Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Philosoft · 07-26-2002, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:

Philosoft,
I do not understand what you mean by setting up an opposition between 'make' and 'cause'. Those seem to be synonyms to me. What exactly forces that opposition?

I don't know how else to phrase it. God does not cause anything in any sense of the word as we define it.

Quote:

Also, you can break out of naturalism by assuming something greater than nature, God.

That would be much easier if I knew what the thing was I was supposed to be assuming.

Quote:

The question then deals with the relationship between God and the world, not the existence of God.

You're kinda new at this philosophy of religion thing, aren't you?

Quote:

I personally believe that God transcends all categories of human thought, including the one I just put Him in.

Huh?

Quote:

Therefore it is not the work of philosophy to place God in the order of things. I've found that when it tries it falls flat on its face.

Honestly ManM, assuming what you're trying to prove so you don't have to deal with tough philosophical questions is so pass�.

Mageth · 07-26-2002, 01:35 PM

Again...what evidence do you have that the universe did not 'begin to exist'?

What evidence do you have that a God exists that did not being to exist? God is speculation. If you're free to speculate, why am I not?

I'll refer to an interesting little article I read, <a href="http://www.geocities.com/rrbama66/SFNA5" target="_blank">Is there any need for a first cause?</a>, particularly the second fallacy.

The universe as a whole does not require a causal explanation. Causality is only applicable within the universe. Quoting from the website:

"To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual chains. Existence -not "god" - is the First Cause."

And quoting Hawking:

"The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space time. . . There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. . . What place, then, for a creator?"
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Press, 1988.

sir drinks-a-lot · 07-26-2002, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
Please show me an example of a thing in this physical universe that did not 'begin to exist'.

This argument always confuses me. If we look at a coffee cup and ask what caused it to exist, we could answer that is came from a coffee cup factory, etc.

But was the matter that makes up the coffee cup also created at the factory? No. So, did the factory really make the coffee cup?

Was it aristotle who talked about Form and Matter? The matter was just re-arranged into a coffee cup. But where did the matter come from?

Please show an example of something in this physical universe that "began to exist" - and was not just a changing of one thing into another.

Smitty13 · 07-26-2002, 02:21 PM

I'm curious, how does one verify that the physical universe has a first cause? I.e. that the universe came "out of nothing" and didn't arise from something natural (e.g. a vacuum fluctuation in another universe) that pre-existed our little universe?

The Big Bang asserts that the universe sprang into being from a gaseous ball of infinite mass. Something of "infinite mass" is "noting" because if it had any mass it would be something. So it seems to me that to accept the Big Bang, one must accept a first cause (I AM NOT SAYING THE FIRST CAUSE IS GOD).

Perhaps whatever the universe "was" before the big bang (if that's how its present incarnation started) did not "begin to exist"...

Once again, by definition of the Big Bang, there was nothing before the Big Bang. I do not think that is a religious/spiritual statement, but a basis understanding of scientific evidence.

Mageth · 07-26-2002, 02:42 PM

The Big Bang asserts that the universe sprang into being from a gaseous ball of infinite mass. Something of "infinite mass" is "nothing" because if it had any mass it would be something.

I don't follow this. How can you call a "gaseuos ball of infinite mass," or anything with a definition, nothing? Plus, the Big Bang resulted from a singularity. I've never heard it referred to as a "gaseous ball of infinite mass."

In one embodiment, the big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was "nothing," at least in regards to this universe. A quantum fluctuation created a singularity. From that singularity, our Universe was "born."

So it seems to me that to accept the Big Bang, one must accept a first cause (I AM NOT SAYING THE FIRST CAUSE IS GOD).

Quantum fluctuations are not 'causal' events that occur in time.

Once again, by definition of the Big Bang, there was nothing before the Big Bang. I do not think that is a religious/spiritual statement, but a basis understanding of scientific evidence.

I don't think it's true that Big Bang cosmology requires one to accept that there was "nothing" before the Big Bang. It's more along the lines of there was no "before the Big Bang" from our reference. As time is a property of the universe that sprang into existence along witht he rest of the universe, "before the Big Bang" is nonsensical. Plus, as noted, quantum fluctuations are not 'causal' events that occur in time.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

Devilnaut · 07-26-2002, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
Of course the main problem with this line of reasoning is that it is verifiably false. All that we know about the physical universe indicates that EVERYTHING within it and including itself has/had a cause.

Oh so we know that everything in the universe, every single last thing, plus the universe itself, has a cause!

I'm pretty convinced that there is utterly no way for a theist to effectively argue without somehow assuming what he is trying to prove. I suppose the effectiveness of this type of argument relies on how well you can bury these assumptions. You didn't bury them very well, SOMMS

*just a note, i'm using effectiveness in terms of how many people they are able to trick into thinking their argument holds any water, as opposed to being in terms of actual soundness

By the way, SOMMS:

Quote:

The problem with saying 'lets assume the physical universe doesn't need a cause' is it there is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest this...AND there is verifiably evidence indicating it's falsehood.

Can you please detail for me the evidence suggesting that things in the non-physical universe do not need causes? I must be confused, because you presented your post in a way that would suggest you are informed of such things, when to my knowledge such evidence doesn't (and can't) exist.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]

Devilnaut · 07-26-2002, 03:01 PM

I agree with Philosoft that 'supernatural' is a completely vacuous concept. It is defined simply as "all that is not natural". All that is natural is defined as all that we can observe. If we have no way of observing something, then this means that it can affect us in literally no way, and it is indeed outside the realm of reality for us. In other words, the supernatural is by definition, not real.

Theists take the word supernatural and run with it. They try to find what they think are inconsistencies with a 'naturalist worldview', and then define the supernatural as avoiding these problems (since the supernatural is unobservable you can pretty much define it however you want), ala the amazing first cause "argument".

The theists' case must seem very easy to defend to them, since they have this entire "supernatural realm" to define as they please. Maybe one of the supernatural realm's effects is to make this post only seem coherent, when in reality it is only a random jumble of words!

Alternatively, maybe one of the supernatural realm's effects is to make all theists only think that they believe in God, when in reality they don't.

oops.. I almost forgot, only theists have this luxury of having another dimension at their disposal to define in any way they please.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]

Smitty13 · 07-26-2002, 03:24 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mageth:
[QB]The Big Bang asserts that the universe sprang into being from a gaseous ball of infinite mass. Something of "infinite mass" is "nothing" because if it had any mass it would be something.

I don't follow this. How can you call a "gaseuos ball of infinite mass," or anything with a definition, nothing? Plus, the Big Bang resulted from a singularity. I've never heard it referred to as a "gaseous ball of infinite mass."

My mistake. The singularity as you refer to it was of infinite "density" not mass, which is equivalent to nothing.

Devilnaut · 07-26-2002, 03:30 PM

A singularity is not equivalent to nothing in any way that i'm aware of. The closest it comes to being nothing is that it occupies an infinitesimally small space, which is why its density is infinitely large.

Mageth · 07-26-2002, 04:14 PM

My mistake. The singularity as you refer to it was of infinite "density" not mass, which is equivalent to nothing.

Like I said, how can "nothing" have a definition that includes qualities such as "infinite density", or any quality for that matter? "Nothing" has no qualities or quantities. Nothing is...well...nothing.

07-26-2002, 02:42 PM	#35
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	The Big Bang asserts that the universe sprang into being from a gaseous ball of infinite mass. Something of "infinite mass" is "nothing" because if it had any mass it would be something. I don't follow this. How can you call a "gaseuos ball of infinite mass," or anything with a definition, nothing? Plus, the Big Bang resulted from a singularity. I've never heard it referred to as a "gaseous ball of infinite mass." In one embodiment, the big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was "nothing," at least in regards to this universe. A quantum fluctuation created a singularity. From that singularity, our Universe was "born." So it seems to me that to accept the Big Bang, one must accept a first cause (I AM NOT SAYING THE FIRST CAUSE IS GOD). Quantum fluctuations are not 'causal' events that occur in time. Once again, by definition of the Big Bang, there was nothing before the Big Bang. I do not think that is a religious/spiritual statement, but a basis understanding of scientific evidence. I don't think it's true that Big Bang cosmology requires one to accept that there was "nothing" before the Big Bang. It's more along the lines of there was no "before the Big Bang" from our reference. As time is a property of the universe that sprang into existence along witht he rest of the universe, "before the Big Bang" is nonsensical. Plus, as noted, quantum fluctuations are not 'causal' events that occur in time. [ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

07-26-2002, 03:01 PM	#37
Devilnaut Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Posts: 374	I agree with Philosoft that 'supernatural' is a completely vacuous concept. It is defined simply as "all that is not natural". All that is natural is defined as all that we can observe. If we have no way of observing something, then this means that it can affect us in literally no way, and it is indeed outside the realm of reality for us. In other words, the supernatural is by definition, not real. Theists take the word supernatural and run with it. They try to find what they think are inconsistencies with a 'naturalist worldview', and then define the supernatural as avoiding these problems (since the supernatural is unobservable you can pretty much define it however you want), ala the amazing first cause "argument". The theists' case must seem very easy to defend to them, since they have this entire "supernatural realm" to define as they please. Maybe one of the supernatural realm's effects is to make this post only seem coherent, when in reality it is only a random jumble of words! Alternatively, maybe one of the supernatural realm's effects is to make all theists only think that they believe in God, when in reality they don't. oops.. I almost forgot, only theists have this luxury of having another dimension at their disposal to define in any way they please. [ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-26-2002, 01:35 PM	#32
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Again...what evidence do you have that the universe did not 'begin to exist'? What evidence do you have that a God exists that did not being to exist? God is speculation. If you're free to speculate, why am I not? I'll refer to an interesting little article I read, <a href="http://www.geocities.com/rrbama66/SFNA5" target="_blank">Is there any need for a first cause?</a>, particularly the second fallacy. The universe as a whole does not require a causal explanation. Causality is only applicable within the universe. Quoting from the website: "To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual chains. Existence -not "god" - is the First Cause." And quoting Hawking: "The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space time. . . There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. . . What place, then, for a creator?" Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Press, 1988.

07-26-2002, 02:21 PM	#34
Smitty13 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: California Posts: 22	I'm curious, how does one verify that the physical universe has a first cause? I.e. that the universe came "out of nothing" and didn't arise from something natural (e.g. a vacuum fluctuation in another universe) that pre-existed our little universe? The Big Bang asserts that the universe sprang into being from a gaseous ball of infinite mass. Something of "infinite mass" is "noting" because if it had any mass it would be something. So it seems to me that to accept the Big Bang, one must accept a first cause (I AM NOT SAYING THE FIRST CAUSE IS GOD). Perhaps whatever the universe "was" before the big bang (if that's how its present incarnation started) did not "begin to exist"... Once again, by definition of the Big Bang, there was nothing before the Big Bang. I do not think that is a religious/spiritual statement, but a basis understanding of scientific evidence.

07-26-2002, 03:24 PM	#38
Smitty13 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: California Posts: 22	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mageth: [QB]The Big Bang asserts that the universe sprang into being from a gaseous ball of infinite mass. Something of "infinite mass" is "nothing" because if it had any mass it would be something. I don't follow this. How can you call a "gaseuos ball of infinite mass," or anything with a definition, nothing? Plus, the Big Bang resulted from a singularity. I've never heard it referred to as a "gaseous ball of infinite mass." My mistake. The singularity as you refer to it was of infinite "density" not mass, which is equivalent to nothing.

07-26-2002, 03:30 PM	#39
Devilnaut Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Posts: 374	A singularity is not equivalent to nothing in any way that i'm aware of. The closest it comes to being nothing is that it occupies an infinitesimally small space, which is why its density is infinitely large.

07-26-2002, 04:14 PM	#40
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	My mistake. The singularity as you refer to it was of infinite "density" not mass, which is equivalent to nothing. Like I said, how can "nothing" have a definition that includes qualities such as "infinite density", or any quality for that matter? "Nothing" has no qualities or quantities. Nothing is...well...nothing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.