How many Lies do you think you have told in your life? Have you ever stolen anything, even something small? Have you ever looked at a person with lust? Ever used GOD's name as a curse word? If so, GOD sees you as a Lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Guilty will end up in Hell. That's not GOD's will. You broke GOD's laws, but Jesus paid your fine! (IF) you Repent, and trust in Christ alone, GOD will forgive every sin you have ever committed, and grant you Eternal life!
The argument really is simple. An infinite series cannot exist. Because it has no beginning, and therefore no series. Therefore infinity must be nothing. And where there is a series, it must be finite, and must have the transcendent infinite as the cause.
Good to see others that have the intellectual capacity to understand this! Peace.
If you are looking for evidence to prove any strongly held belief you will always find that evidence, this is human nature, when you look for evidence to debunked your own strongly held beliefs now that's enlightenment
@Dathinkingman Indeed any strongly held belief, that cannot stand up to scrutiny by yourself is ultimately worthless, wanting something to be true is completely different from it being true, and wanting something to be false is completely different from it being false, whatever that strongly held belief is
What strongly held belief do you desire to be true ?
@RevDevilin none. i am agnostic . but i think taking theology seriously is necessary, the "emperor has no cloths" response of new atheist is not enough .
What strikes me as ultimately dishonest about the religious argument is that they make the argument so it fits whatever we find to be true about nature. When we thought the universe was eternal, God supposedly created it anyway. Now we know it isn't, it's just further proof that he created it. I believe there's a saying about having your cake....
@GodTheHypothesis Christians have largely thought the universe has always begun at some point. Now we have evidence for that, so we create arguments out of it.
But when science thought the universe was eternal, people still thought God did it- that's my point. Clearly it's not based on the current evidence- so I don't see why people pretend it is. All of the things in the bible that turned out NOT to be true are now conveniently thought of as metaphors of some kind. Hey, the hindu scriptures said there were many planets- so by this retrospective logic, maybe the hindus knew more than the jews.
@GodTheHypothesis Science is a fairly modern construct that could never test for an eternal universe. It was a metaphysical claim (by Hume iirc) that said: If god can be eternal, then why can't the universe? Theists like Aquinas and Leibniz made a number of philosophical arguments against an eternal universe; such as the first mover and contingency.
But as I said, what about all of the various claims by religions that were shown to be wrong? It's a dishonest method of inquiry to just pick the ones that you got right and keep emphasising them- christianity got a lot wrong (and of course now claims it was metaphorical). An honest way of approaching problems is to make a prediction and then see if it's right or wrong. So yes, if christians had predicted this- they were right. But they wudve been wrong on a hell of a lot!
@GodTheHypothesis Sure; Christians (during the formation of the Church) have gotten things wrong, that is the problem of living 1500-2000 years ago. However, that does not relate to modern cosmology. Christians now have every right to consider the universe is finite because that is what is shown (in various academic publications). Just as they have before with such arguments like the contingency argument.
@GodTheHypothesis The cosmological argument is only a single argument; there are many arguments that are also used by theologians. Academic Christianity has yielded where it has needed to; but still remains a viable philosophy in explanation of the world.
Lol yielded? "Yielded" in theology looks an awful lot like "turn into a metaphorical truth". How many preachers tell their congregations "these are the bits the bible got wrong". Well in what sense does it remain a viable philosophy? I mean, it doesn't explain anything about the material universe anymore. It's retreated to areas that can't actually be tested. It's no more viable then any other of the 1000 religions on offer. Those aren't my kinda odds.
@GodTheHypothesis My Pastor (who passed up a PhD to come to Australia from the States) told the congregation that the story of the tax collector climbing the tree to gain a better look at Jesus was added in between 250 - 300 AD. It explains human nature, and the meaning of life. I study physics for natural meaning and Christianity for spiritual meaning. Well actually, the historicity of the resurrection can be tested and defended.
Well I applaud your pastor then. Although I wasn't necessarily talking about inconsequential stories- I mean main ideas that might make people question the bible. The vast majority of the church of england for example, believe in evolution. Yet I've very rarely heard any of them admit to fellow christians that genesis was wrong if taken literally. Hold on, how can the historicity of the resurrection be tested? Last time I checked, it was only mentioned in the gospels.
Maybe, but then again you haven't met every Christian. For example, I expressed the ability for neutral genetic mutations that increase DNA coding, which would then evolve to a YEC (he wasn't too happy), so it's not like we are not around.
What is wrong with the gospels? They are the first accounts of Christian beliefs in contemporary settings.
Well you said the resurrection could be "tested". In what sense is reading what other people wrote "testing" it? What's wrong with the gospels? They were written by people! Human anecdote is the lowest form of evidence in science- for good reason. Humans are just terrible at reporting things accurately. They lie, are susceptible to delusion or could simply misinterpet what has happened. And the gospels were written decades later (not that it makes much difference).
There has NEVER been a time when the universe did not exist - and there NEVER will be. The universe did not HAVE a 'beginning' for this very reason.
The universe is a frame WITHIN which we measure temporal events such as 'beginnings'.
Similarly the earth has a north pole but that does NOT mean it points northward in space. There is no such orientation. The earth itself does not HAVE an orientation it is a field WITHIN which we measure orientation.
@PooeyBum11 You misunderstood the first premise. The first premise in the (Kalam) Cosmological Argument is "everything WHICH HAS A BEGINNING has a cause." God, unlike the universe, had no beginning and cause. Einstein's Theory of Relativity reveals that time is linked with space and matter, all of which began with the Big Bang. God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe; thus he is the creator of time. He is not limited by the dimension of time He created and therefore uncaused.
@Marduniya actually i perfectly understood the first premise. My arguement actually explains why the premise that you just talked about is stupid. For you to assume that God has no beginning you first have to accept that it is possible for something to exist without having a cause/beginning. If you do accept that it is possible for something to exist without having a beginning then you have absolutely no basis for saying that the universe could not have just always existed.
@Marduniya Now from your premise that something doesnt need a begining to exist, then if your choice is between the universe had no begining or god had no begining, what seems more likely: a simple form of energy in its absolute most basic form or the most powerful being in existance that is conscious and has a will of its own. Why would something like that exist in an empty universe. You cannot say everything needs a begining but god does not. Your arguement is based on a contradiction.
@PooeyBum11 It seems to me that you are assuming that we as theists are merely asserting that everything has a beginning except for God. That is not the case at all we have good evidence that the universe had a beginning. We have philosophical arguments such as the argument against actual quantitative infinites which states that because subtracting infinity from infinity equals infinity, infinity then is merely an idea.
@philosophizer149 according to string theory, our universe may be the result of interactions between two sheets of dimensions or something like that. The begining of our universe does not have to be the begining of everything. As your own arguement states, something can't come from nothing, therefore something must have always existed, why would you assume it would be something conscious and all powerful. Simple things build into more advanced things, not the other way around like your saying.
I've heard this claim quite a lot-especially from WLC. And as a mathematician, I do struggle to see how he actually claims this. The thing about mathematical infinity is it's very specific. Infinity in set theory (which craig uses and calls "transfinite arithmetic" to try and sound like he knows his stuff) has different rules than it does in real analysis. Very few scientists rule out the possibility that some part of the universe could be infinite.
@Marduniya maybe your just too simple minded to be able to understand that when i said that the cosmological arguement assumes God can exist without being created, that is the exact same thing as when you rephrased it to say god does not need a begining. Both those points are making a statements are saying the exact same thing, so your attempt to change the phrasing has no effect on the validity of my arguement. From an unbiased viewpoint read over our 2 comments and you will see your error.
The Cosmological argument contradicts itself, and it has been debunked centuries ago. If everything needs a cause, how can there be an "original" cause? Also, the premise that everything needs a cause does not necessarily derives into God being that cause. It is also wrong in that it presupposes there is something outside the space/time realm (for it to be "created") which as far as science knows today is not the case.
The Cosmological argument contradicts itself, and it has been debunked centuries ago. If everything needs a cause, how can there be an "original" cause? Also, the premise that everything needs a cause does not necessarily derives into God being that cause. It is also wrong in that it presupposes there is something outside the space/time realm (for it to be "created") which as far as science knows today is not the case.
i agree earth cant be in tuned by chance. science and theology are different.. things can only be proven so far so why not listen to what others have to say not just to the scientific evidence. Why cant God be in the picture
i agree with what toering442 just said our earth is fine tuned. people could say that happend by chance but i believe there was a designer who designed our world to be fine tuned.
@toering442 thats a poor argument, chaos theory tells us this isnt true, order will eventually arise from chaos. The cosmological argument is very very different to that.
all the men in this video are small time mediocre people in terms of the work they have done and their recognition as professional scientists, when you read the work of stephen hawkings and albert einstein you will realize how silly this argument is and how silly these people talking about it are, the greatest smartest men have pondered the universes existence and come to no certain answer and a couple of unknown professors think they can solve the mystery of our world with a six line argument.
@wownov83 arrogance, ignorance, stupidity, bigotry, closed mindedness, hypocrisy, preachiness, self-righteousness... are all characteristics idiosyncratic to apologist (to name a few)
@guitarcar911 thomas aquinas mediocre? small time? stephen hawkings is silly when he talks about God 'cos he's a phyicist not a theologian - big difference even though lots ot people think if you got a science degree you can be an 'expert' on everything- he can't do that -sorry
@philosophyteacher well when you make an argument about how the universe came into existence it usually helps if you understand physics to the degree that stephen hawkings does, that way you actually might understand how complex the universe is and how the simplest answer is not necisarily right
@guitarcar911 so you dispute Ockham's Razor? Crikey you are a bold one! I agree with hawkings degree and physics but any fool (!) knows that science and religion are two totally different areas and science can't disprove religion anymore than it can prove which colour is best
@philosophyteacher what does religion have to do with cosmology, cosmology is a science and that is what these people are talking about cosmology. why would anyone listen to theologians talking about science thay dont have a clue
@guitarcar911 of course unless the answer lies beyond the physical world which is all science can answer- but your reply has to apply to clueless scientists talking about theolgy too - in other words saying God does not exist is nonsensical for any scientist to comment on and a theologian saying nonsense like people can walk through walls etc
@guitarcar911 lol, Thomas Aquinas is one of the most influential philosophers of his time, he knows a damn site more than you, and his argument is very logical and scientific (up until his last conclusion) In fact the cosmological reasoning of this very argument is the most excepted theory about the nature of reality in modern science.
@Userunvalid dude the argument is ridiculous i dont care who came up with it, it contradicts itself and solves nothing, imagine replacing the word universe with the word god now youve proven that god needs a devine power to be created and the problems continue.
@guitarcar911 LOL. you clearly don't have a very good understanding of the argument if you say that. OTHER PEOPLE have put forward this criticism. The argument says anything contingent has a cause, right from the big bang to now everything has been and will be contingent. Aquinas suggests that god is out side our logical, and physical universe and is therefore not contingent, and therefore needs no cause. This does mean he cant love anyone though. The argument is flawless.
@Userunvalid "Aquinas suggests that god is out side our logical, and physical universe and is therefore not contingent, and therefore needs no cause."
If God transcends our logic and the laws of our physical universe, how can you speak of him bringing the universe into existance when even time itself is a concept that does not apply to "before the big bang"? To say there was a time before time is meaningless. This argument fails without a temporal framework, which the big bang denies it.
@dannytibi Im saying there was NO time before time. The problem here is more of language. He didn't just bring the universe into existence, he brought existence itself (AS WE KNOW IT) into being.
@Userunvalid That is patently absurd. If that is true God would have to be non-existant by definition, if he is conceptually prior to existance itself. Such a notion cannot hold water, it is self-refuting to say that a non-existant being brought existance into existance. Existance is conceptually prior to anything that can be said to exist.
@dannytibi Your missing the point. The idea is, that we only experience existence as we know it. God DOES exist by definition, but in a different "existence". He does not exist in, or interact with our existence in itself. Btw when I say God I mean the first cause, not specifically God.
@Userunvalid Ok, the first thing you said that I agree with, "he does not exist in, or interact with our existence in itself". The problem here is that postulating anything that is not bound to existence as we know it is pure speculation at best. You have also just settled yourself with an enormous burden of proof regarding this "different existence", why should any of us be led to believe there are 2 different realms of existence.
@dannytibi You realise I have not come to thus conclusion for no reason? do you even know the cosmological argument? and are you suggesting that the universe always existed and need no cause? are you saying that the universe is infinite? The most widely accepted theory of its origin, the big bang, relies on this principle of sufficient reason, it relies on this argument being right. You are suggesting an infinite regress which is totally illogical.
@Userunvalid I am not suggesing an infinte regress, precisely because I'm saying before the big bang there was no time to regress into. The cosmological argument fails where causality does not apply, because causality is temporal in nature.
@dannytibi So I'm neither suggesting that the universe was brought into existence nor that it's dimension of time regresses infinitely. But rather time is a dimension of the universe and it governs the relationship of things that exist within the universe, not the universe itself. For causality to apply to the universe as a whole entity it would need to be part of a different timeframe of some superuniverse or something like that.
@dannytibi Try to think of it as a bowl, you cannot fit a bowl into itself, in the same way you cannot fit the universe as whole entity into one of it's own aspects, i.e. time and causal relations.
@dannytibi "before the big bang there was no time to regress into." That's what the cosmological argument states but , as the big bang wasn't a theory in the times of this arguments documentation, they have use the word first cause, and have not been specific. The idea is, that the big bang IS, it didn't happen, it just was. Aquinas talks about potentiality and actuality, he says that the first cause is PURE actuality, the big bang is pure actuality.
@dannytibi OK when ever I've used the word God I just mean the first cause, This argument ATTEMPTS TO SHOW THAT THERE MUST BE A FIRST CAUSE & TO DEFINE WHAT THE FIRST CAUSE MUST HAVE (What its properties are.) The properties are:
1. Cannot be contingent - It cannot come into or go out of time / space.
2. Must be exempt from our physical / causal laws. Like time.
Now this is a very open definition, and the big bang fits it. The big bang is exempt from physical laws and is not contingent.
@Userunvalid Ok, In order for something to be a first cause it must necessarily exist in a causal relationship, that implies necessarily a temporal relationship as well. You cannot posit a cause existing outside of time, because outside of time the cause and effect relationship simply does not apply.
@dannytibi ahh well not if the thing itself, IS causality, technically the big bang IS causality itself. The argument aquinas put forward is that god IS the universe
@Userunvalid Well, if he and you want to call the universe God, then in that case I can accept that "God" exists. I just hope you are OK with bordering on Pantheism rather than classical theism. Who am I kidding? "Bordering", this is pantheism. Not that I'm objecting, though...
@dannytibi Yes well, the problem with applying Aquinas' version of the argument now, is that it was constructed in the 14th century... He doesn't actually give any reason or evidence for the catholic God being the first cause. He says "and this everyone understands to be God" <-- of course now there are other theories, he would have to justify this, but then he seemed to be referring only to the people who he thought would be reading his work, I.E monks, religious people.
And lastly, if you really wanted me to come up with another "option", I could have said that the creation could have been an abstract cause. Immaterial and timeless. That is certainly not a being, nor an "event". But this is besides the point, I'm just answering your question. You haven't even tried to substantiate your claims.
I mean, you don't understand utterly elementary things like backing up assertions with proof. What's wrong with you? I could easily assert that an invisible and immaterial unicorn is orbiting the earth right now, and you couldn't possibly disprove it. But why would you believe it? I haven't provided any proof, and I certainly haven't satisfied my burden of proof. Similarly, you haven't proved ANYTHING! You simply assert, time and time again, without thinking things through.
By the way, I sent you a link via youtube message that hugely elaborates on the shortcomings of the cosmological argument. Please do me a favor and look at it.
There's an easy way to tell if we "know" something or not. Define the premises accurately, support the premises with arguments or evidence, and then take logical steps using the premises. Your argument fails because you can't substantiate why the first cause is a "being". Your first premise, that there are two options, is not valid because you have provided nothing to satisfy the, as you yourself said, burden of proof.
@wownov83 Alright, am reading it now. Before I get to that, this whole section has just been ridiculous on your part. It's like when we were talking about the finite or infinite universe. If we stopped there "How come those are the only two options huh? Supply me with other options." It's just stupid. Again, the reason that event or being are the two options is because they are the only two options. It's not any deeper then that.
@Reepecheep That's just wrong. We know things about time. Either time had a beginning, or it did not. If it had a beginning, then the universe is finite in time. If it didn't have a beginning, it is infinite in time.
On the other hand, we know absolutely nothing about the "first cause" of the universe. And when you say that you know what the only two possibilities are, I raise my eyebrow. It's as simple as that.
@wownov83 There are no other options. Either it was something that happened, or it was a being that caused it. If you can agree to there needing to be a first cause, then those are the only options. I don't understand why you can't grasp that. Give me another option to consider. That's how discussions work.
Prove it. Your whole argument is contingent on this premise. You set it up so that if what preceded the first case was not an infinite sequence of causes, it must be this "being", since there are only two options.
In the example you raised, about the finite/infinite universe, we can easily deduce that there are only two options, since time either had or did not have a beginning. It's completely different from what you are doing.
@Reepecheep I hate to resort to such silly hyperbole, but you're just not understanding what I'm driving at. I could play your game to, by positing that what preceded the first cause is either an infinite sequence of causal events, or a magic squirrel. It can't be an infinite sequence of events, so a magic squirrel is responsible for the creation of the universe. Now of course this is wrong. Why is it wrong? Because there's no reason you should believe that there are only two options.
@wownov83 And in this case, I can show other options to the argument. There is nothing inherently wrong with a magic squirrel if those were the two options. I can pose other options that fit better, such as an infinite being. Thus plugging another, better fitting, option into the mix. I could make up more options for the original debate, but unless you can supply me with another one, those are it. It lies in your court.
@Reepecheep Why should an infinite being fit better? I'm glad you agree with me, in that case we could sit here and list a million possible options. Let's continue, then. What preceded the first cause could be an infinite sequence of events, a magic squirrel, an infinite being, or a million other things. Now show me why the only "true option" is the infinite being. Remember, you can't test anything, and none of these options have any evidence, so good luck.
@wownov83 Also, we were talking about deducing about the options. We can deduce that those are the only options available because anything that happens anywhere is either caused by someone or something. Event being think, and a "being" being someone. Is there another option there that I missed? That's pretty basic stuff. Also, there is no way to prove that in ANY debate that 2 options are the only possible options. Unless there are others that someone can present, they go on that.
@Reepecheep No, deducing is precisely NOT what we're doing. You CANNOT deduce that the only two options are a being or an infinite number of events. It's not my job to tell you what options you've missed, it's your job to tell me why there are only two options, and why one option is the better choice.
As I said before, we can easily deduce that there are only two possibilities for the universe: finite or infinite. This is a logical deduction, and I explained that before.
@Reepecheep No, they don't fall into what you're saying. I could assert as an option that an apple created the universe, and you couldn't show that it is any more or less likely that the other options. You're trying to show that a "being" created it, and you can't.
@Reepecheep If you're fine with the potentiality of an apple creating the universe, I think I've overestimated you. And if an apple is a being, we have, apparently, very big differences in our definitions of a being.
@Reepecheep Wrong. You're simply asserting it time and time again that there are two options. You have no idea what deducing is. Seriously, wikipedia it. As for the universe example, I'll gladly explain it. My first assertion is that time either had a beginning, or it did not have a beginning. You can't disagree with this. I then conclude that if time had a beginning, it is finite, by definition. If it did not have a beginning, it is infinite, by definition.
@wownov83 You can disagree. There is the possibility to have a beginning but no end, or an end but no beginning. That starts to break into some really thick quantum physics or the existence of multiple universes. I know what deducing is, and you don't apparently. Please tell me another option. I'm still waiting for one. I'm asserting the only two options. There is no PROOF for either of these, other wise it would be fact not philosophy.
@Reepecheep "There is the possibility to have a beginning but no end, or an end but no beginning." Yes, and those are both, by definition, infinite. An infinite thing is that which is unbounded. So the universe must be in fact either finite or infinite.
For the last time, why do you assert that there are ONLY two options? You JUST said that you're open to other options, like an apple, or a squirrel, or a million other things that could be imagined.
@wownov83 "Being: The fact of existing." As defined by Webster. I now see this as a breakdown in communication. Anything that exists is a being. An apple, a rock, a deer, or even a computer. They are all beings, they are not however, intelligent beings.
@Reepecheep Actually, a deer is an intelligent being. And if you have just admitted the possibility that a deer could have created the universe, I think my job here is done. This argument is bogus.
@Reepecheep That's not a deduction. It's an assertion. I don't have to prove otherwise, you have to show it in the first place. It's called the burden of proof. When I asserted that the universe could either be finite or infinite, the burden of proof was on me, so I logically deduced it. You haven't deduced anything. You've said, in effect:
"There are two options because there are two options. If not, show me otherwise". That doesn't fly.
@wownov83 It's interesting that you can't come up with any other options. The simple reason being, that there aren't any. I didn't say a deer created the universe. Your argument is based on the fact that you believe that there are more then two options (event or being), the burden of proof is on you. If you can't think of a single other possibility, my work here is done, because you need some extra school before we can continue.
@Reepecheep No, you said a deer could have created the universe. I don't have an argument, I'm criticizing yours. I also didn't claim that there are more than two options. I couldn't possibly prove that. I questioned why you said that there are only two options, which also is, in my opinion, not provable. Unfortunately for you, the burden of proof is on you, and you're quite simply incapable of satisfying it. You have some serious problems with logic.
I have substantiated it. If you can't see past this point, then we have nothing more to talk about. I have not blindly or randomly asserted anything. I have pulled together the option based on knowledge we have. You use the cop out of saying "I can't accept that because we don't know for sure." The whole process of theorizing is to take what you know, and pull together a logical conclusion until it is known otherwise. Right now, this is the logical conclusion.
@Reepecheep How have you substantiated it? You asserted that there are two options (and I've asked you repeatedly to show why there are these two options), and one of them is the very thing you're trying to prove. Nothing about the knowledge we have tells us that anything about what may have been the first cause... There is simply no logical connection between acknowledging a first cause of the universe and then asserting that cause to be a "being". If there is, you certainly haven't showed it.
@wownov83 I'm sorry, but if we can agree that there is a first cause, then those are the only two options. If you wish to state others then that burden of proof lies with you. As it stands now can you think of something other then an event or a being if indeed we can agree that it was caused?
"By the way, the reason there are those two options, is because those are the options."
That's not exactly the kind of argument I was looking aiming for.
You claim that the burden of proof should fall on me if I wanted to propose an alternative option... yet the option that a "being" created the universe is completely immune to this same burden of proof. The burden of proof, as you yourself said, is all on you.
@wownov83 And of course one of the options is the one I'm trying to prove. Why on earth would you look at something and then try to prove something that isn't even a possibility? Lastly, to clarify, I don't know. I have no problem with saying that because it's true. I am simply putting the pieces together in a way that makes sense. You seem to have a problem with it because you just want to end it with "I don't know" because you don't want to conjecture any farther.
@Reepecheep "You seem to have a problem with it because you just want to end it with "I don't know" because you don't want to conjecture any farther."
Wrong. I don't know because I don't know. It's not that I don't want to conjecture any further, it is that I can't conjecture any further. What I know for certain is that I don't know anything about the first cause of the universe, and you don't either.
The Quantum vacuum which is a sea of fluctuating energy and is subject to physical laws, and it constitutes as an indeterministic ( If you favor the Copenhagen interpretation instead of deterministic ones like Bohr's ) cause for the virtual particles brief existence. Remove the sub-atomic vacuum and you won't have any virtual particles coming into being for a brief moment before dissapearing.
We've never observed something come into existence, just change form - ie. building a house from bricks. If this does constitute beginning to exist then we can say that all things that exist began to exist (going right back to the big bang).
@notnilccm Just because we live in the year 2011 does not mean that these arguments are not rational and powerful. Many theists would argue that the advancement of science (ie the discovery of more order in nature, the complexity of the universe, mathematical principles that line up with science, the depth in science etc) point to a Creator more than ever. Instead of saying derogatory and insulting things like "get over it" perhaps you should do more research on what both sides believe and argue
3:55. If we accept this rather lopsided argument and conclude that the "cause" of the universe is timeless, spaceless and immaterial... why must that cause be god? The square root of 2 is timeless, spaceless and immaterial. Why must we give this cause human-like characteristics? Why can't it be a natural phenomena?
@polonophobia Firstly, it isn't a theory. This is an argument that attempts to show that god exists. At no point did Craig argue that the cause must be personal, and indeed there's no reason why it would be, even if his argument held (it doesn't).
3:35 is also incorrect. The big bang theory does NOT say that the universe came into existence out of nothing. The big bang singularity contained ALL the matter in the universe in zero volume and, theoretically, infinite temperature. How this matter and energy got into this state is not known, but no scientist has claimed that it just came out of nothing.
2:13 is incorrect. Modern science doesn't claim to know if the universe is finite, infinite, boundless, bounded, or contained within itself. Since science fails in analyzing time's shorter than the Planck time, and causation breaks down, it's just easier to say that time started at the big bang. But that is NOT the same as saying that time came into existence at the big bang.
@wownov83 Modern science does claim that the universe is finite. Let's try to at least not straight out lie here if we are going to talk about theories.
@Reepecheep Wrong. Since causality breaks down at times shorter than the Planck time, completely due to limitations in modern science, it's customary to simply define t=0, the beginning of time, as the moment of the big bang. But that certainly doesn't mean that there was nothing before the big bang.
@wownov83 The notion that 'out of nothing, nothing comes' is a metaphysical notion that governs all of reality, it doesn't break down at the Plank era. The initial singularity at t=0 is where matter, energy, space and time come into being. The universe came into being at the initial singularity ex-nihilo.
@TheisticThinker Firstly, how could a metaphysical notion govern reality? Clearly you need to learn what at least one of those words mean. Secondly, it's just not true. Quantum mechanics actually provides experimental evidence against "out of nothing, nothing comes". Particles pop into and out of existence all the time, everywhere you look. Lastly, all the big bang states is that all energy and matter was condensed into a singularity 14.6 bya. It doesn't mean that it came from nothing.
@wownov83 Maybe I didn't make it so clear, it is more of a metaphysical intuition. "ex nihilo nihil fit" is a philosophical claim involving metaphysics. If something can come into being from nothing, then aswell a horse can come into being from nothing in my living room. There is nothing with nothing that makes discriminating towards other physical objects. Nothing can't have any proporties, because then it would be 'something'! So it can't make any restrictions.
@TheisticThinker Actually, it has nothing to do with metaphysics. It's a philosophical statement. And you're quite right, according to quantum mechanics, a horse could spontaneously pop into your living room; EVERY event is associated with a probability, however small it may be . But the probability of this happening is such that, basically, it will never happen.
@wownov83 No, you don't seem to understand QM. Quantum Mechanics do not provide any evidence for something coming into being from nothing. What you think does so is the virtual particles come into being in the quantum vacuum which you think is 'nothing'. That is completely wrong, the virtual particles come into being for a brief moment before dissapearing, they arise as spontaneous fluctuations in the energy contained in the sub-atomic vacuum.
@wownov83 The Quantum vacuum which is a sea of fluctuating energy and is subject to physical laws, and it constitutes as an indeterministic ( If you favor the Copenhagen interpretation instead of deterministic ones like Bohr's ) cause for the virtual particles brief existence. Remove the sub-atomic vacuum and you won't have any virtual particles coming into being for a brief moment before dissapearing.
@wownov83 No, not really, that is not 'all'. The standard model of cosmology, which is the Big Bang model for the origin of the universe, it was proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Priest and Astronomer. Before nicknamed the 'Big Bang' later by Fred Hoyle, Georges Lemaître called it ''hypothesis of the primeval atom' which described space, time, matter and energy coming into being at an initial singularity. It is the same theory now, the only difference is the name.
@wownov83 The prediction by the standard model of cosmology, which is the Big Bang theory, predicts that space, time, matter and energy came into being at the singularity. This is what the standard model predicts; " At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed bfore the singularity, so, if the Universe at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex-nihilo." - John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
@TheisticThinker If things pop into and out of existence in the "sub-atomic vacuum" in space (traditionally called "nothing"), then why is there any reason to think that "nothing" really exists? What example of nothingness can you provide? I'll grant all your assertions, that time and space came into existence 13.7 bya, and you still haven't come any closer to showing that god exists.
@wownov83 Showing that God exist is not the point of me responding, but rather your ignorance towards cosmology. Space is something, space has never been called nothing, nothing is nothing, nothing can't have any proporties or anything at all. It is just nothing. Why think that nothing exist? Well the existence of nothingness is kind of hard to grasp, it is imposible for humans to grasp. But it has no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no proporties etc.
@wownov83 Well, correcting you on what Cosmology and Quantum Fluctuations says and wether it proves that something can come from nothing. Your statements on that made me comment because you were simply wrong.
@wownov83 No problem. Just want to add, a bit random and off topic but, your Meshuggah video is awesome. :) Even though I haven't listened to them so much, I like some songs and their style. And they are also from Sweden like me, haha, proud.
The state preceding the Big Bang was the nonexistence of any physical being. But we can't visualize it, because nothing we can grasp or use to understand it existed at that "time". Not even time itself, which makes it impossible to say 'before' the singularity.
@wownov83 The law of Entropy says that the universe will eventually burn out and that all energy will be reverted into unusable forms (since matter can neither be created nor destroyed). This has only 2 possible ways of going. 1: The universe is infinite. The problem of course being that if the universe was around for negative infinity, then the universe would have been burned out infinite times prior. Option 2: It was created.
@Reepecheep I don't understand your argument. Your premise is well substantiated, i.e. that the ever increasing entropy will results in a heat death of the universe, and all usable energy will be "used". But how does this lead to either of your options? How does the impending heat death of the universe lead to the belief that a) the universe is infinite or b) the universe was created?
@wownov83 Perhaps I worded it wrong. Let me try to clarify. There are two options, that A it is infinite or B it isn't. Correct? If A is the option, then entropy dictates that the universe would have run out of usable energy infinite times in the past. Option B says that it's finite, and thus has a starting point. If it had a starting point, then it had to be created somehow.
@Reepecheep I suppose the universe must either be infinite or finite, yes. And I agree with you that the universe is probably finite, and the beginning of space and time probably occurred some 13.7 bya with the "big bang". But that doesn't mean that the universe was created, much less so by any human-like creator. It just means that we don't know why it happened.
@wownov83 I must be missing the way you arrived at the conclusion. So you accept all the premises, but not the ending. I'm not arguing that we must have had a "God" create it, only that it must have been created. Until we find something to disprove Entropy (which is possible I suppose), then it must have had a finite beginning. Because we know that contingent beings cannot create themselves, something must have done it. Whether or not it was "God" is up for more debates beyond this.
@Reepecheep But you still haven't shown why you think the universe needed to have been created. I accept the premise that the universe is finite and had a beginning. You need to show why you think it was created, i.e. by some intelligent force. I accept the fact that something must have caused the universe to begin, since everything has some sort of cause. But I really don't see why that means the universe was "created".
@wownov83 If it had to have a cause, then that cause had to have a cause, and that cause needed a cause. Eventually you need to have a non-contingent being (or necessary being) to have started it all. The problem with "well, it just had a cause" still leads to something needing to have caused that.
@Reepecheep I agree with the first part, it seems as though there is sort of a infinite regress of cause after cause after cause, and modern science hasn't answered it. I don't know either. However, you just asserted out of thin air that a non-contingent being was the first cause. Firstly, why should I believe a "being" is involved at all? Secondly, your "being" is itself a contradiction of the premise that everything needs a cause. Why doesn't you "being" itself have a cause?
@wownov83 The reason it must be a non-contingent being is because science shows us that a contingent being cannot be the reason for it's own existence. The very definition of a necessary being is that it has no finite beginning or end and thus, no cause. Energy is contingent. Matter is energy.
@Reepecheep Science doesn't have anything to say about the reason for the existence of "beings". You haven't solved anything by introducing this "creator being". The whole reason you introduced the creator is because you have a problem with the seemingly infinite causal chain at the birth of the universe. Yet, you have no problem accepting the existence of a being who, firstly, had no cause, and secondly, has existed for all time? Seriously?
@wownov83 #1: I have stated why it needs one. If we know matter/energy is contingent and it can't create itself, it has to be created. That's a pretty basic concept. #2: There is nothing wrong with the theory that something does exist without a cause, but we know that it isn't part of this universe. #3: I didn't say that everything needs a cause, only contingent things. Necessary beings do not need a cause by definition.
@Reepecheep I agree that the existence of any energy and matter in the universe was "caused" by something, but not necessarily created, and certainly not so by any "being". And much less so by any "being" who would be concerned with the daily affairs of the planets inhabitants. And I certainly agree that the seemingly infinite causal chain is unsettling, but that simply does not mean you may posit the existence of a being that makes it easier for you to understand, or to accept.
This has been flagged as spam show
How many Lies do you think you have told in your life? Have you ever stolen anything, even something small? Have you ever looked at a person with lust? Ever used GOD's name as a curse word? If so, GOD sees you as a Lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Guilty will end up in Hell. That's not GOD's will. You broke GOD's laws, but Jesus paid your fine! (IF) you Repent, and trust in Christ alone, GOD will forgive every sin you have ever committed, and grant you Eternal life!
EXALTEDDIRT 4 days ago
hahahah "the universe was eternal in the past" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH YA FUCKING RETARD!!11!!1oneone!!!
locinf92 2 weeks ago
The argument really is simple. An infinite series cannot exist. Because it has no beginning, and therefore no series. Therefore infinity must be nothing. And where there is a series, it must be finite, and must have the transcendent infinite as the cause.
Good to see others that have the intellectual capacity to understand this! Peace.
ParadoxEternal 1 month ago
@ParadoxEternal Perhaps you can explain why Dr Craig admits the Cosmological is incoherent yet still uses it
emailpobox666 1 week ago
Honestly could not give shit about the argument just want to pass my bloody A-levels
Pcampbell09 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“Everything that begins to exist has a cause”
1. Quantum fluctuations begin to exist all the time in a Vacuum uncaused, which is allowed by the Hindenburg Uncertainty Principle
2. Any cause of an existence, must also have a cause for it’s existence
3. Infinite regress should be avoided, infinity is an irrational number
4. A cause cannot be timeless, this would break premise 2
5. The Universe is uncaused
How ironic, logic defeats the Cosmo"logic"al Argument :)
theBartone9119 2 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 2 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 2 months ago
The cosmological argument oh my
If you are looking for evidence to prove any strongly held belief you will always find that evidence, this is human nature, when you look for evidence to debunked your own strongly held beliefs now that's enlightenment
RevDevilin 2 months ago
@RevDevilin for example searching arguments for debunking atheism?
Dathinkingman 2 months ago
@Dathinkingman Indeed any strongly held belief, that cannot stand up to scrutiny by yourself is ultimately worthless, wanting something to be true is completely different from it being true, and wanting something to be false is completely different from it being false, whatever that strongly held belief is
What strongly held belief do you desire to be true ?
RevDevilin 2 months ago
Comment removed
Dathinkingman 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RevDevilin none. i am agnostic . but i think taking theology seriously is necessary, the "emperor has no cloths" response of new atheist is not enough .
Dathinkingman 2 months ago
What strikes me as ultimately dishonest about the religious argument is that they make the argument so it fits whatever we find to be true about nature. When we thought the universe was eternal, God supposedly created it anyway. Now we know it isn't, it's just further proof that he created it. I believe there's a saying about having your cake....
GodTheHypothesis 2 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis Christians have largely thought the universe has always begun at some point. Now we have evidence for that, so we create arguments out of it.
SPR4GOD 2 months ago
@SPR4GOD
But when science thought the universe was eternal, people still thought God did it- that's my point. Clearly it's not based on the current evidence- so I don't see why people pretend it is. All of the things in the bible that turned out NOT to be true are now conveniently thought of as metaphors of some kind. Hey, the hindu scriptures said there were many planets- so by this retrospective logic, maybe the hindus knew more than the jews.
GodTheHypothesis 2 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis Science is a fairly modern construct that could never test for an eternal universe. It was a metaphysical claim (by Hume iirc) that said: If god can be eternal, then why can't the universe? Theists like Aquinas and Leibniz made a number of philosophical arguments against an eternal universe; such as the first mover and contingency.
SPR4GOD 2 months ago
@SPR4GOD
But as I said, what about all of the various claims by religions that were shown to be wrong? It's a dishonest method of inquiry to just pick the ones that you got right and keep emphasising them- christianity got a lot wrong (and of course now claims it was metaphorical). An honest way of approaching problems is to make a prediction and then see if it's right or wrong. So yes, if christians had predicted this- they were right. But they wudve been wrong on a hell of a lot!
GodTheHypothesis 2 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis Sure; Christians (during the formation of the Church) have gotten things wrong, that is the problem of living 1500-2000 years ago. However, that does not relate to modern cosmology. Christians now have every right to consider the universe is finite because that is what is shown (in various academic publications). Just as they have before with such arguments like the contingency argument.
SPR4GOD 2 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis The cosmological argument is only a single argument; there are many arguments that are also used by theologians. Academic Christianity has yielded where it has needed to; but still remains a viable philosophy in explanation of the world.
SPR4GOD 2 months ago
@SPR4GOD
Lol yielded? "Yielded" in theology looks an awful lot like "turn into a metaphorical truth". How many preachers tell their congregations "these are the bits the bible got wrong". Well in what sense does it remain a viable philosophy? I mean, it doesn't explain anything about the material universe anymore. It's retreated to areas that can't actually be tested. It's no more viable then any other of the 1000 religions on offer. Those aren't my kinda odds.
GodTheHypothesis 2 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis My Pastor (who passed up a PhD to come to Australia from the States) told the congregation that the story of the tax collector climbing the tree to gain a better look at Jesus was added in between 250 - 300 AD. It explains human nature, and the meaning of life. I study physics for natural meaning and Christianity for spiritual meaning. Well actually, the historicity of the resurrection can be tested and defended.
SPR4GOD 2 months ago
@SPR4GOD
Well I applaud your pastor then. Although I wasn't necessarily talking about inconsequential stories- I mean main ideas that might make people question the bible. The vast majority of the church of england for example, believe in evolution. Yet I've very rarely heard any of them admit to fellow christians that genesis was wrong if taken literally. Hold on, how can the historicity of the resurrection be tested? Last time I checked, it was only mentioned in the gospels.
GodTheHypothesis 2 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis "genesis was wrong if taken literally."
Maybe, but then again you haven't met every Christian. For example, I expressed the ability for neutral genetic mutations that increase DNA coding, which would then evolve to a YEC (he wasn't too happy), so it's not like we are not around.
What is wrong with the gospels? They are the first accounts of Christian beliefs in contemporary settings.
SPR4GOD 2 months ago
@SPR4GOD
Well you said the resurrection could be "tested". In what sense is reading what other people wrote "testing" it? What's wrong with the gospels? They were written by people! Human anecdote is the lowest form of evidence in science- for good reason. Humans are just terrible at reporting things accurately. They lie, are susceptible to delusion or could simply misinterpet what has happened. And the gospels were written decades later (not that it makes much difference).
GodTheHypothesis 2 months ago
Cosmological arguments can be very deceptive.
There has NEVER been a time when the universe did not exist - and there NEVER will be. The universe did not HAVE a 'beginning' for this very reason.
The universe is a frame WITHIN which we measure temporal events such as 'beginnings'.
Similarly the earth has a north pole but that does NOT mean it points northward in space. There is no such orientation. The earth itself does not HAVE an orientation it is a field WITHIN which we measure orientation.
Hufflewaffle 3 months ago
I am watching this as a homework assignment. Out of curiosity is anyone watching this for fun?
plumpkinpatch 4 months ago
Cosmological argument 2 assumptions:
1. GOD CAN exist without being created.
2. NOTHING CAN exist without being created.
As you can see the only way for both these statements to be true is if God is actually equivalent to nothing and that would make you an athiest.
So either Nothing or something can exist without a creator. The first is disproves a god, the second has no need for 1.
Both possibilities point to either no god or no need for one in order for stuff to exist.
Both = NO GOD
PooeyBum11 4 months ago
@PooeyBum11 You misunderstood the first premise. The first premise in the (Kalam) Cosmological Argument is "everything WHICH HAS A BEGINNING has a cause." God, unlike the universe, had no beginning and cause. Einstein's Theory of Relativity reveals that time is linked with space and matter, all of which began with the Big Bang. God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe; thus he is the creator of time. He is not limited by the dimension of time He created and therefore uncaused.
Marduniya 4 months ago
@Marduniya actually i perfectly understood the first premise. My arguement actually explains why the premise that you just talked about is stupid. For you to assume that God has no beginning you first have to accept that it is possible for something to exist without having a cause/beginning. If you do accept that it is possible for something to exist without having a beginning then you have absolutely no basis for saying that the universe could not have just always existed.
PooeyBum11 4 months ago
@Marduniya Now from your premise that something doesnt need a begining to exist, then if your choice is between the universe had no begining or god had no begining, what seems more likely: a simple form of energy in its absolute most basic form or the most powerful being in existance that is conscious and has a will of its own. Why would something like that exist in an empty universe. You cannot say everything needs a begining but god does not. Your arguement is based on a contradiction.
PooeyBum11 4 months ago
@PooeyBum11 It seems to me that you are assuming that we as theists are merely asserting that everything has a beginning except for God. That is not the case at all we have good evidence that the universe had a beginning. We have philosophical arguments such as the argument against actual quantitative infinites which states that because subtracting infinity from infinity equals infinity, infinity then is merely an idea.
philosophizer149 4 months ago
@philosophizer149 according to string theory, our universe may be the result of interactions between two sheets of dimensions or something like that. The begining of our universe does not have to be the begining of everything. As your own arguement states, something can't come from nothing, therefore something must have always existed, why would you assume it would be something conscious and all powerful. Simple things build into more advanced things, not the other way around like your saying.
PooeyBum11 4 months ago
@philosophizer149
I've heard this claim quite a lot-especially from WLC. And as a mathematician, I do struggle to see how he actually claims this. The thing about mathematical infinity is it's very specific. Infinity in set theory (which craig uses and calls "transfinite arithmetic" to try and sound like he knows his stuff) has different rules than it does in real analysis. Very few scientists rule out the possibility that some part of the universe could be infinite.
GodTheHypothesis 2 months ago
@Marduniya maybe your just too simple minded to be able to understand that when i said that the cosmological arguement assumes God can exist without being created, that is the exact same thing as when you rephrased it to say god does not need a begining. Both those points are making a statements are saying the exact same thing, so your attempt to change the phrasing has no effect on the validity of my arguement. From an unbiased viewpoint read over our 2 comments and you will see your error.
PooeyBum11 4 months ago
The Cosmological argument contradicts itself, and it has been debunked centuries ago. If everything needs a cause, how can there be an "original" cause? Also, the premise that everything needs a cause does not necessarily derives into God being that cause. It is also wrong in that it presupposes there is something outside the space/time realm (for it to be "created") which as far as science knows today is not the case.
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Cosmological argument contradicts itself, and it has been debunked centuries ago. If everything needs a cause, how can there be an "original" cause? Also, the premise that everything needs a cause does not necessarily derives into God being that cause. It is also wrong in that it presupposes there is something outside the space/time realm (for it to be "created") which as far as science knows today is not the case.
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
Comment removed
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
Comment removed
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
i agree earth cant be in tuned by chance. science and theology are different.. things can only be proven so far so why not listen to what others have to say not just to the scientific evidence. Why cant God be in the picture
amkornas11 5 months ago
i agree with what toering442 just said our earth is fine tuned. people could say that happend by chance but i believe there was a designer who designed our world to be fine tuned.
longjump2424 5 months ago
I agree, God created this world and has a purpose and a plan for everyone and everything
ajeanfski 5 months ago
since the universe is so complex, there must be a complex being who created everything to work perfectly, which could be God.
toering442 5 months ago
@toering442 thats a poor argument, chaos theory tells us this isnt true, order will eventually arise from chaos. The cosmological argument is very very different to that.
Userunvalid 5 months ago
That which is Infinite is, in essence, the same as that which is timeless. Temporal events can not exist in either.
There is no essential difference between 'infinite causal regression' and 'uncaused cause'.
Hufflewaffle 6 months ago
1 rubish
2 rubish
3 rubish
4 rubish
5 rubish
These are the 5 proofs that god exists :S
Typho0n86 6 months ago
@Typho0n86 or that you need to use a dictionary to help you spell otherwise that's not so funny!
philosophyteacher 5 months ago
How do you prove Jesus is a god?
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz Cause he had sex with himself and gave birth to himself... duh
Typho0n86 6 months ago
all the men in this video are small time mediocre people in terms of the work they have done and their recognition as professional scientists, when you read the work of stephen hawkings and albert einstein you will realize how silly this argument is and how silly these people talking about it are, the greatest smartest men have pondered the universes existence and come to no certain answer and a couple of unknown professors think they can solve the mystery of our world with a six line argument.
guitarcar911 6 months ago
@guitarcar911 Arrogance, it seems, is almost a necessity among apologists.
wownov83 6 months ago
@wownov83 arrogance, ignorance, stupidity, bigotry, closed mindedness, hypocrisy, preachiness, self-righteousness... are all characteristics idiosyncratic to apologist (to name a few)
guitarcar911 6 months ago
@guitarcar911 thomas aquinas mediocre? small time? stephen hawkings is silly when he talks about God 'cos he's a phyicist not a theologian - big difference even though lots ot people think if you got a science degree you can be an 'expert' on everything- he can't do that -sorry
philosophyteacher 5 months ago
@philosophyteacher well when you make an argument about how the universe came into existence it usually helps if you understand physics to the degree that stephen hawkings does, that way you actually might understand how complex the universe is and how the simplest answer is not necisarily right
guitarcar911 5 months ago
@guitarcar911 so you dispute Ockham's Razor? Crikey you are a bold one! I agree with hawkings degree and physics but any fool (!) knows that science and religion are two totally different areas and science can't disprove religion anymore than it can prove which colour is best
philosophyteacher 5 months ago
@philosophyteacher what does religion have to do with cosmology, cosmology is a science and that is what these people are talking about cosmology. why would anyone listen to theologians talking about science thay dont have a clue
guitarcar911 5 months ago
@guitarcar911 of course unless the answer lies beyond the physical world which is all science can answer- but your reply has to apply to clueless scientists talking about theolgy too - in other words saying God does not exist is nonsensical for any scientist to comment on and a theologian saying nonsense like people can walk through walls etc
philosophyteacher 5 months ago
@guitarcar911 lol, Thomas Aquinas is one of the most influential philosophers of his time, he knows a damn site more than you, and his argument is very logical and scientific (up until his last conclusion) In fact the cosmological reasoning of this very argument is the most excepted theory about the nature of reality in modern science.
Userunvalid 5 months ago
@Userunvalid dude the argument is ridiculous i dont care who came up with it, it contradicts itself and solves nothing, imagine replacing the word universe with the word god now youve proven that god needs a devine power to be created and the problems continue.
guitarcar911 5 months ago
@guitarcar911 LOL. you clearly don't have a very good understanding of the argument if you say that. OTHER PEOPLE have put forward this criticism. The argument says anything contingent has a cause, right from the big bang to now everything has been and will be contingent. Aquinas suggests that god is out side our logical, and physical universe and is therefore not contingent, and therefore needs no cause. This does mean he cant love anyone though. The argument is flawless.
Userunvalid 5 months ago
@Userunvalid "Aquinas suggests that god is out side our logical, and physical universe and is therefore not contingent, and therefore needs no cause."
If God transcends our logic and the laws of our physical universe, how can you speak of him bringing the universe into existance when even time itself is a concept that does not apply to "before the big bang"? To say there was a time before time is meaningless. This argument fails without a temporal framework, which the big bang denies it.
dannytibi 4 months ago
@dannytibi Im saying there was NO time before time. The problem here is more of language. He didn't just bring the universe into existence, he brought existence itself (AS WE KNOW IT) into being.
Userunvalid 4 months ago
@Userunvalid That is patently absurd. If that is true God would have to be non-existant by definition, if he is conceptually prior to existance itself. Such a notion cannot hold water, it is self-refuting to say that a non-existant being brought existance into existance. Existance is conceptually prior to anything that can be said to exist.
dannytibi 4 months ago
@dannytibi Your missing the point. The idea is, that we only experience existence as we know it. God DOES exist by definition, but in a different "existence". He does not exist in, or interact with our existence in itself. Btw when I say God I mean the first cause, not specifically God.
Userunvalid 4 months ago
@Userunvalid Ok, the first thing you said that I agree with, "he does not exist in, or interact with our existence in itself". The problem here is that postulating anything that is not bound to existence as we know it is pure speculation at best. You have also just settled yourself with an enormous burden of proof regarding this "different existence", why should any of us be led to believe there are 2 different realms of existence.
dannytibi 4 months ago
@dannytibi You realise I have not come to thus conclusion for no reason? do you even know the cosmological argument? and are you suggesting that the universe always existed and need no cause? are you saying that the universe is infinite? The most widely accepted theory of its origin, the big bang, relies on this principle of sufficient reason, it relies on this argument being right. You are suggesting an infinite regress which is totally illogical.
Userunvalid 4 months ago
@Userunvalid I am not suggesing an infinte regress, precisely because I'm saying before the big bang there was no time to regress into. The cosmological argument fails where causality does not apply, because causality is temporal in nature.
dannytibi 4 months ago
@dannytibi So I'm neither suggesting that the universe was brought into existence nor that it's dimension of time regresses infinitely. But rather time is a dimension of the universe and it governs the relationship of things that exist within the universe, not the universe itself. For causality to apply to the universe as a whole entity it would need to be part of a different timeframe of some superuniverse or something like that.
dannytibi 4 months ago
@dannytibi Try to think of it as a bowl, you cannot fit a bowl into itself, in the same way you cannot fit the universe as whole entity into one of it's own aspects, i.e. time and causal relations.
dannytibi 4 months ago
@dannytibi "before the big bang there was no time to regress into." That's what the cosmological argument states but , as the big bang wasn't a theory in the times of this arguments documentation, they have use the word first cause, and have not been specific. The idea is, that the big bang IS, it didn't happen, it just was. Aquinas talks about potentiality and actuality, he says that the first cause is PURE actuality, the big bang is pure actuality.
Userunvalid 4 months ago
@Userunvalid It sounds to me now, that you're saying that the Big Bang is God (?). Anyway, you lost me, backtrack please.
dannytibi 4 months ago
@dannytibi OK when ever I've used the word God I just mean the first cause, This argument ATTEMPTS TO SHOW THAT THERE MUST BE A FIRST CAUSE & TO DEFINE WHAT THE FIRST CAUSE MUST HAVE (What its properties are.) The properties are:
1. Cannot be contingent - It cannot come into or go out of time / space.
2. Must be exempt from our physical / causal laws. Like time.
Now this is a very open definition, and the big bang fits it. The big bang is exempt from physical laws and is not contingent.
Userunvalid 4 months ago
@Userunvalid Ok, In order for something to be a first cause it must necessarily exist in a causal relationship, that implies necessarily a temporal relationship as well. You cannot posit a cause existing outside of time, because outside of time the cause and effect relationship simply does not apply.
dannytibi 4 months ago
@dannytibi ahh well not if the thing itself, IS causality, technically the big bang IS causality itself. The argument aquinas put forward is that god IS the universe
Userunvalid 4 months ago
@Userunvalid Well, if he and you want to call the universe God, then in that case I can accept that "God" exists. I just hope you are OK with bordering on Pantheism rather than classical theism. Who am I kidding? "Bordering", this is pantheism. Not that I'm objecting, though...
dannytibi 4 months ago
@dannytibi Yes well, the problem with applying Aquinas' version of the argument now, is that it was constructed in the 14th century... He doesn't actually give any reason or evidence for the catholic God being the first cause. He says "and this everyone understands to be God" <-- of course now there are other theories, he would have to justify this, but then he seemed to be referring only to the people who he thought would be reading his work, I.E monks, religious people.
Userunvalid 4 months ago
Cosmological argument refutation:
watch?v=7raQmfuJ_Fc
wownov83 7 months ago
P.S. just taking your sentence and changing some words around:
"It's interesting that you can't come up with any reason that the unicorn I mentioned couldn't exist. The simple reason being, that there aren't any."
That said, why the hell would you believe that such a unicorn exists?
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 The unicorn is my god
Typho0n86 6 months ago
And lastly, if you really wanted me to come up with another "option", I could have said that the creation could have been an abstract cause. Immaterial and timeless. That is certainly not a being, nor an "event". But this is besides the point, I'm just answering your question. You haven't even tried to substantiate your claims.
wownov83 7 months ago
I mean, you don't understand utterly elementary things like backing up assertions with proof. What's wrong with you? I could easily assert that an invisible and immaterial unicorn is orbiting the earth right now, and you couldn't possibly disprove it. But why would you believe it? I haven't provided any proof, and I certainly haven't satisfied my burden of proof. Similarly, you haven't proved ANYTHING! You simply assert, time and time again, without thinking things through.
wownov83 7 months ago
By the way, I sent you a link via youtube message that hugely elaborates on the shortcomings of the cosmological argument. Please do me a favor and look at it.
wownov83 7 months ago
There's an easy way to tell if we "know" something or not. Define the premises accurately, support the premises with arguments or evidence, and then take logical steps using the premises. Your argument fails because you can't substantiate why the first cause is a "being". Your first premise, that there are two options, is not valid because you have provided nothing to satisfy the, as you yourself said, burden of proof.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Alright, am reading it now. Before I get to that, this whole section has just been ridiculous on your part. It's like when we were talking about the finite or infinite universe. If we stopped there "How come those are the only two options huh? Supply me with other options." It's just stupid. Again, the reason that event or being are the two options is because they are the only two options. It's not any deeper then that.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep That's just wrong. We know things about time. Either time had a beginning, or it did not. If it had a beginning, then the universe is finite in time. If it didn't have a beginning, it is infinite in time.
On the other hand, we know absolutely nothing about the "first cause" of the universe. And when you say that you know what the only two possibilities are, I raise my eyebrow. It's as simple as that.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 There are no other options. Either it was something that happened, or it was a being that caused it. If you can agree to there needing to be a first cause, then those are the only options. I don't understand why you can't grasp that. Give me another option to consider. That's how discussions work.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep
"There are no other options."
Prove it. Your whole argument is contingent on this premise. You set it up so that if what preceded the first case was not an infinite sequence of causes, it must be this "being", since there are only two options.
In the example you raised, about the finite/infinite universe, we can easily deduce that there are only two options, since time either had or did not have a beginning. It's completely different from what you are doing.
wownov83 7 months ago
@Reepecheep I hate to resort to such silly hyperbole, but you're just not understanding what I'm driving at. I could play your game to, by positing that what preceded the first cause is either an infinite sequence of causal events, or a magic squirrel. It can't be an infinite sequence of events, so a magic squirrel is responsible for the creation of the universe. Now of course this is wrong. Why is it wrong? Because there's no reason you should believe that there are only two options.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 And in this case, I can show other options to the argument. There is nothing inherently wrong with a magic squirrel if those were the two options. I can pose other options that fit better, such as an infinite being. Thus plugging another, better fitting, option into the mix. I could make up more options for the original debate, but unless you can supply me with another one, those are it. It lies in your court.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep Why should an infinite being fit better? I'm glad you agree with me, in that case we could sit here and list a million possible options. Let's continue, then. What preceded the first cause could be an infinite sequence of events, a magic squirrel, an infinite being, or a million other things. Now show me why the only "true option" is the infinite being. Remember, you can't test anything, and none of these options have any evidence, so good luck.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Also, we were talking about deducing about the options. We can deduce that those are the only options available because anything that happens anywhere is either caused by someone or something. Event being think, and a "being" being someone. Is there another option there that I missed? That's pretty basic stuff. Also, there is no way to prove that in ANY debate that 2 options are the only possible options. Unless there are others that someone can present, they go on that.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep No, deducing is precisely NOT what we're doing. You CANNOT deduce that the only two options are a being or an infinite number of events. It's not my job to tell you what options you've missed, it's your job to tell me why there are only two options, and why one option is the better choice.
As I said before, we can easily deduce that there are only two possibilities for the universe: finite or infinite. This is a logical deduction, and I explained that before.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 I never said that infinite number of events was an option.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep I suppose that it could have been multiple events or beings also, but those still fall into what I'm saying.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep No, they don't fall into what you're saying. I could assert as an option that an apple created the universe, and you couldn't show that it is any more or less likely that the other options. You're trying to show that a "being" created it, and you can't.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 An apple is a being by the way.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep If you're fine with the potentiality of an apple creating the universe, I think I've overestimated you. And if an apple is a being, we have, apparently, very big differences in our definitions of a being.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 You seem to think that I'm saying this being was intelligent. Where are you inferring this from?
Reepecheep 7 months ago
It's easy to deduce that ONE event or one being are the only options because there are no other plausible options. That's what deducing is.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep Wrong. You're simply asserting it time and time again that there are two options. You have no idea what deducing is. Seriously, wikipedia it. As for the universe example, I'll gladly explain it. My first assertion is that time either had a beginning, or it did not have a beginning. You can't disagree with this. I then conclude that if time had a beginning, it is finite, by definition. If it did not have a beginning, it is infinite, by definition.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 You can disagree. There is the possibility to have a beginning but no end, or an end but no beginning. That starts to break into some really thick quantum physics or the existence of multiple universes. I know what deducing is, and you don't apparently. Please tell me another option. I'm still waiting for one. I'm asserting the only two options. There is no PROOF for either of these, other wise it would be fact not philosophy.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep "There is the possibility to have a beginning but no end, or an end but no beginning." Yes, and those are both, by definition, infinite. An infinite thing is that which is unbounded. So the universe must be in fact either finite or infinite.
For the last time, why do you assert that there are ONLY two options? You JUST said that you're open to other options, like an apple, or a squirrel, or a million other things that could be imagined.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 "Being: The fact of existing." As defined by Webster. I now see this as a breakdown in communication. Anything that exists is a being. An apple, a rock, a deer, or even a computer. They are all beings, they are not however, intelligent beings.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep Actually, a deer is an intelligent being. And if you have just admitted the possibility that a deer could have created the universe, I think my job here is done. This argument is bogus.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Also, you're right about the deer, I miss typed when I labeled it as a non-intelligent being.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@wownov83 They are the only two options because there are no other options. It's very simple. Please show me otherwise.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep That's not a deduction. It's an assertion. I don't have to prove otherwise, you have to show it in the first place. It's called the burden of proof. When I asserted that the universe could either be finite or infinite, the burden of proof was on me, so I logically deduced it. You haven't deduced anything. You've said, in effect:
"There are two options because there are two options. If not, show me otherwise". That doesn't fly.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 It's interesting that you can't come up with any other options. The simple reason being, that there aren't any. I didn't say a deer created the universe. Your argument is based on the fact that you believe that there are more then two options (event or being), the burden of proof is on you. If you can't think of a single other possibility, my work here is done, because you need some extra school before we can continue.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep No, you said a deer could have created the universe. I don't have an argument, I'm criticizing yours. I also didn't claim that there are more than two options. I couldn't possibly prove that. I questioned why you said that there are only two options, which also is, in my opinion, not provable. Unfortunately for you, the burden of proof is on you, and you're quite simply incapable of satisfying it. You have some serious problems with logic.
wownov83 7 months ago
Can you explain to me why finite or infinite are the only two possibilities?
Reepecheep 7 months ago
I have substantiated it. If you can't see past this point, then we have nothing more to talk about. I have not blindly or randomly asserted anything. I have pulled together the option based on knowledge we have. You use the cop out of saying "I can't accept that because we don't know for sure." The whole process of theorizing is to take what you know, and pull together a logical conclusion until it is known otherwise. Right now, this is the logical conclusion.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep How have you substantiated it? You asserted that there are two options (and I've asked you repeatedly to show why there are these two options), and one of them is the very thing you're trying to prove. Nothing about the knowledge we have tells us that anything about what may have been the first cause... There is simply no logical connection between acknowledging a first cause of the universe and then asserting that cause to be a "being". If there is, you certainly haven't showed it.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 In fact, the only "logical conclusion" is to admit the fact that you just don't know, something that theists seem to have a problem with.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 I'm sorry, but if we can agree that there is a first cause, then those are the only two options. If you wish to state others then that burden of proof lies with you. As it stands now can you think of something other then an event or a being if indeed we can agree that it was caused?
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep
"By the way, the reason there are those two options, is because those are the options."
That's not exactly the kind of argument I was looking aiming for.
You claim that the burden of proof should fall on me if I wanted to propose an alternative option... yet the option that a "being" created the universe is completely immune to this same burden of proof. The burden of proof, as you yourself said, is all on you.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 By the way, the reason there are those two options, is because those are the options. Not really sure what more you want on that point. : \
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@wownov83 And of course one of the options is the one I'm trying to prove. Why on earth would you look at something and then try to prove something that isn't even a possibility? Lastly, to clarify, I don't know. I have no problem with saying that because it's true. I am simply putting the pieces together in a way that makes sense. You seem to have a problem with it because you just want to end it with "I don't know" because you don't want to conjecture any farther.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep "You seem to have a problem with it because you just want to end it with "I don't know" because you don't want to conjecture any farther."
Wrong. I don't know because I don't know. It's not that I don't want to conjecture any further, it is that I can't conjecture any further. What I know for certain is that I don't know anything about the first cause of the universe, and you don't either.
wownov83 7 months ago
"so if the Universe originated" * correction of the quote.
TheisticThinker 7 months ago
The Quantum vacuum which is a sea of fluctuating energy and is subject to physical laws, and it constitutes as an indeterministic ( If you favor the Copenhagen interpretation instead of deterministic ones like Bohr's ) cause for the virtual particles brief existence. Remove the sub-atomic vacuum and you won't have any virtual particles coming into being for a brief moment before dissapearing.
TheisticThinker 7 months ago
A Person is a thing that does things (among other characteristics). Doing things requires the concept of time.
How can something create (which is a doing verb) something else, without there being the concept of time to allow for that?
Even the concept of action itself makes no sense outside of time. Hence, debating causation outside of time is without any actual meaning.
andimuellersc 7 months ago
We've never observed something come into existence, just change form - ie. building a house from bricks. If this does constitute beginning to exist then we can say that all things that exist began to exist (going right back to the big bang).
All things that exist began to exist.
An eternal god did not begin to exist.
Therefore an eternal god does not exist.
DaStCl87 7 months ago
Hey, its 2011. There is no god. OK? Get over it.
notnilccm 8 months ago
@notnilccm Just because we live in the year 2011 does not mean that these arguments are not rational and powerful. Many theists would argue that the advancement of science (ie the discovery of more order in nature, the complexity of the universe, mathematical principles that line up with science, the depth in science etc) point to a Creator more than ever. Instead of saying derogatory and insulting things like "get over it" perhaps you should do more research on what both sides believe and argue
REDRAGON12345 8 months ago
@REDRAGON12345 Ya sure, let me research it further. Did I forget to say quack quack?
notnilccm 8 months ago
@notnilccm lol idiot...:)
Resisturgetocomment 7 months ago
3:55. If we accept this rather lopsided argument and conclude that the "cause" of the universe is timeless, spaceless and immaterial... why must that cause be god? The square root of 2 is timeless, spaceless and immaterial. Why must we give this cause human-like characteristics? Why can't it be a natural phenomena?
wownov83 8 months ago
@wownov83 You are forgetting that this theory also claims the 'cause' must be personal.
polonophobia 8 months ago
@polonophobia Firstly, it isn't a theory. This is an argument that attempts to show that god exists. At no point did Craig argue that the cause must be personal, and indeed there's no reason why it would be, even if his argument held (it doesn't).
wownov83 8 months ago
3:35 is also incorrect. The big bang theory does NOT say that the universe came into existence out of nothing. The big bang singularity contained ALL the matter in the universe in zero volume and, theoretically, infinite temperature. How this matter and energy got into this state is not known, but no scientist has claimed that it just came out of nothing.
wownov83 8 months ago
2:13 is incorrect. Modern science doesn't claim to know if the universe is finite, infinite, boundless, bounded, or contained within itself. Since science fails in analyzing time's shorter than the Planck time, and causation breaks down, it's just easier to say that time started at the big bang. But that is NOT the same as saying that time came into existence at the big bang.
wownov83 8 months ago
@wownov83 Modern science does claim that the universe is finite. Let's try to at least not straight out lie here if we are going to talk about theories.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep Wrong. Since causality breaks down at times shorter than the Planck time, completely due to limitations in modern science, it's customary to simply define t=0, the beginning of time, as the moment of the big bang. But that certainly doesn't mean that there was nothing before the big bang.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 The notion that 'out of nothing, nothing comes' is a metaphysical notion that governs all of reality, it doesn't break down at the Plank era. The initial singularity at t=0 is where matter, energy, space and time come into being. The universe came into being at the initial singularity ex-nihilo.
TheisticThinker 7 months ago
@TheisticThinker Firstly, how could a metaphysical notion govern reality? Clearly you need to learn what at least one of those words mean. Secondly, it's just not true. Quantum mechanics actually provides experimental evidence against "out of nothing, nothing comes". Particles pop into and out of existence all the time, everywhere you look. Lastly, all the big bang states is that all energy and matter was condensed into a singularity 14.6 bya. It doesn't mean that it came from nothing.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Maybe I didn't make it so clear, it is more of a metaphysical intuition. "ex nihilo nihil fit" is a philosophical claim involving metaphysics. If something can come into being from nothing, then aswell a horse can come into being from nothing in my living room. There is nothing with nothing that makes discriminating towards other physical objects. Nothing can't have any proporties, because then it would be 'something'! So it can't make any restrictions.
TheisticThinker 7 months ago
@TheisticThinker Actually, it has nothing to do with metaphysics. It's a philosophical statement. And you're quite right, according to quantum mechanics, a horse could spontaneously pop into your living room; EVERY event is associated with a probability, however small it may be . But the probability of this happening is such that, basically, it will never happen.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 No, you don't seem to understand QM. Quantum Mechanics do not provide any evidence for something coming into being from nothing. What you think does so is the virtual particles come into being in the quantum vacuum which you think is 'nothing'. That is completely wrong, the virtual particles come into being for a brief moment before dissapearing, they arise as spontaneous fluctuations in the energy contained in the sub-atomic vacuum.
TheisticThinker 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wownov83 The Quantum vacuum which is a sea of fluctuating energy and is subject to physical laws, and it constitutes as an indeterministic ( If you favor the Copenhagen interpretation instead of deterministic ones like Bohr's ) cause for the virtual particles brief existence. Remove the sub-atomic vacuum and you won't have any virtual particles coming into being for a brief moment before dissapearing.
TheisticThinker 7 months ago
@wownov83 No, not really, that is not 'all'. The standard model of cosmology, which is the Big Bang model for the origin of the universe, it was proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Priest and Astronomer. Before nicknamed the 'Big Bang' later by Fred Hoyle, Georges Lemaître called it ''hypothesis of the primeval atom' which described space, time, matter and energy coming into being at an initial singularity. It is the same theory now, the only difference is the name.
TheisticThinker 7 months ago
@wownov83 The prediction by the standard model of cosmology, which is the Big Bang theory, predicts that space, time, matter and energy came into being at the singularity. This is what the standard model predicts; " At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed bfore the singularity, so, if the Universe at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex-nihilo." - John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
TheisticThinker 7 months ago
@TheisticThinker If things pop into and out of existence in the "sub-atomic vacuum" in space (traditionally called "nothing"), then why is there any reason to think that "nothing" really exists? What example of nothingness can you provide? I'll grant all your assertions, that time and space came into existence 13.7 bya, and you still haven't come any closer to showing that god exists.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Showing that God exist is not the point of me responding, but rather your ignorance towards cosmology. Space is something, space has never been called nothing, nothing is nothing, nothing can't have any proporties or anything at all. It is just nothing. Why think that nothing exist? Well the existence of nothingness is kind of hard to grasp, it is imposible for humans to grasp. But it has no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no proporties etc.
TheisticThinker 7 months ago
@TheisticThinker Right. Well thanks for the corrections, but I thought you were actually going somewhere with this.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Well, correcting you on what Cosmology and Quantum Fluctuations says and wether it proves that something can come from nothing. Your statements on that made me comment because you were simply wrong.
TheisticThinker 7 months ago
@TheisticThinker Thanks again!
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 No problem. Just want to add, a bit random and off topic but, your Meshuggah video is awesome. :) Even though I haven't listened to them so much, I like some songs and their style. And they are also from Sweden like me, haha, proud.
TheisticThinker 7 months ago
The state preceding the Big Bang was the nonexistence of any physical being. But we can't visualize it, because nothing we can grasp or use to understand it existed at that "time". Not even time itself, which makes it impossible to say 'before' the singularity.
TheisticThinker 7 months ago
@wownov83 Also, just want to point out, the latest data says our universe is 13,7 billion years old, not 14,6.
TheisticThinker 7 months ago
@wownov83 The law of Entropy says that the universe will eventually burn out and that all energy will be reverted into unusable forms (since matter can neither be created nor destroyed). This has only 2 possible ways of going. 1: The universe is infinite. The problem of course being that if the universe was around for negative infinity, then the universe would have been burned out infinite times prior. Option 2: It was created.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep I don't understand your argument. Your premise is well substantiated, i.e. that the ever increasing entropy will results in a heat death of the universe, and all usable energy will be "used". But how does this lead to either of your options? How does the impending heat death of the universe lead to the belief that a) the universe is infinite or b) the universe was created?
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Perhaps I worded it wrong. Let me try to clarify. There are two options, that A it is infinite or B it isn't. Correct? If A is the option, then entropy dictates that the universe would have run out of usable energy infinite times in the past. Option B says that it's finite, and thus has a starting point. If it had a starting point, then it had to be created somehow.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep I suppose the universe must either be infinite or finite, yes. And I agree with you that the universe is probably finite, and the beginning of space and time probably occurred some 13.7 bya with the "big bang". But that doesn't mean that the universe was created, much less so by any human-like creator. It just means that we don't know why it happened.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 I must be missing the way you arrived at the conclusion. So you accept all the premises, but not the ending. I'm not arguing that we must have had a "God" create it, only that it must have been created. Until we find something to disprove Entropy (which is possible I suppose), then it must have had a finite beginning. Because we know that contingent beings cannot create themselves, something must have done it. Whether or not it was "God" is up for more debates beyond this.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep But you still haven't shown why you think the universe needed to have been created. I accept the premise that the universe is finite and had a beginning. You need to show why you think it was created, i.e. by some intelligent force. I accept the fact that something must have caused the universe to begin, since everything has some sort of cause. But I really don't see why that means the universe was "created".
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 If it had to have a cause, then that cause had to have a cause, and that cause needed a cause. Eventually you need to have a non-contingent being (or necessary being) to have started it all. The problem with "well, it just had a cause" still leads to something needing to have caused that.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep I agree with the first part, it seems as though there is sort of a infinite regress of cause after cause after cause, and modern science hasn't answered it. I don't know either. However, you just asserted out of thin air that a non-contingent being was the first cause. Firstly, why should I believe a "being" is involved at all? Secondly, your "being" is itself a contradiction of the premise that everything needs a cause. Why doesn't you "being" itself have a cause?
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 The reason it must be a non-contingent being is because science shows us that a contingent being cannot be the reason for it's own existence. The very definition of a necessary being is that it has no finite beginning or end and thus, no cause. Energy is contingent. Matter is energy.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep Science doesn't have anything to say about the reason for the existence of "beings". You haven't solved anything by introducing this "creator being". The whole reason you introduced the creator is because you have a problem with the seemingly infinite causal chain at the birth of the universe. Yet, you have no problem accepting the existence of a being who, firstly, had no cause, and secondly, has existed for all time? Seriously?
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 #1: I have stated why it needs one. If we know matter/energy is contingent and it can't create itself, it has to be created. That's a pretty basic concept. #2: There is nothing wrong with the theory that something does exist without a cause, but we know that it isn't part of this universe. #3: I didn't say that everything needs a cause, only contingent things. Necessary beings do not need a cause by definition.
Reepecheep 7 months ago
@Reepecheep I agree that the existence of any energy and matter in the universe was "caused" by something, but not necessarily created, and certainly not so by any "being". And much less so by any "being" who would be concerned with the daily affairs of the planets inhabitants. And I certainly agree that the seemingly infinite causal chain is unsettling, but that simply does not mean you may posit the existence of a being that makes it easier for you to understand, or to accept.
wownov83 7 months ago