Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 05-11-2002, 01:46 AM

Exactly... whatever caused the universe must be timeless. This is a point for theism.

It's not even necessarily true, and certainly does not suggest theism. One might also imagine processes set loose in other universes, advanced aliens, impersonal supernatural forces, and other non-theistic causes, some "timeless," some not. This "either BB or theism" is a false dichotomy.

I have yet to see many able to refute the First Cause argument, and I think it's a pretty good one.

It's pretty obvious your experience of first cause refutations is somewhat limited.....

Vorkosigan

Bill Snedden · 05-11-2002, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sikh:
Is there any validity to any naturalism sans a universe?

As I define "universe" as "all that exists", Sans a universe, there would be no validity to anything as nothing would exist...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Liquidrage · 05-11-2002, 05:38 AM

For an example...

Time is a dimension belonging to our universe.

In Hawkings latest book he theorizes about a universe created on a p-brane. One could say that the p-brane is timeless.
It existed before the expansion however before the expansion it did not experience time.

Humans aren't that smart.
Compared to everything else we know of, sure we're pretty damn smart. But just because we don't (and possibly can't in our present form) understand certain aspects of the world we live in doesn't mean the unknown is mystical.

Once upon a time thunder storms were mystical but then we figured out what they were.
Everything from stars to earthquakes were divine. And one by one we've figured them out too.

Most of us on these boards understand this. Unfortunately not everyone does.

Plump-DJ · 05-12-2002, 09:43 PM

Hello Everyone. I'm rather new to these boards so go easy on me.

Firslty, to Bill. In your early response you wrote..

---
"He explicitly mentions a similar objection to his argument, but his rebuttal is flawed in that it assumes that an eternally existing universe must exist within time (hence the impossibility of infinite regress), but that an eternally existing god need not. This is petitio principii, or the fallacy of "begging the question."
---

Is his argument not grounded on a couple of premises. (1) The universe is as we experience it (ie - it exists) and (2) Time is as we experience it. Would you not have to deny both of your original premises in order to claim that the universe can exist timelessly?

Secondly.. you wrote :

---------
However, because the BB does represent a "beginning", there must have been something logically prior; something timeless & eternal. However, this in itself does not necessitate the existence of a personal deity. Naturalism is not defeated by the BB, nor does it provide adequate reason to declare the various "first cause" arguments sound.
---------

1) Have you not, in coneeding this point given the green light to the basic cosmological position of the theist for the last 2500 years? (ie the universe is dependant on something else for it's existence)

2)If the universe had a beginning then are we not left with the notion of a first cause or first "motion event" (Aristotle's unmoved mover perhaps) which got the ball rolling?

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: Plump-DJ ]

Ender · 05-12-2002, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Plump: Is his argument not grounded on a couple of premises. (1) The universe is as we experience it (ie - it exists) and (2) Time is as we experience it. Would you not have to deny both of your original premises in order to claim that the universe can exist timelessly?

This doesn't even come close to addressing Bill's rebuttal. Timelessness is not a negation of time, rather it is eternity. Your passage is a fallacious strawman, and is not what Bill said. Bill said if an infinite universe must exist within time, but the Eternal doesn't, then that remains a circular statement.

Quote:

Plump: Have you not, in coneeding this point given the green light to the basic cosmological position of the theist for the last 2500 years? (ie the universe is dependant on something else for it's existence)

I wouldn't be too hasty and jump the gun here. Bill only conceded that given the singularity at the Big Bang, there could be something "logically prior," but that was insufficient grounds for any cosmological argument.

Quote:

Plump: 2)If the universe had a beginning then are we not left with the notion of a first cause or first "motion event" (Aristotle's unmoved mover perhaps) which got the ball rolling?

This only brings up another question: how do you get from a figurehead to a personal God? Aristotle's unmovable mover has very little in common with the God of theism, much less the Judo-Christian version.By denying that there is an infinite regress of motion or matter, Aristotle posited a "prime mover unmoved" or primum mobile immotum. This is an intangible, indivisible, spaceless, androgynous, passionless, unchanging, perfect, and eternal "mover," a pure energy (Metaphysics ix 7). Aristotle's Unmoved mover is probably closer to the mystic "force" of modern physics which does nothing, has no needs no resolve, no purpose, an motion so pure that it never moves. The only occupation the Unmoved mover is contemplation of the essence of things, since it is the essence of everything. A do-nothing God.
~WiGGiN~
((edited to add Aristotle's God))

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]

Plump-DJ · 05-13-2002, 04:53 AM

Hello Ender.

-------
This doesn't even come close to addressing Bill's rebuttal. Timelessness is not a negation of time, rather it is eternity. Your passage is a fallacious strawman, and is not what Bill said. Bill said if an infinite universe must exist within time, but the Eternal doesn't, then that remains a circular statement.
--------

Right. I hope i'm following this. (if i'm not.. go easy on me.

)

Why is that circular? It looks more like special pleading to me. And to claim that the Eternal (i assume we're referring to the argument's attempt to show a "minimal God" or first cause) does not need to exist in time is to simply claim that it's permieter's are not that of the universe's. Have i got that right? I mean if we agree that the universe is in time, and this experience we have of both the universe and the singluar dimension of time is correct then how could one object (upon accepting these premises of course) that perhaps the universe might not exist in time when they get to the part about traversing the infinite? To get to that stage we have to accept the first premise. In otherwords If this is true (single dimension of time, single direction) then this is true. (cannot traverse infinite) That looks to be the reasoning to me.

-------
I wouldn't be too hasty and jump the gun here. Bill only conceded that given the singularity at the Big Bang, there could be something "logically prior," but that was insufficient grounds for any cosmological argument.
-----

So if we grant that the universe with all matter, energy, space and time began with the BB and we grant that there was sometihng logically prior to this (which Bill seems to be doing) then whatever came logicaly prior is not a part of the universe is it? How could the "cause" of MEST be considered a part of the universe? And if all this is true then does this not give a whopping great reason to think that some first cause is looking more and more neccessary?

---
This only brings up another question: how do you get from a figurehead to a personal God? Aristotle's unmovable mover has very little in common with the God of theism, much less the Judo-Christian version.By denying that there is an infinite regress of motion or matter, Aristotle posited a "prime mover unmoved" or primum mobile immotum. This is an intangible, indivisible, spaceless, androgynous, passionless, unchanging, perfect, and eternal "mover," a pure energy (Metaphysics ix 7). Aristotle's Unmoved mover is probably closer to the mystic "force" of modern physics which does nothing, has no needs no resolve, no purpose, an motion so pure that it never moves. The only occupation the Unmoved mover is contemplation of the essence of things, since it is the essence of everything. A do-nothing God.
-----

Yes.. i know.

I'm aware of the nature of Aristotle's "God". Why did you think i was asserting anything other then what I said?

Bill Snedden · 05-13-2002, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Plump-DJ:
Is his argument not grounded on a couple of premises. (1) The universe is as we experience it (ie - it exists) and (2) Time is as we experience it. Would you not have to deny both of your original premises in order to claim that the universe can exist timelessly?

Ender's reply contained much of what I would have said myself, but apparently there are still some questions, so I'll reply as well.

Part of the issue here is one of definitions. Mr. Leonardos obviously defines "universe" as "that which we currently experience", including time, space, and all the rest of existence as we currently understand it. However, my definition of "universe" isn't quite so limiting. I use the word to mean, "all that exists". So, if there is some type of "meta-reality" that underlies the existence we currently experience, it would fall into my definition of "universe" as well. To avoid confusion, I'll henceforth refer to "pre"-BB existence as "meta-reality".

So, when I accuse him of petitio principii, I'm essentially accusing him of assuming without evidence that this "meta-reality" is supernatural.

In other words, he's quite willing to assume that a supernatural entity could have existed eternally, but apparently unwilling to assume that a natural one could as well, with no good reason to do so.

Quote:

Originally posted by Plump-DJ:
1) Have you not, in coneeding this point <that there must be something logically prior to the BB> given the green light to the basic cosmological position of the theist for the last 2500 years? (ie the universe is dependant on something else for it's existence)

Not at all. As I noted above, so-called first cause arguments all assume without evidence or argument that whatever was logically prior to the BB is something supernatural, hence "god". That's simply fallacious reasoning.

Quote:

Originally posted by Plump-DJ:
2)If the universe had a beginning then are we not left with the notion of a first cause or first "motion event" (Aristotle's unmoved mover perhaps) which got the ball rolling?

Well, the BB would certainly qualify as such an event. However, what we're left with is the unanswered question of "why?"

The "god" hypothesis neatly answers this question: "He wanted to." However, that in itself is no reason to assume its truth. Especially as the "god" hypothesis would seem to violate Occam's razor.

Why assume an additional entity when there's really no reason, as yet, to believe that the BB wasn't simply a natural occurrence? Part of whatever natural processes may occur in the "meta-reality"? Current cosmological thinking in the areas of string theory, so-called "branes", and multiverses provide ample scientific, naturalistic alternatives to the "god" hypothesis. So, until more evidence appears to support them, cosmological arguments will continue to beg the question.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Plump-DJ · 05-13-2002, 05:46 PM

Hello Bill.

Quote:

Part of the issue here is one of definitions. Mr. Leonardos obviously defines "universe" as "that which we currently experience", including time, space, and all the rest of existence as we currently understand it. However, my definition of "universe" isn't quite so limiting. I use the word to mean, "all that exists". So, if there is some type of "meta-reality" that underlies the existence we currently experience, it would fall into my definition of "universe" as well. To avoid confusion, I'll henceforth refer to "pre"-BB existence as "meta-reality".

Hmmm... that's *interesting*. Now i see why you can accuse him of petitio principii. Still.. i might raise a few objections to that if i may.

1) If you change the definition of words or do not agree on their usage then there's not much point in really getting into this. At least that's how look at it. Without agreement on the fundamentals it's kind of pointless. (but fun nonetheless.

)

Personaly I would certainly object to your use of the word universe as "all the exists". Does one interpretation of QM not speak of multiple univereses? These would hardly constitute our universe would they if they existed? I mean let's put it this way. If by universe Lenardos means *our* dimensions of space and time, the perimeters of our universe, what right would he have to then claim that "No it really means everything, even things which exist beyond it's borders if they do." (multiple universes for example.. with life of thier own perhaps) Do you claim that if other universes exist they are part of the space/time dimensions of our universe? If not, whatever you wish to call those other "somethings" they aren't part of this universe as we commonly use that term. So i'm still struggling to see how you can simply redefine the entirety of existence, from one length to the other as "the universe!" when the word already has a clearly accepted meaning. That oh so limited meaning of which you speak.

2) What do you mean by natural? If we grant the truth of the argument, that it shows that there is something other then the universe that is always existent, transcendant, etc i'm struggling to see how it could be considered natural, at least in the way i use the word. Again, problem's of definition.

3) I'm not so sure that Mr L claimed it was supernatural. I don't even think he used the word. Perhaps avoiding it on purpose, seeing it irrelevant to his point.

Quote:

In other words, he's quite willing to assume that a supernatural entity could have existed eternally, but apparently unwilling to assume that a natural one could as well, with no good reason to do so.

I think you're bringing this supernatural / natural into this, in order to raise an objection. His conclusion says it all :

"Although minimally so, isn't the term 'God' consistent with what we mean when we talk about an infinite, uncaused, always existent, that is transcendent to our finite, derived (created) universe?"

He never claims it was supernatural. His argument only shows (if it works) that there is something other then the universe, that is 'allways' existent, eternal, uncaused and that is transcendanent to our contingent (finite) universe.

He then addresses the point of wether he can refer to this "something" as "God".

The word supernatural is never used.

Quote:

Not at all. As I noted above, so-called first cause arguments all assume without evidence or argument that whatever was logically prior to the BB is something supernatural, hence "god". That's simply fallacious reasoning.

Well again i'm not so sure they do. Perhaps some or even most do, but this one doesn't. The word natural or supernatural does not even enter the equation. We simply have an eternal, uncaused something that is transcedent to our finite, derived universe. (and universe in this sense does not mean *everything that exists, incuding the stuff that might be 'beyond' it's borders) This is *basically* what people have meant by God for the last 2500 years. Now wether we can call this 'something' natural or supernatural is imho beside the point.

Quote:

Well, the BB would certainly qualify as such an event. However, what we're left with is the unanswered question of "why?"

The "god" hypothesis neatly answers this question: "He wanted to." However, that in itself is no reason to assume its truth. Especially as the "god" hypothesis would seem to violate Occam's razor.

Of course. I don't think that *any* truth should just be assumed. Well at least is as humanly possible. I'd be interested to know why God is a violation of Occam's razor in regards to this point. I mean we must determine what is simple, and what the alternatives are. I think then we could way up which way Occies Razor is headed.

Quote:

Why assume an additional entity when there's really no reason, as yet, to believe that the BB wasn't simply a natural occurrence? Part of whatever natural processes may occur in the "meta-reality"? Current cosmological thinking in the areas of string theory, so-called "branes", and multiverses provide ample scientific, naturalistic alternatives to the "god"hypothesis. So, until more evidence appears to support them, cosmological arguments will continue to beg the question.

Couple of respones to this.

1)I actually only read about them recently and i read a quote from hawking in which he doesn't seem to take them to seriously, or that they are probably not true is a better way of puting it.

2) All of what you speak is possible. But what makes these "natural occurances" any more simple then God, given the nature of the universe's beginning and further analysis. I mean look at like this. Whatever "caused" the universe would :

A) Have to have the potentality to bring universes like this to being. So this natural something must have *huge* potential. Creating a universe would require a bit of pre-existent 'Gusto' i'd imagine.

B) Whatever this cause is, it must be able to transcend MEST. The causer must be transcendant.

So we've got a natural cause that has huge potential (could we even fathom what you'd need to get sometihng like this going) to not only create a universe but to do so *indepenant* of matter, energy space and time. So this natural cause is getting quite "big" and doesn't look so simple anymore. (at lesat to me) I wonder if further analysis would yield any other properties of what this simpler, natural cause would need?

But ultimately I agree. I don't think that you can get "God" from the BB. It's a possiblity.. but i just think it's to early to say with certainty. Still... i think theists everywhere are having a field day with all this "universe begins stuff!" It does seem to play into their hand nicely. I mean think of that quote from Robert Jastrow which gets thrown around all the time.. about the theologians standing on the hill pulling the scientists up.

And as i did say to Ender, it's granting the basic cosmological position of the theist for the last 2500 years. It's saying "Mr Theist, it looks like you were right (and the atheist who would say the universe just is, is wrong) on the fundamentls for the last 2500 years. Well done."

Jan Michael · 05-13-2002, 08:08 PM

Yo! Plump-DJ...

Are you who I think you are? From The Wasteland?

The replies have a familiar ring to them. But that could always be attributed to "Leadership U" and Lenardo... Could you be orbiting something?

Michael

PS~ If not then ignore this please

Plump-DJ · 05-14-2002, 03:57 AM

Hey Jan Michael.

I don't know of this person of which you speak but i've visited the Wasteland on occaision to see a very smart fellow (Orbital something or other i think his name was) whipping all the atheists there into a frenzy with his superior-reasoning[tm] and scathing one-liners. But i don't know of him personaly and no, unfortunely i'm not him. (Although i wish i was because he seems like such a smart fellow) <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Take it easy.

05-12-2002, 09:43 PM	#14
Plump-DJ Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Oztralia (Aussie Aussie Aussie) Posts: 153	Hello Everyone. I'm rather new to these boards so go easy on me. Firslty, to Bill. In your early response you wrote.. --- "He explicitly mentions a similar objection to his argument, but his rebuttal is flawed in that it assumes that an eternally existing universe must exist within time (hence the impossibility of infinite regress), but that an eternally existing god need not. This is petitio principii, or the fallacy of "begging the question." --- Is his argument not grounded on a couple of premises. (1) The universe is as we experience it (ie - it exists) and (2) Time is as we experience it. Would you not have to deny both of your original premises in order to claim that the universe can exist timelessly? Secondly.. you wrote : --------- However, because the BB does represent a "beginning", there must have been something logically prior; something timeless & eternal. However, this in itself does not necessitate the existence of a personal deity. Naturalism is not defeated by the BB, nor does it provide adequate reason to declare the various "first cause" arguments sound. --------- 1) Have you not, in coneeding this point given the green light to the basic cosmological position of the theist for the last 2500 years? (ie the universe is dependant on something else for it's existence) 2)If the universe had a beginning then are we not left with the notion of a first cause or first "motion event" (Aristotle's unmoved mover perhaps) which got the ball rolling? [ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: Plump-DJ ]</p>

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

05-11-2002, 01:46 AM	#11
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Exactly... whatever caused the universe must be timeless. This is a point for theism. It's not even necessarily true, and certainly does not suggest theism. One might also imagine processes set loose in other universes, advanced aliens, impersonal supernatural forces, and other non-theistic causes, some "timeless," some not. This "either BB or theism" is a false dichotomy. I have yet to see many able to refute the First Cause argument, and I think it's a pretty good one. It's pretty obvious your experience of first cause refutations is somewhat limited..... Vorkosigan

05-11-2002, 05:38 AM	#13
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	For an example... Time is a dimension belonging to our universe. In Hawkings latest book he theorizes about a universe created on a p-brane. One could say that the p-brane is timeless. It existed before the expansion however before the expansion it did not experience time. Humans aren't that smart. Compared to everything else we know of, sure we're pretty damn smart. But just because we don't (and possibly can't in our present form) understand certain aspects of the world we live in doesn't mean the unknown is mystical. Once upon a time thunder storms were mystical but then we figured out what they were. Everything from stars to earthquakes were divine. And one by one we've figured them out too. Most of us on these boards understand this. Unfortunately not everyone does.

05-13-2002, 04:53 AM	#16
Plump-DJ Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Oztralia (Aussie Aussie Aussie) Posts: 153	Hello Ender. ------- This doesn't even come close to addressing Bill's rebuttal. Timelessness is not a negation of time, rather it is eternity. Your passage is a fallacious strawman, and is not what Bill said. Bill said if an infinite universe must exist within time, but the Eternal doesn't, then that remains a circular statement. -------- Right. I hope i'm following this. (if i'm not.. go easy on me. ) Why is that circular? It looks more like special pleading to me. And to claim that the Eternal (i assume we're referring to the argument's attempt to show a "minimal God" or first cause) does not need to exist in time is to simply claim that it's permieter's are not that of the universe's. Have i got that right? I mean if we agree that the universe is in time, and this experience we have of both the universe and the singluar dimension of time is correct then how could one object (upon accepting these premises of course) that perhaps the universe might not exist in time when they get to the part about traversing the infinite? To get to that stage we have to accept the first premise. In otherwords If this is true (single dimension of time, single direction) then this is true. (cannot traverse infinite) That looks to be the reasoning to me. ------- I wouldn't be too hasty and jump the gun here. Bill only conceded that given the singularity at the Big Bang, there could be something "logically prior," but that was insufficient grounds for any cosmological argument. ----- So if we grant that the universe with all matter, energy, space and time began with the BB and we grant that there was sometihng logically prior to this (which Bill seems to be doing) then whatever came logicaly prior is not a part of the universe is it? How could the "cause" of MEST be considered a part of the universe? And if all this is true then does this not give a whopping great reason to think that some first cause is looking more and more neccessary? --- This only brings up another question: how do you get from a figurehead to a personal God? Aristotle's unmovable mover has very little in common with the God of theism, much less the Judo-Christian version.By denying that there is an infinite regress of motion or matter, Aristotle posited a "prime mover unmoved" or primum mobile immotum. This is an intangible, indivisible, spaceless, androgynous, passionless, unchanging, perfect, and eternal "mover," a pure energy (Metaphysics ix 7). Aristotle's Unmoved mover is probably closer to the mystic "force" of modern physics which does nothing, has no needs no resolve, no purpose, an motion so pure that it never moves. The only occupation the Unmoved mover is contemplation of the essence of things, since it is the essence of everything. A do-nothing God. ----- Yes.. i know. I'm aware of the nature of Aristotle's "God". Why did you think i was asserting anything other then what I said?

05-13-2002, 08:08 PM	#19
Jan Michael Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Sarasota, Florida Posts: 9	Yo! Plump-DJ... Are you who I think you are? From The Wasteland? The replies have a familiar ring to them. But that could always be attributed to "Leadership U" and Lenardo... Could you be orbiting something? Michael PS~ If not then ignore this please

05-14-2002, 03:57 AM	#20
Plump-DJ Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Oztralia (Aussie Aussie Aussie) Posts: 153	Hey Jan Michael. I don't know of this person of which you speak but i've visited the Wasteland on occaision to see a very smart fellow (Orbital something or other i think his name was) whipping all the atheists there into a frenzy with his superior-reasoning[tm] and scathing one-liners. But i don't know of him personaly and no, unfortunely i'm not him. (Although i wish i was because he seems like such a smart fellow) <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> Take it easy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.