Non-Serious Objections to the Cosmological Argument, Part 1

[Scheavo]

How is infinite not eternal?

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

I can only understand this enough to start seeing the difference, really. I think this is the most important part though,

A series of moments that has begun and not ended is, however, not potentially eternal by that definition. A series of moments that has begun and not ended cannot be eternal, because even if it were to continue for the rest of (infinite) time, there would still be time prior to the initial moment in the series

[Ħ]

Well done Omega! Great defense you're giving.

[Scheavo]

I'm not sure if the straw man has any straw left in him, I'll give him that.

[the Catfishman]

1.) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

But the objection is now defeated; the explanation for God's existence lies in the necessity of God's own nature. As even a sincere atheist will recognize, it's impossible for God to have a cause (more on that later). Leibniz's argument is really an argument for God as a necessary, uncaused being.

Ahhh, the ontological proof for God's existence finally rears it's ugly, irrational, solipsistic head (thanks, you actually made me remember what my philosophy professor said about htis proof, at the time; that it's basically a reformulation of the ontological proof, and thus has pretty much all the problems associated with the ontological proof). Existence is not a quality, Kant solved that issue decades ago. This is perhaps the most absurd argument I've ever seen taken so seriously by so many people. This kind of logic basically makes it so anything you can conceive of as being perfect, has to exist, because otherwise it wouldn't be perfect. Your conception of something as perfect doesn't mean anything, it is a fabrication of your own mind, and relies upon an unproven assumption that human rationality can even understand the issue at hand.

To all of that, why cannot the universe exist because of it's own necessity? In fact, if you've been following my argument, especially regarding quantum mechanics, that may well be the case. Notice how you're just moving the question? You're being semantical, which basically means you're only proving things within the confines of the human language, much less reality.

I don't really want to get involved in this thread but I just wanted to say that this right here is the key reason why people aren't convinced with the ontological argument and until Omega can give an answer to this without injecting his own faith into the unknown and letting the evidence speak for itself he will not convince anyone (but who knows what will happen in part deux  ).

[Omega]

You addressed the fact that there is no place we can look at in the universe, where this is not in fact something. You did not address the fact that the quantum world does not follow an arrow of time, nor does it follow strict causal links. You've ignored the extent to which I've said that there can be "causes" and "effects," but that doing so requires us to reconceptualize the terms to such a degree that it makes it inept in the Cosmological Proof.

Quantum Mechanics falsifies the conception of cause and effect being used to make the cosmological argument. Is that a better way to put it for you? It does not falsify the possibilities of cause and effect, but it does make the arrow of time you're relying upon, a very suspect thing.

Now you're simply saying:

We don't know or understand how some quantum events happen, therefore causality is challenged.

Again, this doesn't mean that the quantum event in question is uncaused, it merely means that we don't know how it was caused or what caused it.

That is missing the point in any matter; quantum fluctuations are events that are observed in the presence of space, time, energy and matter. They are observations, events, and properties of the universe and would not take place in the absence of existence of our universe (indeed nothing would). So it doesn't even matter whether quantum fluctuations appear to follow a non-linear concept of time because quantum fluctuations are observed in the presence of time and cannot take place in the absence of time, nor in the absence of space, matter and energy. This is why it is silly to claim that our universe tunneled into existence due to a quantum event; it would be like postulating that before anything existed - non-existence; nothing - the universe caused itself to come into existence. Yet that would be like saying that the universe caused itself to exist, which would require the universe to have existed prior to it causing its genesis of existence. Such a view is patent nonsense.

At first blush, premise 1 of Leibniz' argument seems very vulnerable in an obvious way: if everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, and God exists, then God must have an explanation for His existence. Yet that seems out of the question, for then the explanation for God's existence would be some other being greater than God. Since that is impossible (God is the greatest conceivable being; what can be greater than the greatest conceivable being? An infinite regress of God-creating-Gods?), premise 1 must be false. Some things must be able to exist without any explanation. The believer will simply say that God exists inexplicably. The unbeliever will say, "Why not stop with the universe? The universe just exists inexplicably." So a stalemate is reached.

Not too fast, though. This objection is born out of a misunderstanding of what Leibniz means by an "explanation." According to Leibniz, there are to kinds of things: 1.) Things that exist necessarily, and 2.) Things that are produced by some external cause.

1.) Things that exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature. It's impossible for them not to exist. Mathematicians think that numbers and other mathematical entities exist in this way; they're not caused to exist by something else. They just exist by the necessity of their own nature.

2.) In contrast, things that are caused to exist by something else don't exist necessarily; they exist because something else has produced them. Physical objects like planets, knifes, stars, etc, fall into this category.

So when Leibniz says that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, the explanation may be found either in the necessity of a thing's nature or else in some external cause. So premise 1.) of Leibniz's argument could be better formulated:

1.) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

But the objection is now defeated; the explanation for God's existence lies in the necessity of God's own nature. As even a sincere atheist will recognize, it's impossible for God to have a cause (more on that later). Leibniz's argument is really an argument for God as a necessary, uncaused being.

Ahhh, the ontological proof for God's existence finally rears it's ugly, irrational, solipsistic head (thanks, you actually made me remember what my philosophy professor said about htis proof, at the time; that it's basically a reformulation of the ontological proof, and thus has pretty much all the problems associated with the ontological proof). Existence is not a quality, Kant solved that issue decades ago. This is perhaps the most absurd argument I've ever seen taken so seriously by so many people. This kind of logic basically makes it so anything you can conceive of as being perfect, has to exist, because otherwise it wouldn't be perfect. Your conception of something as perfect doesn't mean anything, it is a fabrication of your own mind, and relies upon an unproven assumption that human rationality can even understand the issue at hand.

To all of that, why cannot the universe exist because of it's own necessity? In fact, if you've been following my argument, especially regarding quantum mechanics, that may well be the case. Notice how you're just moving the question? You're being semantical, which basically means you're only proving things within the confines of the human language, much less reality.

This is merely making a logical distinction between different types of existence.

For example, the existence of numbers or abstractions (for example "justice") are not caused to exist by anything. Surely you don't deny that numbers exist necessarily, do you? Nothing, for example, causes the number 7 to come into existence.


Why can't the universe exist necessarily? Because the universe could have failed to exist.

[Omega]

1.) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

But the objection is now defeated; the explanation for God's existence lies in the necessity of God's own nature. As even a sincere atheist will recognize, it's impossible for God to have a cause (more on that later). Leibniz's argument is really an argument for God as a necessary, uncaused being.

Ahhh, the ontological proof for God's existence finally rears it's ugly, irrational, solipsistic head (thanks, you actually made me remember what my philosophy professor said about htis proof, at the time; that it's basically a reformulation of the ontological proof, and thus has pretty much all the problems associated with the ontological proof). Existence is not a quality, Kant solved that issue decades ago. This is perhaps the most absurd argument I've ever seen taken so seriously by so many people. This kind of logic basically makes it so anything you can conceive of as being perfect, has to exist, because otherwise it wouldn't be perfect. Your conception of something as perfect doesn't mean anything, it is a fabrication of your own mind, and relies upon an unproven assumption that human rationality can even understand the issue at hand.

To all of that, why cannot the universe exist because of it's own necessity? In fact, if you've been following my argument, especially regarding quantum mechanics, that may well be the case. Notice how you're just moving the question? You're being semantical, which basically means you're only proving things within the confines of the human language, much less reality.

I don't really want to get involved in this thread but I just wanted to say that this right here is the key reason why people aren't convinced with the ontological argument and until Omega can give an answer to this without injecting his own faith into the unknown and letting the evidence speak for itself he will not convince anyone (but who knows what will happen in part deux  ).

To clarify this is not the Ontological Argument. The topic is necessary vs. contingent existence, which does have much to do with Ontological Argument, though. While I believe that the Ontological Argument is indeed a powerful argument, I won't defend it here because

1.) It involves much philosophical jargon and demands an understanding of various philosophical terms and developments throughout history.

2.) It tends to go over most people's heads.

[Scheavo]

You addressed the fact that there is no place we can look at in the universe, where this is not in fact something. You did not address the fact that the quantum world does not follow an arrow of time, nor does it follow strict causal links. You've ignored the extent to which I've said that there can be "causes" and "effects," but that doing so requires us to reconceptualize the terms to such a degree that it makes it inept in the Cosmological Proof.

Quantum Mechanics falsifies the conception of cause and effect being used to make the cosmological argument. Is that a better way to put it for you? It does not falsify the possibilities of cause and effect, but it does make the arrow of time you're relying upon, a very suspect thing.

Now you're simply saying:

We don't know or understand how some quantum events happen, therefore causality is challenged.

Again, this doesn't mean that the quantum event in question is uncaused, it merely means that we don't know how it was caused or what caused it.

Or if it was caused. And let me stop you right there, because this is exactly my point! I'm not saying there is not causation in quantum mechanics, what I'm saying is there is not any evidence to actually support causation. The burden of proof lies with you to prove that there is causation, and to do that you need to deal with the problems of radiation, and more generally, Heisenbergs Uncertainty principle. Without answering those problems (you've attempted to wipe the problem away, not actually deal with it), you are committing a logical fallacy, by appealing to ignorance.

And if you have an answer to those problems, I suggest you submit it to a Physics Journal, because physicists would be very interested in those answers.

That is missing the point in any matter; quantum fluctuations are events that are observed in the presence of space, time, energy and matter. They are observations, events, and properties of the universe and would not take place in the absence of existence of our universe (indeed nothing would). So it doesn't even matter whether quantum fluctuations appear to follow a non-linear concept of time because quantum fluctuations are observed in the presence of time and cannot take place in the absence of time, nor in the absence of space, matter and energy. This is why it is silly to claim that our universe tunneled into existence due to a quantum event; it would be like postulating that before anything existed - non-existence; nothing - the universe caused itself to come into existence. Yet that would be like saying that the universe caused itself to exist, which would require the universe to have existed prior to it causing its genesis of existence. Such a view is patent nonsense.

But you're still applying the conception of time, as in arrow, to even need a reason for what caused the universe. If time is linear, it needs an explanation. But time may not be linear, time may not be an actual "true" property of reality! Time may be as much a creation of the human mind as seeing the color blue is. Does "blue" exist? Eh, it corresponds to certain wavelenghts of the electromagnetic spectrum, but it's a far cry to say that this "is" "blue." If, as has been propositioned as possible (notice, that's not saying I give you a proof of this truth), the Universe is eternal, as in timeless, then it doesn't need us to falsely posit a cause to it - which is the same logic you are using as to why we don't need to posit a cause for God (which I have never said was false, I simply begged to know how you know this).

This is merely making a logical distinction between different types of existence.

For example, the existence of numbers or abstractions (for example "justice") are not caused to exist by anything. Surely you don't deny that numbers exist necessarily, do you? Nothing, for example, causes the number 7 to come into existence.

That's not true, it took a human mind to "cause" the number 7 to come into existence. It's a human conceptions, and part of the human psyche. There are many living things which don't have a real conception of numbers, it's evident in their actions, and we can even look at other human societies, and how they relate to numbers.

Which, keep in mind, is not me saying numbers of subjective, but perspective. They deal with a fundamental aspect of our Worlds, but they are still true because of our definitions of them being true, and how this is applied to the world around us. It takes a mind or a brain to take in the sensory data of the world, and only specific sensory data, and after that it still has to make a distinction between sensory information, in order for there to be anything like numbers possible. Again, the best example I can think of is color, where color points to something objectively there, but which is, in the end, also a complete fabrication of the human mind.

Why can't the universe exist necessarily? Because the universe could have failed to exist.

And you know this, how? Being able to conceive of different possibilities, doesn't mean those possibilities are true, or could possibly be true. To take an example from Hume, I can easily imagine playing a game of pool, and having the balls hit each other, and come off each other at angles other than right angles. Yet, from what we know, without changing the fundamental laws of physics, it is necessarily that billiard balls hit each other, making rights angles.

You're committing armchair philosophy, and it's the reason Bacon wrote about the Idols, and why we have the scientific method.

[Ħ]

You'd really rather settle for the conclusion that time is a human construct and is brought into existence by the human mind, than believe in a God and a contingent universe? Wow.

[Scheavo]

You'd really rather settle for the conclusion that time is a human construct and is brought into existence by the human mind, than believe in a God and a contingent universe? Wow.

Saying this doesn't mean that "God," or some conception of "it", is not permitted. It's simply pointing to a problem in a proposed proof for God's existence, meaning that God's existence s not proved. This is not God is proved to not exist.

I'm also not saying that this is true, I'm saying there's no proof for time being like an arrow, or it being an objective feature of what we can see around us. It's an epistemological problem, which this discussion of metaphysics is trying to ignore.

My personal preference doesn't change reality, it doesn't matter what I'd "rather" be true. What matters is what's true.

[Ħ]

Obviously. But do you really think time is not a straight line? Do you really think time doesn't exist without humans to recognize it?

[Scheavo]

Obviously. But do you really think time is not a straight line? Do you really think time doesn't exist without humans to recognize it?

I don't know. Physics and science tends to give the best answer to these kinds of questions, and it basically tells us that we'll never know. Meanwhile, our actual experience of things, as they are, is fabricated by our own experiences, and our brain. We look at the world through filtered eyes. Look at Special Relativity, time is not a constant thing, time is relative. In fact, what doesn't change is the speed of light, which just contradicts our own direct experiences of reality.

And I wouldn't constrict this to humans, probably "life," if I had to pick a term.