Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2011 0:38:55 GMT
4.This first uncaused cause must transcend physical reality. Buddha says What!!!! Where is the evidence for an uncaused cause first or otherwise, where is the evidence for a transcend physical reality. Where is the evidence that an uncaused cause can let alone must transcend physical reality. Three unsupportable suppositions. Totally and utterly rejected until some supporting evidence is given. It follows from the conceptual analysis of the cause. If the universe/physical reality has a cause, that cause is timeless, spaceless, eternal, immaterial, and powerful enough to create the universe.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 29, 2011 1:18:30 GMT
4.This first uncaused cause must transcend physical reality. Buddha says What!!!! Where is the evidence for an uncaused cause first or otherwise, where is the evidence for a transcend physical reality. Where is the evidence that an uncaused cause can let alone must transcend physical reality. Three unsupportable suppositions. Totally and utterly rejected until some supporting evidence is given. It follows from the conceptual analysis of the cause. If the universe/physical reality has a cause, that cause is timeless, spaceless, eternal, immaterial, and powerful enough to create the universe. No it's not. That his made up cause for the universe not the real one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2011 9:23:36 GMT
No it's not. That his made up cause for the universe not the real one. You again give blind assertions with no arguments.
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Jan 29, 2011 9:44:04 GMT
Been meaning to go myself, but I hear that the prices for even a coffin hotel are expensive (even by European standards).
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 29, 2011 15:41:23 GMT
bjorn. The Kalam Cosmological Argument: 1.Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. Buddha agrees. 2.The universe has a beginning of its existence. Buddha agrees. 3.Thus the universe has a cause of its existence. Buddha agrees. 4.This first uncaused cause must transcend physical reality. Buddha says What!!!! Where is the evidence for an uncaused cause first or otherwise, where is the evidence for a transcend physical reality. Where is the evidence that an uncaused cause can let alone must transcend physical reality. Three unsupportable suppositions. Totally and utterly rejected until some supporting evidence is given. 5.This uncaused cause that transcends physical reality is the description of God. Buddha says does not follow as premiss 4 has been shown to be fallacious. 6.Therefore God exists. I beg your pardon? Why the need to make the argument so jumpy that it seems like a parody? If you can't counter Kalam without making it seem to create conclusions from nothing, you'd better not try. As you clearly don't understand the premises there is clearly a need to clarify and analyze them. First I would want to put them more simple. 1' Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2' The universe began to exist 3' The universe has a cause Things like "uncaused cause" or "all physical reality" are not - as specific terms - part of Kalam, however, they follow from a conceptual analysis of the terms, something you obviously never have done. 1' Should be fairly simple (at least if you don't want to argue for something popping into existence from nothing without a cause) 2' Can be argued for on physical (Big Bang cosmology and inflationary models) and philosophical grounds (an actual, realised physical infinite series of events are impossible). If it is true (as "Buddha agrees") or probable, then it would follow that time and space began to exist. 3' Follows logically from 1' and 2' (and dear old Buddha agrees). So this makes 4' The cause of the universe must be external to time and space. If we drop infinite regress (which is incoherent) and the multiverse option (which itself needs a cause, based on an inflationary model), it must exist atemporally and non-spatially, and hence be changeless and immaterial. If the cause is atemporal (timeless), it cannot itself have begun to exist and hence does not need a cause (Premise 1' doesn't imply). Hence there is no need for further causes (also supported by Occam's razor). And this cause must be rather exceedingly powerfull as it created the universe (or a multiverse), time and space. Something which points rather precisely to your 5.This uncaused cause that transcends physical reality is the description of God. If you want to counter this analysis, please feel free. However, there is a then a definite need for you to do a serious job and not just make blind assertions about the conclusion being "unsupportable". The premises you provided support the conclusions if one understands or agrees with the conceptual analysis. As Buddha agrees with the premises, it seems totally and utterly unsupportable not to agree with the conclusion. Buddha says no he doesn't and if that's the best Craig can come up with then he's an idiot. Well that was easy, thanks again Buddha As mentioned last time, it would be wise to find support from other mates. And from arguments. It would also be nice if you didn't call other people idiots, especially when they are so far out of your league that you obviously don't understand them.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 29, 2011 17:07:37 GMT
bjorn.
Sorry bot four should be.
4'The cause of the universe must be external to the universe.
Just because the universe has space time it doesn't follow that anything external to the universe doesn't have space and time.
Inaction to action is a temporal event. So time must exist beyond the universe or the universe could not have been caused. If beyond the universe is temporal then an infinite regress is coherent.
As for Craig anyone who justifies bashing childrens heads against rocks is a sick monster and I will call him anything I like.
|
|
|
Post by jim_s on Jan 29, 2011 17:24:09 GMT
The claim is that matter, energy, space, and time began to exist. Since everything that begins to exist has a cause, matter, energy, space, and time have a cause. Since by definition a cause exists independently of its effects, the cause of matter, energy, space, and time must exist independently of matter, energy, space, and time. To exist independently of matter and energy is to be immaterial. To exist independently of space is to be transcendent and omnipresent. To exist independently of time is to be eternal.
As for Belgium's beers, I've been told they're on the sweet side. If you like hoppy beers, it may not be the best match for you.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 29, 2011 18:06:31 GMT
The claim is that matter, energy, space, and time began to exist. Since everything that begins to exist has a cause, matter, energy, space, and time have a cause. Since by definition a cause exists independently of its effects, the cause of matter, energy, space, and time must exist independently of matter, energy, space, and time. To exist independently of matter and energy is to be immaterial. To exist independently of space is to be transcendent and omnipresent. To exist independently of time is to be eternal. As for Belgium's beers, I've been told they're on the sweet side. If you like hoppy beers, it may not be the best match for you. Dimensions don't physically exist.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 29, 2011 19:16:23 GMT
bjorn. Sorry bot four should be. 4'The cause of the universe must be external to the universe. Just because the universe has space time it doesn't follow that anything external to the universe doesn't have space and time. This is getting even sillier and more meaningless, Dave. Why don't you read what I wrote? And then do a conceptual analysis and show why your is better . As I specifically mentioned a multiverse option of course I understand that "time and space" may exist external to our universe... The point is (as I wrote) that even if there exist other universes they themselves need a cause (as they began to exist, based on inflationary cosmological models). If you want to argue against that, please do. Note the word argue. Inaction to action is a temporal event. So time must exist beyond the universe or the universe could not have been caused. If beyond the universe is temporal then an infinite regress is coherent. "Inaction" to "action" is an event. Whether it is "temporal" or not depends on your definition of temporal, especially if it takes place outside of the universe. Any change, like creating a universe out of nothing, is something which needs a cause. If the cause is atemporal and unchanging but not personal, it cannot act as it cannot choose or change. If the cause is atemporal and unchanging but personal, it can choose and act without changing, as the ability to choose and act is some of what defines a person. Call God "temporal" if you want to, even if it needs more than one action to defend it as an infinite series of differentiated events. And it doesn't in any way whatsoever make infinite regress more coherent if one involves God in it. As for Craig anyone who justifies bashing childrens heads against rocks is a sick monster and I will call him anything I like. It is a category mistake to defend your calling something a person says idiotic by referring to something else he has said. The kind of mistake people well versed in arguments doesn't make. If you want to discuss Craig's views on morals and divine action please feel free, however it is rather ... idiotic to use his arguments or conclusions in that area as arguments in another area.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 30, 2011 15:02:23 GMT
Bjorn.
Trust me your post are as incomprehensible to me as mine are to you.
'atemporal and unchanging but personal' What does that even mean outside of the confines of your own mind?
Of course something unchanging can't change but why give it that attribute in the first place?
I don't believe in multiverse and have said so on this very forum.
You seen to be saying that being outside space (dimensions) and time will place some constraints on the cause, it wouldn't.
Time is just a construct of our own minds, it helps us explain thing like change, rate of change and events and as a label it helps communication. There is no physical interaction whatsoever between our concept of time and any physical phenomenon. Words like time passes or timeless are meaningless.
Space (dimensions) exist as in we have space to move around in. Though dimensions do not seem to exist in a rigid and axiomatic mathematical way and are merely a construct. Co-ordinates to help with positioning. Labels to help with communication.
So without any temporal and space (dimensions) restrictions before the 'big bang' there is nothing to prevent an infinite regress (loop) which though seeming incomprehensible to humans and unlikely, it's the most plausible explanation outside of quantum physics.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 30, 2011 16:48:30 GMT
Bjorn. Trust me your post are as incomprehensible to me as mine are to you. Well, I understand your postings very well. They are not at any ... advanced level. 'atemporal and unchanging but personal' What does that even mean outside of the confines of your own mind? Of course something unchanging can't change but why give it that attribute in the first place? As I explained why earlier, look at that. If you don't read my posts, I understand it may be hard to understand them. After having read it, tell my what you didn't understand, if anything. I don't believe in multiverse and have said so on this very forum. Good. Then the Kalam will apply directly to our universe. You seen to be saying that being outside space (dimensions) and time will place some constraints on the cause, it wouldn't. Time is just a construct of our own minds, it helps us explain thing like change, rate of change and events and as a label it helps communication. There is no physical interaction whatsoever between our concept of time and any physical phenomenon. Words like time passes or timeless are meaningless. If you in order to be an atheist have to deny time, as a real series of differentiated events which we can count and measure, I think the price is rather too high to pay. It makes matter (which is changing/decaying at a rate), science (e.g. Newton and Einstein) and everyday life (love, digestion, TV, iPads) just a construct of our minds. In short it makes you into a solipsist. Space (dimensions) exist as in we have space to move around in. Though dimensions do not seem to exist in a rigid and axiomatic mathematical way and are merely a construct. Co-ordinates to help with positioning. Labels to help with communication. So without any temporal and space (dimensions) restrictions before the 'big bang' there is nothing to prevent an infinite regress (loop) which though seeming incomprehensible to humans and unlikely, it's the most plausible explanation outside of quantum physics. It is ... interesting that you to avoid the conclusion of Kalam have to view time and space as "merely a construct" "to help with communication". If the only way to avoid God is to deny what makes up the universe (time and space/dimensions) as real, then there is nothing in the universe you can use to argue against God. You can't argue against anything (possibly) real by referring to something you define as unreal. Anyhow, defending infinite regress is not about "restrictions" or not, it is about believing in magic. If each step in a series has to borrow it's existence/cause/reason from the previous step, then there is nothing in the series to explain it, however infinite you make it. It must have popped into existence by magic. In short, your atheism is getting queerer and queerer.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 2, 2011 20:04:13 GMT
Bjorn. Trust me your post are as incomprehensible to me as mine are to you. Well I accept that this is not the best time to introduce controversial views on space and time so I will save them for the science forums I frequent. OK I'll address your arguments at the end of this post. OK Yeah such solipsistic thinking not accepting scientific and religious dogma as a given, I feel so embarrassed now. Space (dimensions) exist as in we have space to move around in. Though dimensions do not seem to exist in a rigid and axiomatic mathematical way and are merely a construct. Co-ordinates to help with positioning. Labels to help with communication. So without any temporal and space (dimensions) restrictions before the 'big bang' there is nothing to prevent an infinite regress (loop) which though seeming incomprehensible to humans and unlikely, it's the most plausible explanation outside of quantum physics. I was going to argue that it just needed a coincidence but C'est la vie. No need to get all homophobic. Where were we. Ok. OK. Yay now we have an exception to the first Premise, Of course that means we all get to play. Let me guess your uncaused cause is a god right, ha! But which one? Allah, Wotan, Vishnu, Zeus or the flying spagetti monster, doesn't matter I suppose. So what's my uncaused cause, I mean there are so many to choose from. After all causality breaks down at a quantum level. I know I will go with my favourite. Their was a phase transition in the quantun field from potential energy to kinetic energy via virtual particle pairs. This has been shown to happen in a vacuum and the maths and physics hold up. Read God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist by Victor J. Stenger (2007.) Therefore the universe always existed just in another state. Yep agreed Victor's explanation has evidence, the maths and physics and we know the universe exists so he wins by Occam's razor. Next time try an argument that doesn't have a bait and switch move in the middle of it. Ho! Wait you can't.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Feb 2, 2011 22:29:55 GMT
Yay now we have an exception to the first Premise, Of course that means we all get to play. Let me guess your uncaused cause is a god right, ha! But which one? Allah, Wotan, Vishnu, Zeus or the flying spagetti monster, doesn't matter I suppose. No, of course it doesn't matter to the argument which God it turns out to be. However, it matters as what you say here shows you still haven't understood the argument at all. Let me express this as clear as possible. 1: There is no exception to the first Premise. Saying there is shows you have either not understood the first premise or the conclusion. Or both. 2: As the "First cause" must have certain qualities (following from a conceptual analysis of the terms), at the most two of those you mentioned can be candidates. If you can explain me which, it indicates you may be beginning to understand the argument. Take that as a student exercise. Do not use more than hundred words. So what's my uncaused cause, I mean there are so many to choose from. After all causality breaks down at a quantum level. I know I will go with my favourite. Their was a phase transition in the quantun field from potential energy to kinetic energy via virtual particle pairs. This has been shown to happen in a vacuum and the maths and physics hold up. Read God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist by Victor J. Stenger (2007.) Therefore the universe always existed just in another state. Well, we have discussed Stenger in this forum years ago and are not impressed. I got that book when it was released as the topic interests me (I collect such books). Why you suddenly bring him in is a bit puzzling (you've had weeks to make any argument, and suddenly you just pull him out of a hat...), but let's go on from there. So, your solution is the eternity of the universe (something that definitely is not proven), e.g. denying premise 2. The first obstacle to this is for you to explain how it is logically possible to cross an actual physical infinite number of states. If the states of the past are (metaphorically) like a series of falling dominoes, it would not be possible to move till today from the first domino. And there is no beginning to start the dominoes falling. It is impossible to count to infinity - or down from infinity. If you doubt it, you should try. You - or the universe - quite simply cannot move through an actual infinite number of states. Remember, this is just one obstacle (and simply expressed). There are more. Yep agreed Victor's explanation has evidence, the maths and physics and we know the universe exists so he wins by Occam's razor. Next time try an argument that doesn't have a bait and switch move in the middle of it. Ho! Wait you can't. If Victor's explanation is rather impossible (something you have to show it isn't), "evidence" doesn't quite apply. Or dark sarcasms in the classroom.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 7, 2011 21:49:33 GMT
Yay now we have an exception to the first Premise, Of course that means we all get to play. Let me guess your uncaused cause is a god right, ha! But which one? Allah, Wotan, Vishnu, Zeus or the flying spagetti monster, doesn't matter I suppose. No, of course it doesn't matter to the argument which God it turns out to be. However, it matters as what you say here shows you still haven't understood the argument at all. Let me express this as clear as possible. 1: There is no exception to the first Premise. Saying there is shows you have either not understood the first premise or the conclusion. Or both. Ho I understand it in its entirety, It's just a way for irrational beliefs to try and fail to appear rational, just adding 'everything that begins to exist must have a cause' doesn't change that. As Kant said it is just a variation of the ontological argument. If you don't know how stupid that argument is then this debate is over. How about you explain to me how a 'first' cause happens in a timeless zone? Feel free to use as many words you like (boy are you going to need them) to explain this contradiction. The whole KCA exist simply to reach the conclusion the person using it wants and still fails (in the fact that the conclusion is still the most implausible one available.) This is even bad philosophy and no philosopher worth his salt should have anything to do with it. Nothing else in reality is discovered using silly syllogisms you only have to look at Craig's 4th premiss where he is doing everything possible for a deist god (he still has his work ahead of him to lead us to his personal fantasy) to be the only explanation and still coming up short. Any philosopher should come to this question blind to the conclusion but it seems those early years of indoctrination are hard to overcome. If philosophy can't break these chains well thank 'god' for science where evidence is all. Yep agreed Victor's explanation has evidence, the maths and physics and we know the universe exists so he wins by Occam's razor. Next time try an argument that doesn't have a bait and switch move in the middle of it. Ho! Wait you can't. I read Victor's book just to see what answers physics has come up with. Nobody knows the answer to the beginning of the universe, not me, you or anybody else and we may never know it. Though that doesn't give you the right to place any made up BS in its place. I have never believed in god and now I never will. Call that closed minded if you wish but what would have convinced me in the past. If the whole world believed in one god or set of gods, there was but one religion all around the world. Is it beyond god to write a book that is misinterpreted by everyone. Are its communication skills so lacking then it is a lousy god/s. Have amputees been cured by prayer. Now all them things would convince me of is that a superior alien technology was being used. ;D
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Feb 7, 2011 23:33:00 GMT
I think you have a long way to go in making virtual particles nothings. First off virtual particles are by their nature somethings, hence the name virtual particles. If they were true nothings we could not detect them. Please give me the exact weight and dimension of nothing for example. What exactly does nothing look like.
Secondly virtual particles come from a quantum tunnel which is certainly a something. A quantum tunnel is filled with quanta which are in fact a physical things. If a quantum tunnel always existed you would expect the universe to be be an infinite age old and having already wound down from entropy.
Stenger's arguments simply do not work .
|
|