forgot, the Big Bang is just a theory, not a fact! Silly me.
-
uuuuuuuuuuuuuh
-
Okay serious question here. If humans evolved from monkeys, then why do monkeys still exist? Bam, disproven.
-
Omega:
A contingent object cannot come from non-being into being. Quantum fluctuations, again, are not events that occur in the absence of being, or existence, but rather in its presence. Something cannot come into being from non-being. Existence cannot come into being from non-existence. This is a rather basic philosophical and logical principle established long ago by the ancient Greek philosophers that is always supported by modern science, common experience, and the same, underlying pillars of logic and philosophy that are maintained today. This principle is also never falsified.
Except when you try to claim that the universe was created, that God created the universe, even though God does not have universe like qualities, and is supernatural. You basically just said in a couple of sentences exactly why this argument is fallacious, while arguing for why the argument is right.
Who every said God is a contingent object?
-
Okay serious question here. If humans evolved from monkeys, then why do monkeys still exist? Bam, disproven.
Are you actually serious? Because if you are I would ask the money back from whatever college you went to.
rumborak
-
Dude, you just need to realize that evolution is just a theory and it hasn't been proven at all.
-
Which began first, the chicken or the egg? And if one began first, when exactly did the other "begin"? buuuuuuuurn
-
So, if there really is only interacting particles, and no real "space" between them, the spontaneous generation of virtual particles means that those were truly coming from Nothing.
rumborak
Am I being ignored? Should I just go and copy/paste all the stuff I've said on quantum fluctuations and "nothing," or should I just pretend I didn't read this?
-
Which began first, the chicken or the egg? And if one began first, when exactly did the other "begin"? buuuuuuuurn
Nothing begins, bro. I thought we've been over this already.
-
So, if there really is only interacting particles, and no real "space" between them, the spontaneous generation of virtual particles means that those were truly coming from Nothing.
rumborak
Am I being ignored?
I guess I'm forced to give a direct answer: Yeah, I skip your posts.
rumborak
-
So, if there really is only interacting particles, and no real "space" between them, the spontaneous generation of virtual particles means that those were truly coming from Nothing.
rumborak
Am I being ignored?
I guess I'm forced to give a direct answer: Yeah, I skip your posts.
rumborak
It's okay. His posts don't exist anyway.
-
Which began first, the chicken or the egg? And if one began first, when exactly did the other "begin"? buuuuuuuurn
Nothing begins, bro. I thought we've been over this already.
Glad we agree then.
-
So, if there really is only interacting particles, and no real "space" between them, the spontaneous generation of virtual particles means that those were truly coming from Nothing.
rumborak
Am I being ignored?
I guess I'm forced to give a direct answer: Yeah, I skip your posts.
rumborak
I think I hear something...
(https://en.memgenerator.pl/mem-image/yo-where-s-the-chicken-en-ffffff)
-
I have no idea what the pic is about, but I don't like the direction this thread is taking towards personal insults toward each other.
Either post about the discussion or nothing at all.
-
I have no idea what the pic is about, but I don't like the direction this thread is taking towards personal insults toward each other.
Either post about the discussion or nothing at all.
At some point I might have to go back and count how many times you've told people virtually this exact same thing in these kinds of threads. Doesn't it feel a bit futile now?
-
I have no idea what the pic is about, but I don't like the direction this thread is taking towards personal insults toward each other.
Either post about the discussion or nothing at all.
At some point I might have to go back and count how many times you've told people virtually this exact same thing in these kinds of threads. Doesn't it feel a bit futile now?
I didn't think I had in this thread, but I was counting on you to count for me :-*
-
I counted 12 times in the last 6 or so weeks.
-
I've closed one tonight...this one will be next.
-
I've closed one tonight...this one will be next.
You can't lock this thread....
....it doesn't exist.
-
Omega:
A contingent object cannot come from non-being into being. Quantum fluctuations, again, are not events that occur in the absence of being, or existence, but rather in its presence. Something cannot come into being from non-being. Existence cannot come into being from non-existence. This is a rather basic philosophical and logical principle established long ago by the ancient Greek philosophers that is always supported by modern science, common experience, and the same, underlying pillars of logic and philosophy that are maintained today. This principle is also never falsified.
Except when you try to claim that the universe was created, that God created the universe, even though God does not have universe like qualities, and is supernatural. You basically just said in a couple of sentences exactly why this argument is fallacious, while arguing for why the argument is right.
Who every said God is a contingent object?
Oh right, I forgot, claiming a non-contingent object exists, and calling it God, is proof.
What proof do you have that the universe is contingent? What proof do you have that God is not contingent? You need to answer both of those objections, if you are to atually proof that the universe has a creator, and that questions end at this creator.
-
A contingent object cannot come from non-being into being. Quantum fluctuations, again, are not events that occur in the absence of being, or existence, but rather in its presence. Something cannot come into being from non-being. Existence cannot come into being from non-existence. This is a rather basic philosophical and logical principle established long ago by the ancient Greek philosophers that is always supported by modern science, common experience, and the same, underlying pillars of logic and philosophy that are maintained today. This principle is also never falsified.
What modern science or common experience deals with Nothingness? What philosophy or logic can possibly even touch on Nothingness when it's something we have no knowledge of? You keep saying these things yet never actually supporting them.
-
Oh right, I forgot, claiming a non-contingent object exists, and calling it God, is proof.
What proof do you have that the universe is contingent?
Namely, that that the universe began to exist and therefore could have failed to exist. The atheist wants to avoid at all costs the conclusion that the universe is a contingent object. So what's the atheist to do at this point? He can say that yes, the universe does have an explanation for its existence and that is that the universe exists by a necessity of its own nature. Thus the universe could serve as a God-substitute that exists necessarily.
Yet there's a reason why most atheist philosophers are extremely hesitant to embrace this alternative. None of the things that make up the universe - stars, planets, galaxies, radiation, people, animals, etc - seem to exist necessarily. That is - they could fail to exist. Indeed, at some point in the past, when the universe was very dense, none of them did exist. The objection that typically follows is that the matter which these things are made of simply exists necessarily and all these things are merely different configurations of matter. Yet according to the standard model of subatomic physics, matter itself is composed of tiny fundamental particles that cannot be further broken down. The universe is just a collection of all these particles arranged in different ways. But now the question arises: Does each and every one of these particles exist necessarily? Yet it is immediately clear that these particles don't exist necessarily because these particles aren't composed of anything - they just are the basic units of matter.
It isn't necessary for the universe to exist (in other words, the statement "the universe must exist" would need to be supported by the atheist. Yet there's a reason why no serious atheist philosopher would ever sincerely support this claim - the burden it places on the supporter is far too heavy to bear). We generally trust our modal intuitions on other familiar matters (for example, our sense that the planet Earth exists contingently, not necessarily, even though we have no experience of its non-existence). If we are to do otherwise with respect to the universe’s contingency, then the non-theist needs to provide some reason for his skepticism other than his desire to avoid theism.
What proof do you have that God is not contingent?
God, properly understood, cannot have begun to exist; God is a necessary being whose existence lies in the necessity of His own nature. It's impossible for God to have a cause (a more powerful God creating another God? An infinite regress of God-creating-Gods?).
-
I would just like to say that if God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe, you don't need an explanation of God. The objection, "Well then, what caused God?" is pretty juvenile.
-
A contingent object cannot come from non-being into being. Quantum fluctuations, again, are not events that occur in the absence of being, or existence, but rather in its presence. Something cannot come into being from non-being. Existence cannot come into being from non-existence. This is a rather basic philosophical and logical principle established long ago by the ancient Greek philosophers that is always supported by modern science, common experience, and the same, underlying pillars of logic and philosophy that are maintained today. This principle is also never falsified.
What modern science or common experience deals with Nothingness? What philosophy or logic can possibly even touch on Nothingness when it's something we have no knowledge of? You keep saying these things yet never actually supporting them.
To clarify, science, by definition, cannot ever study "nothing" (are we to somehow find a way for scientific instruments to escape space-time and then somehow recover data from them, oblivious to the fact that they literally don't exist anymore?).
Besides, "nothingness" is relatively simple - it is utter absence of existence and, as such, has literally no properties at all, since there isn't anything to have properties. We needn't "experience" nothing through science or philosophy (indeed, you can't) to understand it.
-
Namely, that that the universe began to exist and therefore could have failed to exist.
Wow. I ask you for proof of this statement, and you just repeat it. You repeating that the universe began to exist does not prove that the universe began to exist. If you want to use the Big Bang theory to back up this claim, you are abusing the science - and interchanging definitions of Universe so as agree with your argument. What you do have proof of, is that things around us began to exist, and that you and I began to exist. That is not proof that the Universe began to exist. To make that claim, you would be using a fallacy. If you are not making that claim, I cannot fathom what proof you supposedly have on the matter.
What proof do you have that God is not contingent?
God, properly understood, cannot have begun to exist; God is a necessary being whose existence lies in the necessity of His own nature. It's impossible for God to have a cause (a more powerful God creating another God? An infinite regress of God-creating-Gods?).
I'll give you this: God, as you conceive of him, cannot have begun to exist. That's all you're saying, that your conception of God requires him to exist. You're ability to conceive of something which is not contingent, something which would be illogical for it not to exist, does not make that thing exist. This is not proof, this is a definition you are giving.
That is - they could fail to exist. Indeed, at some point in the past, when the universe was very dense, none of them did exist.
That's not a proof against their not necessarily existing. It just means that they necessarily exist now, and not back then.
Also, stating that the universe, a totality of things, must exist, does not say that every thing to ever be found within the universe must exist, or necessarily exists. Basically, it can be true that something must exist, which is not the same as saying that what we see before us must exist (where this something can be understood as part of the universe).