Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem...

Sam Vimes

Defendthefaith, the cosmological argument is not new. Everyone on this forum has heard it repeated in various forms dozens of times and it's not becoming any less ridiculous with age. You are not going to convince us with it

robindch

defendthefaith wrote: »

Again, that just isn't true. Philosophers recognize that causes can occur simultaneously with their effects in certain cases. As philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig writes,

Good heavens, William Lane Craig again! His frightful taste in jumpers alone should disqualify him from the bookshelves of any serious thinker.

Zillah

defendthefaith wrote: »

I have answered this, in Post #240, which was a reply to your post, and I am still awaiting your response! I find it odd that you would avoid replying to my post, which addresses this exact issue, and instead jump into a discussion I'm having with someone else and attack what I'm saying!

You certainly typed some words in response to what I said, yes. They didn't make any sense but that's ok, I'm used to it.

Anyone can just say "this metaphor is idiotically irrelevant," but you need to explain how it's irrelevant.

Because using a metaphor based entirely on in-universe principles to support your argument for something outside the universe makes the metaphor utterly ridiculous. It's also not even constructed logically, appealing more to 'common sense' rather than actual logic.

defendthefaith wrote: »

Since an infinite regress of causes is impossible, there must be an uncaused First Cause.

Uh, sure, I'll play. So the first uncaused cause was the Big Bang. That's more reasonable than adding the qualities of intelligence, personhood, benevolence and omnipotence onto this cause, no?

(Not to mention, for the ten thousandth time; the word 'cause' is contingent upon linear time. You speak gibberish when trying to talk about a cause for the big bang)

Zombrex

defendthefaith wrote: »

P1. If every cause requires a cause of itself, then there must be an infinite regress of causes.
P2. An infinite regress of causes is impossible, according to both science and philosophy.
C. Therefore, it is not the case that every cause requires a cause of itself. There must be at least one cause that is itself uncaused.

P1 implies a linear time line and that a cause must always happen at a point before the effect on this linear time line.

P2 requires that the causes happen on a linear time line that cannot loop and that each cause must happen at a point on the line previous to the next.

As I said already we know that these rules may not apply so you cannot use them as axioms to deduce anything.

defendthefaith

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Defendthefaith: Premise One is only true within this universe. What the rules are outside this universe we have absolutely no idea.

Mad Hatter, it's interesting that as soon as science and reason begin to confirm Christianity/theism, atheists say that there must be some exception.

The bottom line is this: if there was no cause for the origin of the universe, then something had to have emerged out of absolutely nothing.

Sam Vimes

Science and reason are not confirming christianity or theism in any way whatsoever. The cosmological argument is based a number of assumptions that it's impossible to make and it eliminates all possibilities but one when in reality there are millions of possibilities

Not to mention the fact that some of the assumptions can be said to be invalid even with today's knowledge and some just make no sense, such as the whole 'personal' part of it

And even if we were to completely accept that something, be it a being or an energy or some kind of phenomenon to which the laws of nature do not apply created the universe, could you explain to me how that says anything about whether a book about a Jewish guy who walks on water is true or not? The way I see it, the argument at best indicates a deist god (if it were valid that is) and says nothing about it interfering afterwards, a characteristic of a theist god

defendthefaith wrote: »

The bottom line is this: if there was no cause for the origin of the universe, then something had to have emerged out of absolutely nothing.

No one is saying that there was no cause for the universe. As we keep telling you, no one has any idea how the universe came into being. The problem here is that you think the only possible causes are the christian god created it or it popped out of nothing. All we're saying is there are thousands of other possibilities, some that we cannot yet even comprehend and we shouldn't make the same mistake as our thunder god worshipping ancestors and say god did it just because we don't understand it. Let's try to comprehend it before we pronounce it to be incomprehensible

Zillah

defendthefaith wrote: »

The bottom line is this: if there was no cause for the origin of the universe, then something had to have emerged out of absolutely nothing.

Yeah maybe. I bet that's an uncomfortable thought for you. That all of existence as we know it is like the flare of a match in the dark. No rhyme nor reason, no father to look after you, no safety net to catch you -- a preposterous burst of light from nowhere, soon to burn out and go dark. Makes us so less special doesn't it?

defendthefaith

Sam Vimes wrote: »

defendthefaith: "Philosophers recognize that causes can occur simultaneously with their effects in certain cases. As philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig writes, `Philosophical discussions of causal directionality routinely treat simultaneous causation, the question being how to distinguish A as the cause and B as the effect when these occur together at the same time' (http://www.leaderu.org/offices/billc.../creation.html)."

Sam Vines: "When I want to know if it's socially acceptable to wear fur, I'll ask a philosopher. When I want to know about the origins of the universe, I'll ask a scientist. What you're talking about there is just word play on the word cause and says nothing about what's possible in a timeless domain."

How is it a word play? The fact is, there are some causes in the real world that occur at the same time as their effects. The heavy ball resting on a cushion causes the indent in the cushion, but both the cause and effect are happening at the same time. This isn't a word play, it's a scientific fact of nature!

Actually no, I was pointing out the fallacy in your reasoning that everything requires a cause and especially that this cause must be personal. Just labeling something as "the uncaused cause" doesn't answer anything, it's just more word play.

Again, how is this word play? "Uncaused" means that it exists on its own, independent of anything else (by the way, this is the exact concept of God that the Bible teaches: "I am who I am" - Exodus 3:14). "Caused" means that its existence is dependent on something else. This is not word play.

It contradicts the idea that everything requires a cause, it dodges the issue by saying that there must be something that didn't require a cause and sticks the label god on it for some reason that escapes me.

A couple of issues here. I'm not saying that everything requires a cause, only that everything that begins to exist requires a cause. So if something is eternal (had no beginning), then it does not have a cause.

Another thing is that you can call the First Cause whatever you want, but the fact is that it has the same properties that 'God' would (exists outside of space-time, created the universe, etc.).

It boils down to "everything requires a cause therefore there must be something that didn't".

No, that is not what I'm saying. If you remember in Post #270 I clarified this argument. This is what I said:

"Since every cause we observe today has a cause of itself, causes must either regress into infinity past or end at some uncaused First Cause. Since an infinite regress of causes is impossible, there must be an uncaused First Cause."

This is different than saying, "Everything requires a cause, therefore there must be something that doesn't."

And as you were already asked, even if I were to completely accept the argument, so what? Let's assume that an uncaused cause that you like to label a god created the universe. What difference does that make to my life and what does it have to do with accepting any particular religion as true?

This argument `narrows down' our options. It rules out atheism ("no God"), pantheism ("the universe is God"), polytheism ("many god"), and agnosticism ("we don't know if there is a God or not"). The only view left is monotheism, which is the view that there is one God.

marco_polo

I would imagine an infinite chain of causes would fit just as easily into eternity as God, with plenty of room to spare. In fact it would fit would an infinite number of times?

But now we are just getting silly.

Challenge: I want a defination of Eternity that cannot be linked back to the word infinity. If you win I'll buy some rosary beads and a bus ticket to Lough Derg. Don't worry about your forfit, your abject failure to succeed will be reward enough for me

eoin5

defendthefaith wrote: »

How is it a word play? The fact is, there are some causes in the real world that occur at the same time as their effects. The heavy ball resting on a cushion causes the indent in the cushion, but both the cause and effect are happening at the same time. This isn't a word play, it's a scientific fact of nature!

I'd prefer to think that the cushion causes the indent in itself by holding up the ball. Or maybe the person who made the ball caused the indent by constructing it. Could be gravity that causes it. Or maybe theres so many things that you could say caused the indent that the word cause in this circumstance is not really applicable. It might be easier to understand if we see it as a cause though, I guess the word is useful there alright.

Sam Vimes

defendthefaith wrote: »

How is it a word play? The fact is, there are some causes in the real world that occur at the same time as their effects. The heavy ball resting on a cushion causes the indent in the cushion, but both the cause and effect are happening at the same time. This isn't a word play, it's a scientific fact of nature!

It's word play because it's a different meaning of the word cause. Firstly, the ball and the cushion did not begin in that situation, they first had to come together. Gravity acted on the ball causing it to cause the cushion to warp and the cushion caused the ball to slow down and the two forces acted in opposite directions to leave them in an equilibrium situation. The "cause" of that equilibrium is the two objects moving together so this "simultaneous cause" required a non-simultaneous one to occur first, as did all of your examples

And secondly, since the ball and the cushion are in an equilibrium situation, nothing will ever happen to them unless another external cause acts on them. If the creation of the universe involved such an equilibrium situation, it would still never be created until an external cause upset the equilibrium.

defendthefaith wrote: »

Again, how is this word play? "Uncaused" means that it exists on its own, independent of anything else (by the way, this is the exact concept of God that the Bible teaches: "I am who I am" - Exodus 3:14). "Caused" means that its existence is dependent on something else. This is not word play.

I'll explain by an analogy: When mathematicians are doing certain maths, it's conceptually easier to use the term infinity. They know that infinity is not an actual defined number and is only a theoretical concept but it makes the maths work out even though the number infinity doesn't actually exist

You've done something similar here. You have decided that there must be something that did not require a cause and you have decided that the only thing you know of that does not require a cause is something that's eternal. You have "defined" an uncaused cause because your theory of the universe doesn't work out without one. The problem is that:

1. The idea of an eternal object raises far more questions than something that did not require a cause.
2. The idea of an eternal sentient being raises more questions again
3. We don't know enough about the universe to say that everything that is not eternal requires a cause as we know it
4. We don't know enough about the universe to say that it didn't have a non-godly cause. The options are not "god or nothing", there are millions of possibilities

Basically, you have "defined" something that makes your theory work out but the ability to define it in words does not mean that it's possible in practice. You have started by asserting that something is impossible (infinite regress of causes), ignored the fact that there are millions of possible explanations for how it happened and replaced it with another infinite thing without explaining how this one might be possible . It answers nothing and raises more questions.

defendthefaith wrote: »

Another thing is that you can call the First Cause whatever you want, but the fact is that it has the same properties that 'God' would (exists outside of space-time, created the universe, etc.).

No, no, no, no, no . The properties "exists outside of space-time as we know it and caused the creation of the universe" could be applied to a million different things, imagined and as yet unimagined which is the whole point we're making. Your god has many other properties which this argument says nothing about. This argument at most suggests 'something' that kicked it all into motion, ie did the only thing that we currently consider impossible, and did not interfere at all afterward. The leap from "exists outside space-time" to "God" and especially to "christian God" is a canyon wide leap in logic. At most it argues for deism, not theism and certainly not christianity

defendthefaith wrote: »

"Since every cause we observe today has a cause of itself, causes must either regress into infinity past or end at some uncaused First Cause. Since an infinite regress of causes is impossible, there must be an uncaused First Cause."

This is different than saying, "Everything requires a cause, therefore there must be something that doesn't."

It's not really very different, but I'll update it if you insist:

"Everything requires a cause, therefore there must be something that didn't because it's eternal"

defendthefaith wrote: »

This argument `narrows down' our options. It rules out atheism ("no God"), pantheism ("the universe is God"), polytheism ("many god"), and agnosticism ("we don't know if there is a God or not"). The only view left is monotheism, which is the view that there is one God.

It doesn't narrow down our options because of the aforementioned unsupported assumptions, invalid assumptions and nonsensical assumptions but it wouldn't narrow down to a god even if it were completely valid. It argues for something that exists outside space-time as we know it which could mean anything. Just because we don't understand it does not mean it's a God.

And how does it rule out polytheism If there can be one uncaused cause that can be defined as a god, why not many?

And finally, you said earlier that the argument supports christianity. In what way does it suggest that the bible is true? We keep asking you this and you have yet to answer.

Zombrex

defendthefaith wrote: »

The bottom line is this: if there was no cause for the origin of the universe, then something had to have emerged out of absolutely nothing.

And .. ? Do you have a problem with that?

By the way you have ignored my last 3 posts pointing out that WE KNOW IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A CAUSE TO HAPPEN AFTER THE THING IT CAUSED

It is possible the universe caused itself to come into existence.

Zillah

defendthefaith wrote: »

This argument `narrows down' our options. It rules out atheism ("no God"), pantheism ("the universe is God"), polytheism ("many god"), and agnosticism ("we don't know if there is a God or not"). The only view left is monotheism, which is the view that there is one God.

Wait, how's that? Even if we accept 100% that we need an eternal uncaused cause...all we end up with is that we have 'x', where 'x' is an eternal uncaused cause. Anything else we add to that, be it omnipotence, omni-benevolence etc is just stuff we're making up.

Let's not make stuff up.

Also, how the hell does it rule out polytheism? How do you know there aren't 12 timeless super entities?

Sam Vimes

Zillah wrote: »

Wait, how's that? Even if we accept 100% that we need an eternal uncaused cause...all we end up with is that we have 'x', where 'x' is an eternal uncaused cause. Anything else we add to that, be it omnipotence, omni-benevolence etc is just stuff we're making up.

Let's not make stuff up.

Also, how the hell does it rule out polytheism? How do you know there aren't 12 timeless super entities?

great minds think alike

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

Let's not make stuff up.

Agreed, lets particularly not make stuff up based on limited imagination. I hate this argument Sure it has to be the Christian God, what else could it be It is ridiculous. "It" could be anything, from a fundamental energy field to a string of turtles all the way down.

It is like saying someone broke into my house last night, it must have been Brad Pitt, sure who else could it have been!

Zillah

Wicknight wrote: »

It is like saying someone broke into my house last night, it must have been Brad Pitt, sure who else could it have been!

Well, if your house was broken into then it has to have been someone physically capable of breaking into a house, a multi-millionaire, blonde, famous and American.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

Well, if your house was broken into then it has to have been someone physically capable of breaking into a house, a multi-millionaire, blonde, famous and American.

Who's first name is Brad. And who's second name starts with a "P"

Sam Vimes

your ideas are intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Your assertion that only people whose surname starts with P can break into a house just makes sense to me.

Almost as much sense as Tom Cruise's assertion that only a scientologist can help at a car crash

Genghiz Cohen

Hang on now, one thing at a time.

Wicknight wrote: »

a string of turtles all the way down.

But what does the last turtle stand on? :pac:

Sam Vimes

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Hang on now, one thing at a time.



But what does the last turtle stand on? :pac:

Now you're being ridiculous. It's turtle's all the way down

But with a name like Genghiz Cohen I'm sure you already knew that

Dades

But... but... they can't all be supported turtles. There must be an unsupported turtle.

A First Turtle, as it were.

Sam Vimes

Dades wrote: »

But... but... they can't all be supported turtles. There must be an unsupported turtle.

A First Turtle, as it were.

Exactly! And following that to the inescapable conclusion, the bible must be true.

See it all makes sense when you think about it :pac:

JC 2K3

But wait, what if the turtles are in a circle?

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote: »

But wait, what if the turtles are in a circle?

blasphemy!!!!! don't make me call Dermot Ahern

Genghiz Cohen

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Exactly! And following that to the inescapable conclusion, the bible must be true.

If I were drinking milk, it would have sprayed out my nose....

The Mad Hatter

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Almost as much sense as Tom Cruise's assertion that only a scientologist can help at a car crash

No - that only a scientologist can really care.

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Dades wrote:

But... but... they can't all be supported turtles. There must be an unsupported turtle. A First Turtle, as it were.

Exactly! And following that to the inescapable conclusion, the bible must be true. See it all makes sense when you think about it.

I think this is the kind of simple analogizing that makes people think we're those frightful militant atheists that all those religious writers keep worrying about all the time.

Does anybody have any suggestions for how we can satirize religious logic without making it look silly?

A joke without a punchline should do the trick.

Genghiz Cohen

What did Jesus say to the blind man?

"I am sorry for your troubles."

Punchline-lacking enough?

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

I think this is the kind of simple analogizing that makes people think we're those frightful militant atheists that all those religious writers keep worrying about all the time.

Does anybody have any suggestions for how we can satirize religious logic without making it look silly?

A joke without a punchline should do the trick.

I don't think we're supposed to satirise it at all. I think we're supposed to grit our teeth and say "good point" and ignore the blood that starts to pour out of our ears when we do it

Sam Vimes

Actually, to quote Richard Dawkins, to make religion look bad you don't even have to satirise, you just have to flick to any page of the old testament and read a few verses.