"Beginning" can only be a property of things that exist in time. The Universe itself does not exist in time. Time is the directionality of space-time. Like latitude being back and forth through time and longitude being simultaneity. There are particles that move north, back in time.
Prior to the Plank epoch god was simply waiting while Quantum Mechanics popped universes out at random. Eventually, by that i mean in an instant, along came ours. He needn't do anything.
Pure speculation is all that is required to prove that Craig wrong. It is logically possible for a God to create a universe that does not include options that lead to death. Done.
I don't see how you logically came to "If an Omnipotent creator wanted the best for us he would have created a world that did not include the possibility to kill each other."
How did you come to understand that statemnet to be true?
How did you come to understand that the world would be set up in exactly the way it is, if it were created by an Omnipotent creator who, as Craig puts it, "wants what's best for us"?
If people could not harm each other and dominate one another with force the only options would be are you going to be a likable person spreading joy or an unlikable person one one wants to be around. If people couldn't exceed through evil they wouldn't bother.
How about setting up the rules so that being good brings you joy, peace of mind and opportunity while doing evil shrivels you up inside and finally kills you. That way you would be punished in measure to your works, and it would be through the exercise of your freewill, rather than desperation in a dog eat dog world of scarcity.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So ... God creates life... to make sure life knows that God created life... and for life to worship him... That 's utterly ridiculous. Occam's razor... there is no God.
Occam's razor says don't multiply causes beyond necessity. But if it is Necessary(as proven through the arguments) then we are justified in inferring the existence of God.
In a world where one knows the intention of god or gods would the inference of the existence of god be applied. We do not know what god wants, let alone of his existence. Therefore, God does not necessarily exist.
Why does God necessarily have to exist? Just because you say "something HAD to make this universe" does not make it so. The universe could be of such a nature that it came into existence through natural forces all by itself. God's intention comes into play when you wonder why purpose would an all-powerful superbeing have to make the Earth? boredom?
Something had to make the universe if everything that begins to exist has a cause. How could the universe have come into being by natural causes if the universe is the natural world? Are you suggesting that the universe caused itself?(a self-contradiction)
God created man so that Man could enjoy God, no self-ish reason on God's part.
If you follow the universe back to the big bang you go from Cosmology into Quantum mechanics. The universe when all tied up below Plank's constant, follows the rules of QM, and being so it would no longer follow a linear timeline. The big bang could have banged in every other possible way including the way that leads to our universe. Blind trial and error rather than intelligent design.
The universe is more likely to have popped out of a previously existing quantum field than the mind of a Genocidal rage filled war lord of bronze aged goat hearders.
I am saying that we do not know what caused the universe to come into existence; but to have the arrogant stance that "God did; he loves you, and his son (who happens to be him, too) died for your sins" seems like an awful stretch of the imagination.
Well, remember that Craig and the Kalam defenders provided arguments for thinking that God is the cause of the universe.
However, I admit that special revelation and the moral nature of this God goes beyond the scope of this argument. This argument was never intended to be an argument for God's special revelation. We would look to other arguments for that claim.
I am not suggesting God exists. I am stating that the axiom of "the universe is a prime cause" is false. The universe could be such that it HAD to come into existence, due to quantum mechanics, or whatever exists beyond the universe. To say "god did it" explains nothing.
I agree that "god did it" explains nothing. The whole god concept is meaningless, a contradiction, and a distraction.
We do not know that the universe had to come into existence. As far as we know, it could have always existed.
It's the transformation, the sudden expansion/big bang that people call nothing into something incorrectly that we focus on the coming into existence part. That doesn't mean it wasn't something before.
Scientists say all the time that the Big Bang is literally a creation Ex Nihilo. Listen to Stephen Hawking.
"would quite literally be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all, because there is nothing outside the universe."
Nothing comes before time. God created the universe simultaneous to his decision to create the universe.
If you say nothing comes before time and a god created the universe, then that god must have existed before the universe. Are you saying time existed before the universe? Then again, what created time? How does a god create something without time as creation itself is a process that takes time.
If there was nothing and the god created it, where did the god come from?
I only ask these for amusement purposes of course.
You quote from Hawking is not him describing what he believes. We are talking about some who wrote a book called "Black holes and baby universES", who in two of his other books has diagrams showing multiple universes.
I am very familiar with what Physicist mean when they speak of the universe coming from "Nothing". Try actually reading what they're saying rather than putting words in their mouths for the sake of you argument.
Irrelevant. I didn't claim that Stephen hawking believed it, the claim was that the standard big bang model represented a creation ex nihilo. Try reading any textbook on cosmology and see how they describe the big bang.
You would be hard pressed to find Cosmologists that subscribe to what you call "the standard model". It's not that they don't like the implications, it's that "the standard model" cannot be the case given Quantum Mechanics. Again go read Stephen Hawking's books, he will tell you that there couldn't be a singularity (beginning point) at the big bang.
"This type of quantum universe has not always existed; it comes into being just as the classical cosmologies could, but it does not start at a Big Bang where physical quantities are infinite . . . ."
"often described as giving a picture of 'creation out of nothing,'" the only caveat being that in this case "there is no definite . . . point of creation."
You act as though truth is based on my source of information and is mind-dependant. If you do not think so, then you wouldn't be making attacks against me. Anyway, I have read quite a few papers on the big bang. I have seen a lot of documentaries about it as well. All of this is irrelevant anyway. The question should be, "were my arguments valid.". Nothing else.
I find the idea of the Universe existing as a brute fact as unsatisfactory as the idea that Yahweh, a war god who commanded rape and genocide, existing as a brute fact. They both bag the question, and demand an explanation. Why that god or universe rather than the infinite number of possible alternatives?
There is only one thing you can posit without begging further questions. An eternal, changeless, Omniscience which Yahweh is not.
If an Omniscience exists so does every logical possibility and their negations. the mind of an Omniscience would be an absolute fullness of all possibilities with nothing to differentiate "possible" from "actual". Nothing would be outside the mind of an Omniscience. Nothing left to do, know or experience. All possible moments existing in one eternal timeless instant.
"would quite literally be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all, because there is nothing outside the universe.
Also, Stephen Hawking avoids the singularity by simply chosing not to convert the imaginary numbers back into real numbers
"Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities . . . . When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities."
Yes from inside our space-time fabric moving north (back in time) it looks like we will run into the north pole and not be able to go any norther. From out side our fabric of space-time, north is just another point in the fabric like any other. All cause-effect relationships would be sewn up within the fabric. All time as well. There would be no time at which the fabric did not exist because all times are inside it. With nothing outside, nothing. No energy, no time, no persons.
If there were a timeless changeless Omniscient God, there would be no time at which this Universe did not exist in his mind. It would be as old as he is. But, there would also exist every other possible world each with there own closed fabrics of space-time. The fact that our Universe exist would be as much a brute fact as that of the God's existence, an no more that of any other possible world.
Are you arguing that causality only happens within the universe? Such an argument is flawed on several accounts. For example, if premise one is true it is metaphysically true and not simply physically true. So, you are in effect denying premise one. I'd be very interested in hearing why you believe this.
I don't subscribe to Hawking's no boundary model. I was simply explaining that the no boundary model has no beginning in four dimensions, just as the Earth has no boundary in two dimensions. Asking what was the cause be fore the cause before the cause is analogous to talking step after step after step toward the north pole. You will not reach the north pole and keep walking north. The whole of the surface is contained. The fabric of space-time is analogous to the surface of the earth.
If God exists then all things are permitted.
MrLittleOrno 1 year ago
"Beginning" can only be a property of things that exist in time. The Universe itself does not exist in time. Time is the directionality of space-time. Like latitude being back and forth through time and longitude being simultaneity. There are particles that move north, back in time.
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
Prior to the Plank epoch god was simply waiting while Quantum Mechanics popped universes out at random. Eventually, by that i mean in an instant, along came ours. He needn't do anything.
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
All things that begin to exist are made up of a substance that existed previous to it beginning.
The Universe began to exist
Therefore the Universe is made up of a substance that existed previous to it beginning.
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
Watch the Youtube video:
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
Pure speculation is all that is required to prove that Craig wrong. It is logically possible for a God to create a universe that does not include options that lead to death. Done.
Scientialist 2 years ago
@Scientialist
Okay you've just made a statement. Now go ahead and give me the argument. I'd love to hear the premises and the conclusion.
abrimestome 2 years ago
If you had watched the video you would see that i was responding to Craig. But if you need me to talk in syllogisms fine:
If an Omnipotent creator wanted the best for us he would have created a world that did not include the possibility to kill each other.
We live in a world where we kill each other all the time.
Therefore we do not live in a world created by an Omnipotent creator who wants the best for us.
Scientialist 2 years ago
Well first I'd have to disagree with premise one.
I don't see how you logically came to "If an Omnipotent creator wanted the best for us he would have created a world that did not include the possibility to kill each other."
How did you come to understand that statemnet to be true?
abrimestome 2 years ago
Are you kidding me?
You tell me, how could the ability for one man to impose his will on another so as to end his life, serve any good for anyone?
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
How did you come to understand that the world would be set up in exactly the way it is, if it were created by an Omnipotent creator who, as Craig puts it, "wants what's best for us"?
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
If people could not harm each other and dominate one another with force the only options would be are you going to be a likable person spreading joy or an unlikable person one one wants to be around. If people couldn't exceed through evil they wouldn't bother.
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
How about setting up the rules so that being good brings you joy, peace of mind and opportunity while doing evil shrivels you up inside and finally kills you. That way you would be punished in measure to your works, and it would be through the exercise of your freewill, rather than desperation in a dog eat dog world of scarcity.
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So ... God creates life... to make sure life knows that God created life... and for life to worship him... That 's utterly ridiculous. Occam's razor... there is no God.
arshsingh1984 2 years ago
@arshsingh1984
Occam's razor says don't multiply causes beyond necessity. But if it is Necessary(as proven through the arguments) then we are justified in inferring the existence of God.
theonlyway2truth 2 years ago
In a world where one knows the intention of god or gods would the inference of the existence of god be applied. We do not know what god wants, let alone of his existence. Therefore, God does not necessarily exist.
arshsingh1984 2 years ago
@arshsingh1984
Why would one need to know the intention of God to make an inference to his existence?
theonlyway2truth 2 years ago
Why does God necessarily have to exist? Just because you say "something HAD to make this universe" does not make it so. The universe could be of such a nature that it came into existence through natural forces all by itself. God's intention comes into play when you wonder why purpose would an all-powerful superbeing have to make the Earth? boredom?
arshsingh1984 2 years ago
Something had to make the universe if everything that begins to exist has a cause. How could the universe have come into being by natural causes if the universe is the natural world? Are you suggesting that the universe caused itself?(a self-contradiction)
God created man so that Man could enjoy God, no self-ish reason on God's part.
theonlyway2truth 2 years ago
If you are going to call the universe the whole of the natural world, then you cannot establish that the universe had a beginning.
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
If you follow the universe back to the big bang you go from Cosmology into Quantum mechanics. The universe when all tied up below Plank's constant, follows the rules of QM, and being so it would no longer follow a linear timeline. The big bang could have banged in every other possible way including the way that leads to our universe. Blind trial and error rather than intelligent design.
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
The universe is more likely to have popped out of a previously existing quantum field than the mind of a Genocidal rage filled war lord of bronze aged goat hearders.
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
I am saying that we do not know what caused the universe to come into existence; but to have the arrogant stance that "God did; he loves you, and his son (who happens to be him, too) died for your sins" seems like an awful stretch of the imagination.
arshsingh1984 2 years ago
Well, remember that Craig and the Kalam defenders provided arguments for thinking that God is the cause of the universe.
However, I admit that special revelation and the moral nature of this God goes beyond the scope of this argument. This argument was never intended to be an argument for God's special revelation. We would look to other arguments for that claim.
theonlyway2truth 2 years ago
@arshsingh1984
Rules like this don't work. If a god had to have created it, then take it a step further - what created the god?
Atheism never states that something came from nothing, though creationism does.
Things are too complex? Well, what is more complex than an all-knowing, all-powerful being?
Creationists make up rules that don't apply to their own beliefs!
GimbleTheWizard 2 years ago
I am not suggesting God exists. I am stating that the axiom of "the universe is a prime cause" is false. The universe could be such that it HAD to come into existence, due to quantum mechanics, or whatever exists beyond the universe. To say "god did it" explains nothing.
arshsingh1984 2 years ago
I agree that "god did it" explains nothing. The whole god concept is meaningless, a contradiction, and a distraction.
We do not know that the universe had to come into existence. As far as we know, it could have always existed.
It's the transformation, the sudden expansion/big bang that people call nothing into something incorrectly that we focus on the coming into existence part. That doesn't mean it wasn't something before.
And what really comes before time?
GimbleTheWizard 2 years ago
Scientists say all the time that the Big Bang is literally a creation Ex Nihilo. Listen to Stephen Hawking.
"would quite literally be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all, because there is nothing outside the universe."
Nothing comes before time. God created the universe simultaneous to his decision to create the universe.
theonlyway2truth 2 years ago
@theonlyway2truth
Yeeeaahhh... you don't have a clue.
If you say nothing comes before time and a god created the universe, then that god must have existed before the universe. Are you saying time existed before the universe? Then again, what created time? How does a god create something without time as creation itself is a process that takes time.
If there was nothing and the god created it, where did the god come from?
I only ask these for amusement purposes of course.
GimbleTheWizard 2 years ago
@theonly
You haven't read Hawking have you?
You quote from Hawking is not him describing what he believes. We are talking about some who wrote a book called "Black holes and baby universES", who in two of his other books has diagrams showing multiple universes.
I am very familiar with what Physicist mean when they speak of the universe coming from "Nothing". Try actually reading what they're saying rather than putting words in their mouths for the sake of you argument.
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
Irrelevant. I didn't claim that Stephen hawking believed it, the claim was that the standard big bang model represented a creation ex nihilo. Try reading any textbook on cosmology and see how they describe the big bang.
theonlyway2truth 2 years ago
You would be hard pressed to find Cosmologists that subscribe to what you call "the standard model". It's not that they don't like the implications, it's that "the standard model" cannot be the case given Quantum Mechanics. Again go read Stephen Hawking's books, he will tell you that there couldn't be a singularity (beginning point) at the big bang.
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
In the words of Frank Barrow
"This type of quantum universe has not always existed; it comes into being just as the classical cosmologies could, but it does not start at a Big Bang where physical quantities are infinite . . . ."
"often described as giving a picture of 'creation out of nothing,'" the only caveat being that in this case "there is no definite . . . point of creation."
theonlyway2truth 2 years ago
LOL. Pulled directly out of a Craig essay. Have you ever bothered to read anything by a Cosmologist about Cosmology?
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
@drcraigdefeated
You act as though truth is based on my source of information and is mind-dependant. If you do not think so, then you wouldn't be making attacks against me. Anyway, I have read quite a few papers on the big bang. I have seen a lot of documentaries about it as well. All of this is irrelevant anyway. The question should be, "were my arguments valid.". Nothing else.
theonlyway2truth 2 years ago
I find the idea of the Universe existing as a brute fact as unsatisfactory as the idea that Yahweh, a war god who commanded rape and genocide, existing as a brute fact. They both bag the question, and demand an explanation. Why that god or universe rather than the infinite number of possible alternatives?
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
There is only one thing you can posit without begging further questions. An eternal, changeless, Omniscience which Yahweh is not.
If an Omniscience exists so does every logical possibility and their negations. the mind of an Omniscience would be an absolute fullness of all possibilities with nothing to differentiate "possible" from "actual". Nothing would be outside the mind of an Omniscience. Nothing left to do, know or experience. All possible moments existing in one eternal timeless instant.
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
Hawking while talking about his model said
"would quite literally be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all, because there is nothing outside the universe.
theonlyway2truth 2 years ago
Also, Stephen Hawking avoids the singularity by simply chosing not to convert the imaginary numbers back into real numbers
"Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities . . . . When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities."
theonlyway2truth 2 years ago
Yes from inside our space-time fabric moving north (back in time) it looks like we will run into the north pole and not be able to go any norther. From out side our fabric of space-time, north is just another point in the fabric like any other. All cause-effect relationships would be sewn up within the fabric. All time as well. There would be no time at which the fabric did not exist because all times are inside it. With nothing outside, nothing. No energy, no time, no persons.
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
If there were a timeless changeless Omniscient God, there would be no time at which this Universe did not exist in his mind. It would be as old as he is. But, there would also exist every other possible world each with there own closed fabrics of space-time. The fact that our Universe exist would be as much a brute fact as that of the God's existence, an no more that of any other possible world.
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
@drcraigdefeated
Are you arguing that causality only happens within the universe? Such an argument is flawed on several accounts. For example, if premise one is true it is metaphysically true and not simply physically true. So, you are in effect denying premise one. I'd be very interested in hearing why you believe this.
theonlyway2truth 2 years ago
I don't subscribe to Hawking's no boundary model. I was simply explaining that the no boundary model has no beginning in four dimensions, just as the Earth has no boundary in two dimensions. Asking what was the cause be fore the cause before the cause is analogous to talking step after step after step toward the north pole. You will not reach the north pole and keep walking north. The whole of the surface is contained. The fabric of space-time is analogous to the surface of the earth.
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago
Comment removed
drcraigdefeated 2 years ago