Okay, how about we focus on existentialism and phenomenology?

Let me know!

Or even the most basic deductive logic, apparently, if they honestly think that they have executed a successful reductio and derived a genuine contradiction from an infinite past or infinite causal sequence.

Or, on the other hand, if they seriously believe "X is weird -> X is therefore impossible" is a compelling or valid argument then they clearly have not been following physics for the last century or so and would be quite shocked to learn about GR or QM (which are nothing if not weird and counter-intuitive, and apparently quite true despite that).

:roll:


What about a debate on the merits of two-stoke engines.

I've no wish to debate a fool.

Don't hide behind ad hominem, if you're scared say you're scared LOL!

When one starts with the answer, philosophical discussion takes the form of the selection of suitable questions.

Starting from God, Aristotelian physics must be true, evolution false, and infinity anathema.

It's a larger concept, guy. Religion and evolution are just the circumstantial parameters of the thread. What can be or rather has been proven (because you're told so. No one can possibly witness a theoretical change that takes place over a span longer than any natural life) vs. what has not been being untrue simply due to that fact. Many other factors. Are you a biologist? Scientist? Archeologist? No? Then your reasoning is valid primarily due to your trust of authority. Things can be faked. Staged. They are all the time. Something tells me religion has disappointed you some. For reasons beyond what you make known here. I will see what can be done.

Again, it's all a larger concept. One inherently secular.

No one can possibly witness a theoretical change that takes place over a span longer than any natural life) — Outlander

What bullshit - and I mean this in the technical sense of self-serving disregard for the truth.

I've seen that claim made in anti-evolution blogs. As if there were no History.

OP, hi. Could you maybe simplify all that for us simple or otherwise "tired" folk.

The whole idea of the universe beyond planets, humans, or life itself but rather stars, galaxies, or simply the vastness that is "everything" ie. anything that can be hypothetically or theoretically explored had to have been "made". As in there was a point when "everything" (here) didn't exist or even that is.. just always did eternally. It is a pretty intimidating concept to really think about deeply. The idea of... everything and anything itself. Not much more that can be thought about I suppose. I mean really thinking about it.

So. Timelessness. Is this "outside of the universe" as in there are other "realms" that cannot ever be reached, normally, from this one? Powerful stuff. Truly.

Every event had a cause, essentially. So the Big Bang that "created" the Universe had to have been due or otherwise set into motion by... God? Timelessness? Is God more of a concept to you as in a non entity? What's up.

Interesting point - Georges Lemaître first published his hypothesis of the 'primeval atom' (which Fred Hoyle would later name, sarcastically, as the 'big bang') in an obscure journal in the late 1920's. As the idea began to gain traction, it was widely resisted because it sounded too much like creation from nothing. But get this:

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory. Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology. Lemaître was a devout Catholic, but opposed mixing science with religion, although he held that the two fields were not in conflict. — Wikipedia

This exemplifies, to my mind, the sense in which Catholicism is more intelligent than Protestant fundamentalism; it has a broad enough worldview to accomodate science and religion without having to see a conflict between them. (See also Aquinas vs Intelligent Design.)

However, in my view, the very fact of the 'big bang theory' will always seem to support the arguments of natural theology - because, after all, it does state that the entire vast universe burst into existence from a single, infinitesimally small point in a single instant. I think the early opposition to it on the grounds that it sounded like creation from nothing were quite well founded!

because, after all, it does state that the entire vast universe burst into existence from a single, infinitesimally small point in a single instant.

Not a very accurate characterization of the BBT, but no doubt if that was what it actually described then there may well have been something to all of this. But the BBT describes the evolution of the universe from a hot, dense early state some ~13.8 billion years ago into the cooling and expanding (at an accelerating rate) universe we presently observe. Not only is any absolute beginning or "popping into existence" not a generally accepted part of any cosmological model (including the BBT), we essentially know that GR ceases to be a good description of physical reality once we reach the point where the gravitational field dominates on the quantum scale and so our lack of a theory of quantum gravity means we can't make reliable predictions (and that the predictions we do make- like the hypothetical "t=0" spacetime singularity- are almost certainly wrong, and mere artifacts of a broken theory... or, at least, one pushed well beyond its domain of applicability).

So the supposed convergence or corroboration of the BBT with creationism or theistic cosmologies seems mostly rhetorical and fabricated, and is the same sort of round peg/square hole, old wine -> new skins scenario theology always seems to find itself in wrt specific scientific results (which is, to repeat my original comment, why it is inadvisable to tether your religious views to specific factual claims which may turn out other than you assume).

So the supposed convergence or corroboration of the BBT with creationism or theistic cosmologies seems mostly rhetorical and fabricated... — Enai De A Lukal

...as do attempts to defray the appeal of the ‘fine-tuning argument’ by referring to the possibilities of multiverses, of which ‘this universe’ ‘just happens to be one’.

Whataboutism on a philosophy board, I'm genuinely disappointed. And of course once again this is an inaccurate characterization of the relevant science anyways.

It’s not ‘Whataboutism’, they’re different facets of the same issue. And I’m not arguing that on any of these grounds, that God exists. I’m simply pointing out that the so-called ‘Big Bang theory’ is taken by some to converge with the notion of ‘creation ex nihilo’. The ‘fine tuning’ argument is another facet of the same issue, namely, how is it that the Universe emerged from the chaos of the Big Bang with just those attributes required for matter to form. Both of those questions are by definition beyond the purview of science but in my view, that can’t be used as an argument either for or against the existence of God. So I’m actually in agreement about the inadvisability of ‘tethering your religious views to scientific theories’, in fact, I had rather hoped that the quote I had provided about LeMaitre actually made this very point.

rules will be wide open
all philosophical domains will be argued — 3017amen

:D

Swiftly abandoning a lost cause (pun intended), I guess.

As an aside, probably not everyone knows Banno's technical sense of bullshit: On Bullshit

Its textbook whataboutism: even if it were true that the notion that multiverses address the "problem" of fine-tuning is rhetorical and fabricated, that would not refute my suggestion that this is the case wrt theistic/creationist interpretations of the BBT- they could BOTH be true. Which is of course why whataboutism is fallacious just in general: the accusation that someone or something did something bad cannot be rebutted by the accusation that someone or something else did something bad too, since its completely possible that they both did something bad.

And its telling that the people who claim that the BBT meaningfully converges on or corroborates a theistic creation story are almost invariably... theologians and theists rather than physicists. That alone should tell you that their take on the relevant science may be suspect, and that this conclusion is motivated rather by religion and theology than science. And indeed that's precisely what it turns out to be: the part of the BBT that is suggested to corroborate theistic creation, isn't actually an accepted part of the BBT at all. Moreover, is something we are fairly certain is an artifact of a broken/incomplete theory (GR) rather than a description of anything physical (i.e. spacetime or gravitational singularities, like the one at the hypothetical "t=0" of the BB model, or at the center of stellar black holes, which indeed disappear in e.g. loop quantum gravity).

Point noted, I'll take that on board.

Its also probably worth noting here, just for the record, that multiverse models are not in general posited merely to circumvent theistic fine-tuning arguments- this is a caricature at best. At least some of them, like the cosmological multiverse, follow fairly straightforwardly from entirely observational and scientific concerns: the cosmological multiverse for instance follows from the fact that (as far as we can tell) the geometry of the universe is flat and therefore is spatially infinite + the fact that the speed of light is finite- if the universe is flat and thus spatially infinite, and the speed of light (and thus causation) is finite, then there are an infinite number of causally-disconnected regions (i.e. past our particle/cosmic event horizons) from our own observable section of the universe. And it is possible/plausible that fundamental physical quantities vary over time and/or space- there is even some limited/initial observational evidence for this thesis. Nothing about refuting theistic fine-tuning arguments for the existence of God here- just the same old push to explain and provide a theoretical framework for the observations we make and data we find.

And from what little I know about string theory and quantum mechanics, the multiverse or parallel universes in these domains are also motivated at least in part by purely scientific concerns as well- the role of theological boogeyman in these proposals is, at least so far as I can tell, quite exaggerated.

(See also Aquinas vs Intelligent Design.) — Wayfarer

Far more nuanced and interesting that other stuff hereabouts. Thanks.

So it sounds like you believe in logical necessity then, no? — 3017amen

That question doesn't make sense to me. I don't "believe" in logic. Logic is fundamental to my thinking.

Do you believe your own judgement? Then you believe in your understanding of logic.

I don't think the question was whether I believe what I said - whether I am arguing in good faith.

I think that any mechanism of a purely dumb nature cannot be the first cause - it would have to initiate an action by its own accord — Devans99

And thus your argument is circular: you assume that only a god can create a universe to defend the conclusion that whatever created the universe must be a god. It is not a separate point.

...as do attempts to defray the appeal of the ‘fine-tuning argument’ by referring to the possibilities of multiverses, of which ‘this universe’ ‘just happens to be one’. — Wayfarer

This sounds familiar, something about the distaste of having the Earth not at the centre of creation but as a planet that 'just happens to be one' of several in the solar system. I mean, any scientific theory that is contra to my religious beliefs is going to be silly, right?

Its also probably worth noting here, just for the record, that multiverse models are not in general posited merely to circumvent theistic fine-tuning arguments- this is a caricature at best — Enai De A Lukal

It's not their main concern, but it is certainly a factor. It's routinely invoked as a counter to 'fine-tuning'-style arguments by pop-sci figures. In a review of 'arguments for the Multiverse', George Ellis notes that one of them is that:

Fundamental constants are finely tuned for life. A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things. Steven Weinberg, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and others contend that an exotic multiverse provides a tidy explanation for this apparent coincidence: if all possible values occur in a large enough collection of universes, then viable ones for life will surely be found somewhere.

DOES THE MULTIVERSE REALLY EXIST? (cover story). By: Ellis, George F. R. Scientific American. Aug 2011, Vol. 305 Issue 2, p38-43.

I find it ironic that 'the landscape' of 10⁵⁰⁰ 'universes' can be considered 'a tidy explanation' for anything, but what do I know?

not at the centre of creation — Kenosha Kid

I was reading the other day somewhere that the fact of the earth being at the centre of the Universe was no cause for celebration, as the earth was regarded as being very lowly in the celestial hierarchy, and the centre of the earth was hell.

There’s an enormous amount of myth-making and historical disinformation about all of these issues. A lot of it was fabricated by the ‘conflict theorists’ of the late nineteenth-early 20th century (of whom Dawkins is a spiritual descendant, forgive the irony.)

There’s also a strong but subtle factor in many of these debates, which can generally be described as ‘Anything but God’. This is because the perceived historical conflict between religion and science is such that certain kinds of ideas, philosophies, attitudes, are circumscribed because they’re associated with religious ideologies. So there’s certain kinds of thinking that are just non-pc in secular culture.

Thomas Nagel has some worthwhile things to say about that, not least because he’s a member of the secular intelligentsia and also a professed atheist.

I was reading the other day somewhere that the fact of the earth being at the centre of the Universe was no cause for celebration, as the earth was regarded as being very lowly in the celestial hierarchy, and the centre of the earth was hell. — Wayfarer

Yes, that's why the Inquisition put heliocentrists on trial, because they liked Hell not being at the centre of the universe.

I do not doubt theologians' ability to change their minds eventually, when continuing to deny something well established looks increasingly stupid. I disagree that this credits them with any wisdom after the fact.

My point was that dismissing multiverse theory on grounds of taste is just repeating the same silly mistake the church makes throughout its history. If multiple universes are possible, and the evidence is consistent with their possibility, even their inevitability, the claim that this one must be special (e.g. the only one, or perhaps "at the centre") is the special pleading that needs justifying or dismissing.

Each chain of causes requires a concrete start - the first cause causes the second cause - the second cause doe not exist if it is not caused by the first cause. The nth+1 cause cannot exist if the nth cause does not. So causality without a first cause (IE infinite causality) cannot exist - there is nothing to make any of it concrete. — Devans99

That doesn't demonstrate that there can't be an infinity of causes. In fact if the (n+1)th cause can't exist without the nth cause there should be a infinity of causes.:chin:

I think that everything in time has a cause. Something must be uncaused about the universe (IE external to time) - else there would be nothing. — Devans99

So, your argument is:

1. Something about the universe must be uncaused OR there would be nothing
2. There is something (not the case that there's nothing)
Ergo
3. Something about the universe must be uncaused

Well, why can't that "something" be the universe itself? Why do you have to introduce a nth cause (god) if one takes the universe to the bet (n+1)th cause?

I hope I can be forgiven if I neglect to review this cacophony. Argumentation can only expect to be convincing if there is absolute confidence in the continuity of terms. Unfortunately for that expectation, there can be no such confidence except as a kind of lie. In fact, terms evolve precisely via our discipline of becoming unconvinced of that continuity. And the glorious fact is that the more rigorously we pursue the argument in that confidence the more complete and more real are our terms. And more glorious still, that change of terms is more all encompassing and more real than our confidence in logical continuity ever can be. It is therefore unwise to become self-congratulatory when seem to achieve a knockout blow in terms of that unwarranted confidence in the continuity of our terms. But if that process of rigor that results in the differing of all terms is the engine of human language, then our reliance on logical form to thwart the moment of that differing, and our recognition of it, is conceit. And, furthermore, if that moment of the differing of all terms is more real than the continuity of time and term, then philosophy is not a matter of persuasion, but of becoming rigorously unpersuaded, and reality is more dissent than obedience. Paradigms exist only to be overthrown, and dissent, though mute and anomalous alone, is that overthrow through the logical dynamic of contrariety. A contrariety in which the dissenter is as in contrariety to its fellow dissenter as to the prevailing paradigm. This pairing renders the paradigm recognizably incomplete. And the rigor of the paired dissension is the most persuasive term there can be. No god can espouse or partake of such dissension pairs. I would go so far as to assert that every particle of matter, every living organism, and every social dynamic, is such a community in contrariety, rendering the act of being rigorous in it is the character of each participant in it. The question arises, if reason is a matter of eliminating what is anomalous to its terms, how much of a differing to those those terms resulting from the rigorous completion of that reasoning does it take to complete that overthrow? How much of a diversion from the causal nexus does it take to be more what everything real is?

I would love to go on about what is so annoying in god arguments, but here's one point, what kind of god requires us to believe in it? It's one thing, I suppose, to hold an unwarranted belief, but it is quite another to insist on going about trying to convince others of it. Most religions don't bother with evangelism, only the biblical ones. Well, maybe Buddhism. What do you get out of it? Does this god get some sort of thrill out of our careless reasoning? Do evangelists get some sort of thrill out of convincing others of what they themselves acknowledge is an "act of faith"?

Devans99
2.6k
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
— Frank Apisa

Why? Knowledge is interesting!

Nothing is certain in this world, so we must resort to probability as our only hope for true knowledge. I find it strange that you will not at least hazard a guess on this important issue. — Devans99

I do not find it strange at all.

Here is my take on the issue...which I have posted several times already:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that gods are needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

what do you see wrong or objectionable about that?

Hmmm. Supertasks are not impossible, Achilles can complete his run — Banno

Supertasks are obviously logically impossible - we are talking about performing a greater than finite number of steps in a finite time:

- Finite numbers go on forever, so its not possible for the number of steps to be greater than something that goes on forever
- The process of performing steps is just adding one to the step count; there is no way addition of one can ever produce a non-finite number.

And then this post, which points out that the supposed Principle of Causation is not amongst the laws of thought, except amongst those who seek to use it as you do. — Banno

Causation is matter/energy acting on matter/energy. So causation is just Newton's laws of motion. It is completely scientific and we have masses of empirical evidence to support the fact that causation is universal.

Note that the point of this example was to show that causation is more complex than is supposed in the argument presented in the OP. It is only one of many alternate pictures which do not involve a god of one sort or another. The purpose of the example was to help you see that the conclusion only follows if one adopts a narrow understanding of causation. — Banno

Causation is indeed complex. But we can abstract out some key details:

1. Causation is matter acting on matter via Newton's laws of motion.
2. All action takes place subject to the speed of light limit, so the cause precedes the effect
3. All empirical evidence indicates that every effect has a cause (at least at macro level, probably at micro level too - I already explained how there is a cause for radioactive decay for example).
4. A cause can cause multiple effects. Each effect in its turn can cause multiple follow on effects
5. So by [4], causation must form a pyramid shape in time, the first cause being at the tip of the pyramid
6. Entropy increasing with time reenforces this view - as causes and effects multiply, things become less organised so entropy increases.

If you look at the picture of the universe:



You can see that it takes on the pyramid shape I was referring to - with the Big Bang - likely the start of time - being the first cause.

Lets cut to the chase though. Do you think that the Big Bang has a cause or was uncaused?

Since Information (mind stuff, computer stuff, matter stuff) seems to be the fundamental "substance" of the physical and metaphysical universe, I equate it with Spinoza's "Single or Universal Substance", which he also called "God". — Gnomon

Certainly seems that information is fundamental. A key question is that is information transitory, permanent or a mixture of both? For anything to exist at all in the universe, it seems there must be permanent information associated with it - the first cause is permanent. What about spacetime though? Does it contain permanent information (eternalism) or transitory information (presentism)? It could also be something in-between like growing block theory - information is permanent once created.

Please see this post, in which I repeat an obvious argument that shows that "everything has a cause" is neither falsifiable nor provable. — Banno

Nothing in science or philosophy is ultimately either falsifiable nor provable - all our deductions are based on axioms - and those axioms maybe true or false - so we can prove results only subject to our axioms being correct.

I believe that the axiom: 'Everything in time has a cause' is a very strong axiom, one which we live our everyday lives according to. Hence I have a strong conviction that there is a timeless first cause, as this is deducible from the axiom.

I'll try more. It's still that no fixed object is identical with itself over time, so, well, it's not really a fixed object, or it would still be the same, so, maybe, um, the object goes away and gets replaced with object that has progressed a bit. Enfoldment/infoldment? — PoeticUniverse

I mentioned growing block universe as a possible nature of spacetime. I wonder if that model could be used to model timeless existence in some way. So imagine a timeless thing as a brick that has permanent existence but can somehow grow as it timelessly experiences some sort of change.

There is nothing that just "exists for no reason" — Outlander

There has to be.

We can formulate a revised version of Leibniz’s PSR:

1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time

[1] and [2] taken together imply that there must be a thing that has no reason outside of time - the timeless first cause (first reason). This argument points to a minimum of one 'brute fact’ to act as the tip of the pyramid of causality within time. That brute fact must exist outside of time, but also be able to cause the first effect within time (the Big Bang maybe).

Something outside of time can have no cause or reason - there is nothing 'before' it and it has 'always' existed. The existence of such an object is why there is something rather than nothing, but there is of cause no 'why' about it. Without such a permanent fixture, there would be nothing at all in the universe.

The fact that past-eternal and cyclical cosmological models remain viable is of course due precisely to the fact that we know no such thing — Enai De A Lukal

Time must have a start. The past is either a finite or infinite number of days long. If its infinite, then its longer than any finite number of days. But finite numbers go on forever, so that's impossible.

The whole idea of the universe beyond planets, humans, or life itself but rather stars, galaxies, or simply the vastness that is "everything" ie. anything that can be hypothetically or theoretically explored had to have been "made". As in there was a point when "everything" (here) didn't exist or even that is.. just always did eternally. It is a pretty intimidating concept to really think about deeply. The idea of... everything and anything itself. Not much more that can be thought about I suppose. I mean really thinking about it.

So. Timelessness. Is this "outside of the universe" as in there are other "realms" that cannot ever be reached, normally, from this one? Powerful stuff. Truly.

Every event had a cause, essentially. So the Big Bang that "created" the Universe had to have been due or otherwise set into motion by... God? Timelessness? Is God more of a concept to you as in a non entity? What's up. — Outlander

I cannot say everything was created. Spacetime has a start - looks like the Big Bang probably. Matter/energy either entered spacetime at that point or was somehow created in the Big Bang. If it was the second, then some precursor matter/energy must have been inserted into spacetime as the trigger for the creation of the rest of the matter/energy. So there is something permanent outside spacetime that somehow 'caused' the Big Bang.

It appears that the 'timeless realm' either surrounds and encompasses spacetime or is causally connected to spacetime - it must be as it is the cause of spacetime.

Every effect in time has a cause, the Big Bang is in time, so it must have a cause. But logically one cause must be external to the seemingly transitory spacetime - it has a start. That cause must be timeless and permanent - it the root cause of causality - the cause of the start of time - the cause of all motion in the universe.

And thus your argument is circular: you assume that only a god can create a universe to defend the conclusion that whatever created the universe must be a god. It is not a separate point. — Kenosha Kid

I doubt the first cause can be a random process:

- The signs of fine-tuning in the universe suggest intelligence
- The start of time suggests intelligence
- I'm not convinced true random is possible. That's informationally a something from nothing. All humans have ever been able to manage is pseudo-random. Anything pseudo-random has a cause, so it does not qualify as a first cause.

That doesn't demonstrate that there can't be an infinity of causes. In fact if the (n+1)th cause can't exist without the nth cause there should be a infinity of causes — TheMadFool

A causes B. B causes C. D causes E.

If A did not cause B, would D cause E?

Hence we reach the conclusion that any causal regress must have a concrete first cause - they just can't stretch back infinitely.

Well, why can't that "something" be the universe itself? Why do you have to introduce a nth cause (god) if one takes the universe to the bet (n+1)th cause? — TheMadFool

It could possibly be that the 'God' I refer to is somehow synonymous with the universe itself - the universe itself is somehow self-driven and capable of intelligent action. But personally, I think a distinct, intelligent entity is more likely.