My cosmological argument
there is post see "read more"
1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances.
3.If all things that exist are dependent for their existnece there is no actual explanation of causes
4. Therefore, there exists at least one eternal thing
5. The one eternal thing is the logical explanation for all causally dependent things
6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God."
7. Therefore God exists.
There are different types of necessity and contingency,
Truth itself can be either necessary or contingent:
Notice there is no third kind of modal being. "It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings." [2]That in so far as it goes establishes the fact that a thing is either necessarily or contingent there is no middle ground, no thhird option,
There are many different notions of necessity. There are different kinds of necessity they are not contradictions or different opinions they apply in different ways, For example logical necessity is not the same as metaphysical necessity, metaphysical or broadly logical necessity deals with the nature of existence.
Karl Popper tells us :"Empirical facts are facts which might not have been. Everything that belongs to space time is a contingent truth because it could have been otherwise, it is dependent upon the existence of something else for its' existence going all the way back to the Big Bang, which is itself contingent upon something."[5] Contingent beings are those whose existence is caused or explained, "A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist) exists. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence. ... Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being".[6]
Necessity/contingency broadly logical and causally related
This seems to create a dichotomy for some atheists in that they try to juxtapose two kinds of contingency against one another; There are Types of necessity and contingency but the distinction between broadly logical or "Metaphysical" necessity and the causal type reflected in my CA is not one of them, These two types were shown by Hartshorne to be united,. The causal form of contingency is a marker for the broadly logical or metaphysical. This is my own idea.
Necessity is that which cannot cease or fail to exist; that for which one could contradict to speak of such things. Thus contingency is that which can cease or fail to exist.But it seems that ceasing and failing are bound up with causes and circumstances of existence in the natural world, Thus we can think of causality an an ontological marker spellimg out for us the nature of contingency in the natural world,. After all anything that depends for its existence upon a prior condition (even an ontologically prior condition that is not temporally prior) is contingent because it could cease or fail to exist, thus its contingency is marked by its causality.
Sources
[1]Garth Kemerling,"Necessary/Contingent," Philosophical Pages. 1997/2011
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/n.htm#nec (accessed 3/4/19 )
necessary / contingent
[2]Matthew Davidson,"God and Other Necessary Beings", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/god-necessary-being/>. (accessed 3/4/19 )
[3] Tim Holt, "Argument from Contingency," Philosophy of Religion, 2008
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-argument-from-contingency/
(accessed 3/4/19 )
[4] Ibid
[5] Carol Popper quoted in Antony Flew, Philosophical Dictionary, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979, 242.
[6] Bruce Reichenbach, , "Cosmological Argument", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/cosmological-argument/>.
(accessed 3/4/19 )
B Reichenbach originally Jul 13, 2004
1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances.
3.If all things that exist are dependent for their existnece there is no actual explanation of causes
4. Therefore, there exists at least one eternal thing
5. The one eternal thing is the logical explanation for all causally dependent things
6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God."
7. Therefore God exists.
There are different types of necessity and contingency,
Truth itself can be either necessary or contingent:
Distinction between kinds of truth. Necessary truth is a feature of any statement that it would be contradictory to deny. (Contradictions themselves are necessarily false.) Contingent truths (or falsehoods) happen to be true (or false), but might have been otherwise. Thus, for example: "Squares have four sides." is necessary. "Stop signs are hexagonal." is contingent. "Pentagons are round." is contradictory. This distinction was traditionally associated (before Kant and Kripke) with the distinctions between a priori and a posteriori knowledge and the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgment. Necessity may also be defined de dicto in terms of the formal logical property of tautology. Recommended Reading: Jules Vuillemin, Necessity or Contingency? (C S L I, 1995); Colin McGinn, Logical Properties (Oxford, 2001); Alvin Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity (Clarendon, 1989); and Margaret Dauler Wilson, Leibniz' Doctrine of Necessary Truth (Harvard, 1984).[1]
There are many different notions of necessity. There are different kinds of necessity they are not contradictions or different opinions they apply in different ways, For example logical necessity is not the same as metaphysical necessity, metaphysical or broadly logical necessity deals with the nature of existence.
...Something is “necessary” if it could not possibly have failed to exist. The laws of mathematics are often thought to be necessary. It is plausible to say that mathematical truths such as two and two making four hold irrespective of the way that the world is. Even if the world were radically different, it seems, two and two would still make four. God, too, is often thought to be a necessary being, i.e. a being that logically could not have failed to exist.
Something is “contingent” if it is not necessary, i.e. if it could have failed to exist. Most things seem to exist contingently. All of the human artefacts around us might not have existed; for each one of them, whoever made it might have decided not to do so. Their existence, therefore, is contingent. You and I, too, might not have existed; our respective parents might never have met, or might have decided not to have children, or might have decided to have children at a different time. Our existence, therefore, is contingent. Even the world around us seems to be contingent; the universe might have developed in such a way that none of the observable stars and planets existed at all.[3]This is true in the cosmological argument.
The modal cosmological argument or “argument from contingency” is the argument from the contingency of the world or universe to the existence of God. The argument from contingency is the most prominent form of cosmological argument historically. The classical statements of the cosmological argument in the works of Plato, of Aquinas, and of Leibniz are generally statements of the modal form of the argument.[4]The Universe itself is contingent and everything produced in nature is as well.
Karl Popper tells us :"Empirical facts are facts which might not have been. Everything that belongs to space time is a contingent truth because it could have been otherwise, it is dependent upon the existence of something else for its' existence going all the way back to the Big Bang, which is itself contingent upon something."[5] Contingent beings are those whose existence is caused or explained, "A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist) exists. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence. ... Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being".[6]
Necessity/contingency broadly logical and causally related
This seems to create a dichotomy for some atheists in that they try to juxtapose two kinds of contingency against one another; There are Types of necessity and contingency but the distinction between broadly logical or "Metaphysical" necessity and the causal type reflected in my CA is not one of them, These two types were shown by Hartshorne to be united,. The causal form of contingency is a marker for the broadly logical or metaphysical. This is my own idea.
Necessity is that which cannot cease or fail to exist; that for which one could contradict to speak of such things. Thus contingency is that which can cease or fail to exist.But it seems that ceasing and failing are bound up with causes and circumstances of existence in the natural world, Thus we can think of causality an an ontological marker spellimg out for us the nature of contingency in the natural world,. After all anything that depends for its existence upon a prior condition (even an ontologically prior condition that is not temporally prior) is contingent because it could cease or fail to exist, thus its contingency is marked by its causality.
Sources
[1]Garth Kemerling,"Necessary/Contingent," Philosophical Pages. 1997/2011
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/n.htm#nec (accessed 3/4/19 )
[2]Matthew Davidson,"God and Other Necessary Beings", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/god-necessary-being/>. (accessed 3/4/19 )
[3] Tim Holt, "Argument from Contingency," Philosophy of Religion, 2008
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-argument-from-contingency/
(accessed 3/4/19 )
[4] Ibid
[5] Carol Popper quoted in Antony Flew, Philosophical Dictionary, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979, 242.
[6] Bruce Reichenbach, , "Cosmological Argument", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/cosmological-argument/>.
(accessed 3/4/19 )
B Reichenbach originally Jul 13, 2004
Comments
Or its existence was spontaneous.
Joe: 6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God."
I would say that it also needs to be conscious and intelligent to be God.
Pix
Or its existence was spontaneous.
you mean it doesn't have a cause? what thins don't have causes?
Joe: 6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God."
I would say that it also needs to be conscious and intelligent to be God.
why?
What things are eternal?
Oh, right, the thing you are supposedly trying to prove exists...
Joe: why?
Because every instance of a god we have, that has been an attribute.
Otherwise, we might suppose the laws of natyure are eternal, and so are god.
Pix
What things are eternal?
Oh, right, the thing you are supposedly trying to prove exists...
Your statmemt is contradictory. You said "Or its existence was spontaneous." that implies something that comes into existence. But it is eternal it always has been and never had a point of coming into existence.
Joe: why?
Because every instance of a god we have, that has been an attribute.
not coming into existence.
Otherwise, we might suppose the laws of nature are eternal, and so are god.
laws of nature might well be eternal or they might be God's will no way to know off hand,
You missed the point.
You asked "what thins don't have causes?" My answer is potentially the universe.
What things are eternal? You answer is God.
In both cases we are supposing there is one exception to our every day experiences. And yet, you seem to consider that grounds to reject my hypothesis and embrace your own.
Joe: not coming into existence.
You can consider that an attribute AS WELL, but it does not change the fact that every view of God or gods supposes them to be intelligent and conscious.
Joe: laws of nature might well be eternal or they might be God's will no way to know off hand,
If they were ternal, would they actually BE God? I think not, because I think there is more to being God than just being eternal. Your position appears to be that anything that is eternal is necessarily God.
Pix
You asked "what thins don't have causes?" My answer is potentially the universe.
That is wrong, you will never a scientist say that,They all talk about cause. Not one of them say it has no cause
What things are eternal? You answer is God.
You spoke opf
In both cases we are supposing there is one exception to our every day experiences. And yet, you seem to consider that grounds to reject my hypothesis and embrace your own.
I've never seen a modern thinker who says just let it go don't think abouit causes
Joe: not coming into existence.
You can consider that an attribute AS WELL, but it does not change the fact that every view of God or gods supposes them to be intelligent and conscious.
Certain kinds of Hinduism and process theology and pantheism don't consider god conscious.I do but that's not the point
Joe: laws of nature might well be eternal or they might be God's will no way to know off hand,
If they were ternal, would they actually BE God? I think not, because I think there is more to being God than just being eternal.
how do you know?
Your position appears to be that anything that is eternal is necessarily God.
No my positivism is that you are being inconsistent to accept God as requiring certain attributes but you refuse to accept the versions of God that have those attributes
Really? You can quote scientists stating that the universe has a cause? Go on then.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X
Joe: I've never seen a modern thinker who says just let it go don't think abouit causes
So therefore it cannot be possible? You really think that that follows?
Joe: Certain kinds of Hinduism and process theology and pantheism don't consider god conscious.I do but that's not the point
I am not convinced about that. Why worship a god if it is an inanimate thing, with no intelligence? You moight as well pray to a table!
Joe: how do you know?
Because it follows from how we understand a god. If the laws of nature are eternal, do you think anyone will worship them?
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: That is wrong, you will never a scientist say that,They all talk about cause. Not one of them say it has no cause
Really? You can quote scientists stating that the universe has a cause? Go on then.
Most of them embrace the standard model (Big Bang) that is an admission of a cause.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X
that is not an authoritative scholar scientific web site, It's atheist web site with atheist propaganda. Here is an arithmetic by a physicist who debunks that viewpoint. He's reviewing Universe from nothing by krauss.
David Albert
Joe: I've never seen a modern thinker who says just let it go don't think abouit causes
So therefore it cannot be possible? You really think that that follows?
U think it follows that you can't give me a valid rational reason to accept that,
Joe: Certain kinds of Hinduism and process theology and pantheism don't consider god conscious.I do but that's not the point
I am not convinced about that. Why worship a god if it is an inanimate thing, with no intelligence? You moight as well pray to a table!
Joe: how do you know?
Because it follows from how we understand a god. If the laws of nature are eternal, do you think anyone will worship them?
I think that God has a personal nature it does not do any kind of damage to my argument to think God is personal. But it is too narrow to say it's the only view of God.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html
Link
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
On the Origin of Everything
Credit...Illustration by Andy Martin
By David Albert
March 23, 2012
Lawrence M. Krauss, a well-known cosmologist and prolific popular-science writer, apparently means to announce to the world, in this new book, that the laws of quantum mechanics have in them the makings of a thoroughly scientific and adamantly secular explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. Period. Case closed. End of story. I kid you not. Look at the subtitle. Look at how Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.”
Well, let’s see. There are lots of different sorts of conversations one might want to have about a claim like that: conversations, say, about what it is to explain something, and about what it is to be a law of nature, and about what it is to be a physical thing. But since the space I have is limited, let me put those niceties aside and try to be quick, and crude, and concrete.
Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that everything he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted. “I have no idea if this notion can be usefully dispensed with,” he writes, “or at least I don’t know of any productive work in this regard.” And what if he did know of some productive work in that regard? What if he were in a position to announce, for instance, that the truth of the quantum-mechanical laws can be traced back to the fact that the world has some other, deeper property X? Wouldn’t we still be in a position to ask why X rather than Y? And is there a last such question? Is there some point at which the possibility of asking any further such questions somehow definitively comes to an end? How would that work? What would that be like?
Never mind. Forget where the laws came from. Have a look instead at what they say. It happens that ever since the scientific revolution of the 17th century, what physics has given us in the way of candidates for the fundamental laws of nature have as a general rule simply taken it for granted that there is, at the bottom of everything, some basic, elementary, eternally persisting, concrete, physical stuff. Newton, for example, took that elementary stuff to consist of material particles. And physicists at the end of the 19th century took that elementary stuff to consist of both material particles and electromagnetic fields. And so on. And what the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all there is for the fundamental laws of nature to be about, insofar as physics has ever been able to imagine, is how that elementary stuff is arranged. The fundamental laws of nature generally take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of that stuff are physically possible and which aren’t, or rules connecting the arrangements of that elementary stuff at later times to its arrangement at earlier times, or something like that. But the laws have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in “A Universe From Nothing” — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.
What Krauss suggests is a system where quantum mechanics is eternal, and the universe spontaneously appeared within that context. If that is true, will you worship quantum mechanics? You seem to believe that anything eternal is god.
Personally, I will not; I think a god has to be intelligent.
Joe: Most of them embrace the standard model (Big Bang) that is an admission of a cause.
How so? Find a scientist stating the big Bang must have had a cause.
Joe: that is not an authoritative scholar scientific web site, It's atheist web site with atheist propaganda. Here is an arithmetic by a physicist who debunks that viewpoint. He's reviewing Universe from nothing by krauss.
You really think Science direct is an atheist web site?
I assume you refer to the link earlier; if so, I commented at the top of this post.
Joe: U think it follows that you can't give me a valid rational reason to accept that,
The simple fact is that spontaneously appearing is a plausible scenario, given how little we actually know about a unique event so far outside anything we have any experience of.
Joe: I think that God has a personal nature it does not do any kind of damage to my argument to think God is personal. But it is too narrow to say it's the only view of God.
So if quantum mechanics is eternal, you will worship it as your god?
Pix
Joe: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html
What Krauss suggests is a system where quantum mechanics is eternal, and the universe spontaneously appeared within that context. If that is true, will you worship quantum mechanics? You seem to believe that anything eternal is god.
I think systematic set of observations we name "law" or "system" is a method not an agent. That means its not analogs to God not even impersonal God. Remember now I do not say God is impersonal.
Personally, I will not; I think a god has to be intelligent.
Joe: Most of them embrace the standard model (Big Bang) that is an admission of a cause.
How so? Find a scientist stating the big Bang must have had a cause.
Nothing in the theory of the big bang says that it has no cause. Trying to arbitrate it to various naturalistic agencies such as oscillating universe is a cause
Joe: that is not an authoritative scholar scientific web site, It's atheist web site with atheist propaganda. Here is an arithmetic by a physicist who debunks that viewpoint. He's reviewing Universe from nothing by krauss.
You really think Science direct is an atheist web site?
every article Ive seen on there has been by atheists,
I assume you refer to the link earlier; if so, I commented at the top of this post.
your comment didn't save it.
Joe: I think it follows that you can't give me a valid rational reason to accept that,
The simple fact is that spontaneously appearing is a plausible scenario, given how little we actually know about a unique event so far outside anything we have any experience of.
It's not a plausible scenario It's a contradiction to every thing we ever observe,
Joe: I think that God has a personal nature it does not do any kind of damage to my argument to think God is personal. But it is too narrow to say it's the only view of God.
So if quantum mechanics is eternal, you will worship it as your god?
read my answer again I answered it above.
"The simple fact is that spontaneously appearing is a plausible scenario, given how little we actually know about a unique event so far outside anything we have any experience of."
another point to the Albert stuff I posted above disproves this idea, they don't really think there is nothing. when they say nothing they really mean vacuum flux winch is something for which they cannot account.
Your Krauss review pointed out that that "method" could be eternal AND the cause of the universe, the two qualities you previously required for something to be god. Have you changed your mind?
We now have three possibilities:
1. The first cause is eternal
2. The first cause appeared spontaneously
3. The first cause formed because of a "method"
Joe: Nothing in the theory of the big bang says that it has no cause. Trying to arbitrate it to various naturalistic agencies such as oscillating universe is a cause
You are reading into it what you want to believe.
Firstly, the Big Bang is not a theory, it is a fact. There are various ideas about what happened at the Big Bang and why, and they could be called theories or hypotheses. They are all speculative, and certainly some propose a cause, but others suggest an eternal universe, for example.
Joe: every article Ive seen on there has been by atheists,
From Wiki:
ScienceDirect is a website which provides subscription-based access to a large database of scientific and medical research. It hosts over 12 million pieces of content from 3,500 academic journals and 34,000 e-books.
I have to say that that is an impressive output for atheism. Atheists are very few in number compared to Christians, and yet I bet you cannot find a web site with anything like 12 million pieces of science content from Christians. I guess we have to conclude atheists are just better at science...
More seriously, I suspect this is just sampling bias. You only get directed to ScienceDirect when you are arguing with atheists, and so the only articles you see are those that argue against your position.
Joe: It's not a plausible scenario It's a contradiction to every thing we ever observe,
So is claiming an eternal entity, given we have never observed such a thing.
But as usual you give your pet theory a free pass.
The big problem here is that the origin of the universe is necessarily outside all human experience. The fact that we have never observed something appearing spontaneously or that we have never observed something that is eternal is a poor guide because we have never observed anything remotely like the start of the universe.
Joe: another point to the Albert stuff I posted above disproves this idea, they don't really think there is nothing. when they say nothing they really mean vacuum flux winch is something for which they cannot account.
Wrong.
The review you posted was about a very specific hypothesis. Disproving that would not prove the first cause could not appear spontaneously.
Secondly, the review did not disprove it, it only pointed out that the hypothesis requires an eternal not-quite-nothing within which it could plausibly happen. If you can posit an eternal god, Krauss can certainly posit an eternal not-quite-nothing. He certainly has parsimony on his side.
Pix
Joe: I think systematic set of observations we name "law" or "system" is a method not an agent. That means its not analogs to God not even impersonal God. Remember now I do not say God is impersonal.
Pix:Your Krauss review pointed out that that "method" could be eternal AND the cause of the universe, the two qualities you previously required for something to be god. Have you changed your mind?
No, If you have an eternal universal mind it has to be God. I you think to stick me with having to say God is personal then make that harder to prove, I'll take that bet,God is personal
We now have three possibilities:
1. The first cause is eternal
2. The first cause appeared spontaneously
3. The first cause formed because of a "method"
no is a non starter. something cannot begin to exit as eternal that is a contradiction in terms. No 3 doesn't work because a method has to have an agent to use it.
Joe: Nothing in the theory of the big bang says that it has no cause. Trying to arbitrate it to various naturalistic agencies such as oscillating universe is a cause
You are reading into it what you want to believe.
It's obviously an attempt to explain how it came to be. That means it not content to just say "it has no cause case closed."
You could not possibly have a ph.D. or teach at a university level and make that mistake. You lied when you to me when you tole me you teach at the university level. You don't understand the relationship of theory to fact.
There are various ideas about what happened at the Big Bang and why, and they could be called theories or hypotheses. They are all speculative, and certainly some propose a cause, but others suggest an eternal universe, for example.
none of them assert that the universe just popped into existence out of true actual nothing,they all stop short of explaining the final point where God dwells in final cause
Joe: every article Ive seen on there has been by atheists,
From Wiki:
ScienceDirect is a website which provides subscription-based access to a large database of scientific and medical research. It hosts over 12 million pieces of content from 3,500 academic journals and 34,000 e-books.
This is all good smoke and mirrors but You are merely misdirecting the reader away from the fact that the article you cited is by athies and is propaganda, On science direct they had Nyborg as source on IQ, Nyborg is well known racist.
I have to say that that is an impressive output for atheism. Atheists are very few in number compared to Christians, and yet I bet you cannot find a web site with anything like 12 million pieces of science content from Christians. I guess we have to conclude atheists are just better at science...
you can read the basic description but you clearly are not familiar with the actual site.
More seriously, I suspect this is just sampling bias. You only get directed to ScienceDirect when you are arguing with atheists, and so the only articles you see are those that argue against your position.
I will buy that but your Clarice is still BS
Joe: It's not a plausible scenario It's a contradiction to every thing we ever observe,
So is claiming an eternal entity, given we have never observed such a thing.
That is beginning the question because the issue at hand is that we observe it's work all the time
You have yet to demonstrate a problem with it, it is the only one that actually speaks to the issue of final cause,
The big problem here is that the origin of the universe is necessarily outside all human experience. The fact that we have never observed something appearing spontaneously or that we have never observed something that is eternal is a poor guide because we have never observed anything remotely like the start of the universe.
That is not proof that we can't theorize. we have never observed evolution, modern since accepts the big Bang we did not observe it first hand,we have never seen back ground radiation,we have never seen nutrinos,
Joe: another point to the Albert stuff I posted above disproves this idea, they don't really think there is nothing. when they say nothing they really mean vacuum flux winch is something for which they cannot account.
Wrong.
I have written several well documented things on this and when we bashed them out I bashed you good, you did not win those tussles.
Quantum particles do not prove something from nothing
Quantum field theory no proof something from nothing
The review you posted was about a very specific hypothesis. Disproving that would not prove the first cause could not appear spontaneously.
the basic principles are shared by all such theories those are the ones Abert takes down
Secondly, the review did not disprove it, it only pointed out that the hypothesis requires an eternal not-quite-nothing within which it could plausibly happen. If you can posit an eternal god, Krauss can certainly posit an eternal not-quite-nothing. He certainly has parsimony on his side.
duh that is disproof it it's like saying it doesn't disprove it it just shows that it doesn't work.
So now it has to be a mind!
Thank you for admitting you were wrong to say 'Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God." ', and now conceding that I was right to God 'needs to be conscious and intelligent', i.e., has a mind.
Count down to Joe back-tracking... three... two... one...
Joe: I you think to stick me with having to say God is personal then make that harder to prove, I'll take that bet,God is personal
I have not said anything about God being personal. That was you.
Pix
1. The first cause is eternal
2. The first cause appeared spontaneously
3. The first cause formed because of a "method"
Joe: no is a non starter. something cannot begin to exit as eternal that is a contradiction in terms. No 3 doesn't work because a method has to have an agent to use it.
Not sure which you say is a "non starter" as you missed the number. You seem to refer to a hybrid between number 1 and number 2, rather than something I actually said.
"Method" is how YOU referred to the laws of nature, and more specifically quantum mechanics, which is why it is in quotes. Please explain why quantum mechanics has to have an agent to use it.
Joe: It's obviously an attempt to explain how it came to be. That means it not content to just say "it has no cause case closed."
No it is not, it is an observation of what happened.
Joe: none of them assert that the universe just popped into existence out of true actual nothing,they all stop short of explaining the final point where God dwells in final cause
The point is that we do not know. The honest approach is to conclude that we do not know. The religious approach is to insert your faith into the gap.
Joe: This is all good smoke and mirrors but You are merely misdirecting the reader away from the fact that the article you cited is by athies and is propaganda, ...
You stated: "every article Ive seen on there has been by atheists". I pointed out the probable reason for that.
Joe: On science direct they had Nyborg as source on IQ, Nyborg is well known racist.
So we should censor his work? ScienceDirect do not (as far as I know) publish articles themselves, they just provide access to articles published elsewhere. For example, Nyborg has published several times in the journal "Intelligence". Maybe you should bycott any journal that publishes his work?
Joe: you can read the basic description but you clearly are not familiar with the actual site.
And you think you are? How many articles have you read?
Joe: That is beginning the question because the issue at hand is that we observe it's work all the time
So if we start from the assumption God created the world, then it is clear that we observe God's work all the time, and therefore we can conclude God exists. Is that your argument?
And who is begging the question here?
Joe: That is not proof that we can't theorize. we have never observed evolution, modern since accepts the big Bang we did not observe it first hand,we have never seen back ground radiation,we have never seen nutrinos,
Of course we can theorise! The point is that to reject a theory because it does not match our every day experiences is nonsense. One thing we can be sure of is that whatever happened, it will most assuredly NOT match our every day experiences.
Joe: Quantum particles do not prove something from nothing
Quantum field theory no proof something from nothing
And again you pull out the tired old "you cannot prove" trick.
No one is claiming they are proved, Joe, that is just your usual straw man.
Joe: the basic principles are shared by all such theories those are the ones Abert takes down
Which tells me, Albert is wrong, if all the experts agree on those basic principles. Of course, the experts disagree with you, so you side with Albert.
Pix
Joe: No, If you have an eternal universal mind it has to be God. ...
So now it has to be a mind!
why don't you read my answers? Not acceptable. this is waste of my time.
Thank you for admitting you were wrong to say 'Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God." ', and now conceding that I was right to God 'needs to be conscious and intelligent', i.e., has a mind.
conscious and intelligent is not anti ethical to eternal.Every single time I've posted out that my piton on impersonal god is merely theoretical you don't read the answers, I will ban you next time.
Count down to Joe back-tracking... three... two... one...
stupid! every single time"I do not say this but I can;t shout down the possibility ydda yadda yadda dub butthole!
Joe: I you think to stick me with having to say God is personal then make that harder to prove, I'll take that bet,God is personal
I have not said anything about God being personal. That was you.
you really are out of the loop aren't you you have no idea what this stuff means.
Pix: We now have three possibilities:
1. The first cause is eternal
2. The first cause appeared spontaneously
3. The first cause formed because of a "method"
Joe: no is a non starter. something cannot begin to exit as eternal that is a contradiction in terms. No 3 doesn't work because a method has to have an agent to use it.
Not sure which you say is a "non starter" as you missed the number. You seem to refer to a hybrid between number 1 and number 2, rather than something I actually said.
try read what you said it hurts by try thinking, no 2 says:'The first cause appeared spontaneously' that;s all you said.Not a bread tat is no 2. I said it can;t do that and be eternal,so obviously that disproves 2 you don't really understand why do you?
"Method" is how YOU referred to the laws of nature, and more specifically quantum mechanics, which is why it is in quotes. Please explain why quantum mechanics has to have an agent to use it.
Methods don't do themselves you don't go to a golf course and see clubs and balls playing without people.
Joe: It's obviously an attempt to explain how it came to be. That means it not content to just say "it has no cause case closed."
No it is not, it is an observation of what happened.
wow you've topped your own stupidity! I't not an explanation of how it works its just an observation of how it works. brilliant. the triumph of meaningless semantics.
Joe: none of them assert that the universe just popped into existence out of true actual nothing,they all stop short of explaining the final point where God dwells in final cause
The point is that we do not know. The honest approach is to conclude that we do not know. The religious approach is to insert your faith into the gap.
Best explanation, we don't know but we have to chose the one that explains best.
Joe: This is all good smoke and mirrors but You are merely misdirecting the reader away from the fact that the article you cited is by athies and is propaganda, ...
You stated: "every article Ive seen on there has been by atheists". I pointed out the probable reason for that.
that is still true.
Joe: On science direct they had Nyborg as source on IQ, Nyborg is well known racist.
So we should censor his work? ScienceDirect do not (as far as I know) publish articles themselves, they just provide access to articles published elsewhere. For example, Nyborg has published several times in the journal "Intelligence". Maybe you should bycott any journal that publishes his work?
He's been censored. the European academy centered him and his colleges more than one time.
Joe: you can read the basic description but you clearly are not familiar with the actual site.
And you think you are? How many articles have you read?
I know I are because I research.you don't
Joe: That is beginning the question because the issue at hand is that we observe it's work all the time
So if we start from the assumption God created the world, then it is clear that we observe God's work all the time, and therefore we can conclude God exists. Is that your argument?
We don't start with the assumption we arrive at it.It's the best expatiation
You start with assumption there is no God.
Joe: That is not proof that we can't theorize. we have never observed evolution, modern since accepts the big Bang we did not observe it first hand,we have never seen back ground radiation,we have never seen nutrinos,
Of course we can theorise! The point is that to reject a theory because it does not match our every day experiences is nonsense.
bullshit. it's not just everyday quantum particles don't explain origin because they themselves are not explained. .
One thing we can be sure of is that whatever happened, it will most assuredly NOT match our every day experiences.
that is not a basis for excepting a contradiction to all we know.there isno other example where science goes for that.
Joe: Quantum particles do not prove something from nothing
Quantum field theory no proof something from nothing
And again you pull out the tired old "you cannot prove" trick.
the rules of logic are not tired and old. you can't justify your claims. you miss the fact that those were links to articles tat disprove your assertions
No one is claiming they are proved, Joe, that is just your usual straw man.
No that's your poor understanding of argument. you have to support your claims.
Joe: the basic principles are shared by all such theories those are the ones Abert takes down
Which tells me, Albert is wrong, if all the experts agree on those basic principles. Of course, the experts disagree with you, so you side with Albert.
Albert is an expert, so your assertion is wrong not all experts agree.Albert is not the only one who disagrees with Krauss