Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Cosmological Argument

Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 8:39:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2.) The universe began to exist
3.) Therefore, the universe had a cause

Does this simple logic not prove the existence of some sort of Creator?
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 8:44:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 8:39:34 PM, Ameriman wrote:
1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2.) The universe began to exist
3.) Therefore, the universe had a cause


Does this simple logic not prove the existence of some sort of Creator?

If 1 and 2 are taken as axioms, it proves the existence of a cause. Whether or not that cause is a 'Creator' would still be up for debate.

If the Big Bang were caused by a Big Crunch, I wouldn't call that a Creator.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:03:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 8:44:11 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:39:34 PM, Ameriman wrote:
1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2.) The universe began to exist
3.) Therefore, the universe had a cause


Does this simple logic not prove the existence of some sort of Creator?

If 1 and 2 are taken as axioms, it proves the existence of a cause. Whether or not that cause is a 'Creator' would still be up for debate.

If the Big Bang were caused by a Big Crunch, I wouldn't call that a Creator.

I would call it just that.

This creator would have to be beyond space and time. Therefore, this Creator would not need to be "Created". It is the ultimate "Creator".

As a Christian, I believe this is the Christian God, but that is not what is at issue here.
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:06:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 9:03:44 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:44:11 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:39:34 PM, Ameriman wrote:
1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2.) The universe began to exist
3.) Therefore, the universe had a cause


Does this simple logic not prove the existence of some sort of Creator?

If 1 and 2 are taken as axioms, it proves the existence of a cause. Whether or not that cause is a 'Creator' would still be up for debate.

If the Big Bang were caused by a Big Crunch, I wouldn't call that a Creator.


I would call it just that.

This creator would have to be beyond space and time. Therefore, this Creator would not need to be "Created". It is the ultimate "Creator".

As a Christian, I believe this is the Christian God, but that is not what is at issue here.

The act of creation requires time. Timeless beings logically cannot act since acting itself requires time.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:09:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 9:03:44 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:44:11 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:39:34 PM, Ameriman wrote:
1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2.) The universe began to exist
3.) Therefore, the universe had a cause


Does this simple logic not prove the existence of some sort of Creator?

If 1 and 2 are taken as axioms, it proves the existence of a cause. Whether or not that cause is a 'Creator' would still be up for debate.

If the Big Bang were caused by a Big Crunch, I wouldn't call that a Creator.


I would call it just that.

This creator would have to be beyond space and time. Therefore, this Creator would not need to be "Created". It is the ultimate "Creator".

The problem with the creation of the universe, is that space and time are determined by the universe itself. If our universe started to contract, eventually crunched, and started a new Big Bang, the new universe would have it's own time that started with the new Big Bang. Our space and time isn't necessarily the end-all be-all of space and time.

As a Christian, I believe this is the Christian God, but that is not what is at issue here.

I personally believe that God created the universe through the Big Bang. He would just have to have some way of concentrating tons of energy into a small point, then letting go. So for me, God is the creator, the Big Bang is just the cause.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:13:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 8:39:34 PM, Ameriman wrote:
1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2.) The universe began to exist
3.) Therefore, the universe had a cause


Does this simple logic not prove the existence of some sort of Creator?

I have to warn you that the universe has time and time again shown that our intuitive logic about it is often wrong. Some examples are the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. However this sounds like a reasonable argument to make and I currently tentatively accept it.

So yes, the universe was created. What does this have to do with God?
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:14:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 9:06:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/18/2012 9:03:44 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:44:11 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:39:34 PM, Ameriman wrote:
1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2.) The universe began to exist
3.) Therefore, the universe had a cause


Does this simple logic not prove the existence of some sort of Creator?

If 1 and 2 are taken as axioms, it proves the existence of a cause. Whether or not that cause is a 'Creator' would still be up for debate.

If the Big Bang were caused by a Big Crunch, I wouldn't call that a Creator.


I would call it just that.

This creator would have to be beyond space and time. Therefore, this Creator would not need to be "Created". It is the ultimate "Creator".

As a Christian, I believe this is the Christian God, but that is not what is at issue here.

The act of creation requires time. Timeless beings logically cannot act since acting itself requires time.

I don't think you understand the nature of God.

God is beyond time and space. God is everything.
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:18:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 9:06:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/18/2012 9:03:44 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:44:11 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:39:34 PM, Ameriman wrote:
1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2.) The universe began to exist
3.) Therefore, the universe had a cause


Does this simple logic not prove the existence of some sort of Creator?

If 1 and 2 are taken as axioms, it proves the existence of a cause. Whether or not that cause is a 'Creator' would still be up for debate.

If the Big Bang were caused by a Big Crunch, I wouldn't call that a Creator.


I would call it just that.

This creator would have to be beyond space and time. Therefore, this Creator would not need to be "Created". It is the ultimate "Creator".

As a Christian, I believe this is the Christian God, but that is not what is at issue here.

The act of creation requires time. Timeless beings logically cannot act since acting itself requires time.

Our space-time might not be the only space-time that exists. :D
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:21:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Its not good to say God is beyond time and space. I don't see that anywhere in the bible. If scientists discover and widen their horizons and can now see beyond time space what will the excuse be if God is not there? This will contribute to the God of the gaps fallacy so we shouldn't claim to know about that of which we have no knowledge.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:25:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 8:39:34 PM, Ameriman wrote:
1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2.) The universe began to exist
3.) Therefore, the universe had a cause


Does this simple logic not prove the existence of some sort of Creator?

Prove #1 and #2
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:36:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 9:14:36 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/18/2012 9:06:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/18/2012 9:03:44 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:44:11 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:39:34 PM, Ameriman wrote:
1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2.) The universe began to exist
3.) Therefore, the universe had a cause


Does this simple logic not prove the existence of some sort of Creator?

If 1 and 2 are taken as axioms, it proves the existence of a cause. Whether or not that cause is a 'Creator' would still be up for debate.

If the Big Bang were caused by a Big Crunch, I wouldn't call that a Creator.


I would call it just that.

This creator would have to be beyond space and time. Therefore, this Creator would not need to be "Created". It is the ultimate "Creator".

As a Christian, I believe this is the Christian God, but that is not what is at issue here.

The act of creation requires time. Timeless beings logically cannot act since acting itself requires time.


I don't think you understand the nature of God.

God is beyond time and space. God is everything.

It's basic physics and logic, dude. Time is required to act.

Also, God cannot be everything if he created the universe because then he would literally be nothing before the Universe existed and you posit that he was not nothing . . .

Really, all you are doing is special pleading. In order to claim something can act without time, you need to prove it. You cannot just make an assertion like that and expect me to buy it without proof.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:37:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 9:18:25 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 5/18/2012 9:06:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/18/2012 9:03:44 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:44:11 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:39:34 PM, Ameriman wrote:
1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2.) The universe began to exist
3.) Therefore, the universe had a cause


Does this simple logic not prove the existence of some sort of Creator?

If 1 and 2 are taken as axioms, it proves the existence of a cause. Whether or not that cause is a 'Creator' would still be up for debate.

If the Big Bang were caused by a Big Crunch, I wouldn't call that a Creator.


I would call it just that.

This creator would have to be beyond space and time. Therefore, this Creator would not need to be "Created". It is the ultimate "Creator".

As a Christian, I believe this is the Christian God, but that is not what is at issue here.

The act of creation requires time. Timeless beings logically cannot act since acting itself requires time.

Our space-time might not be the only space-time that exists. :D

That would imply that God did not create everything because there was a space-time that existed before he did :p
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:48:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ameriman, can you provide an a priori justification that everything that exists has a cause? I can provide examples of things that do not (Quantum Fluctuations).
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:53:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 9:48:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ameriman, can you provide an a priori justification that everything that exists has a cause? I can provide examples of things that do not (Quantum Fluctuations).

There's around 10 different interpretations of quantum fluctuations I believe and only a few of them are interpreted as non-causality fluctuations. In order to use that as an argument you would have to show that we should accept that interpretation over all the others.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:56:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Before the formation of the singularity, all rules of cause-and-effect were suspended. There were no laws of physics, including the notion that something had to cause another thing. It was all chaos. As a result, particles could arbitrarily appear and disappear.

So what happened before the universe? The answer is nothing.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:57:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 9:56:19 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Before the formation of the singularity, all rules of cause-and-effect were suspended. There were no laws of physics, including the notion that something had to cause another thing. It was all chaos. As a result, particles could arbitrarily appear and disappear.

So what happened before the universe? The answer is nothing.

Or for all we know there could have been a universe before this one that was contracting and eventually formed into a singularity.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:57:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 9:53:41 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/18/2012 9:48:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ameriman, can you provide an a priori justification that everything that exists has a cause? I can provide examples of things that do not (Quantum Fluctuations).

There's around 10 different interpretations of quantum fluctuations I believe and only a few of them are interpreted as non-causality fluctuations. In order to use that as an argument you would have to show that we should accept that interpretation over all the others.

Not really. So long as they are accepted as possibilities it is premature to conclude that all such events necessarily require causes. If you can rule the non-causal explanations as possibilities, please demonstrate this so we can inform the scientific community.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:57:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 9:53:41 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/18/2012 9:48:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ameriman, can you provide an a priori justification that everything that exists has a cause? I can provide examples of things that do not (Quantum Fluctuations).

There's around 10 different interpretations of quantum fluctuations I believe and only a few of them are interpreted as non-causality fluctuations. In order to use that as an argument you would have to show that we should accept that interpretation over all the others.

It's like in the definition, dude. http://en.wikipedia.org...
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 10:08:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 9:57:33 PM, drafterman wrote:

Not really. So long as they are accepted as possibilities it is premature to conclude that all such events necessarily require causes. If you can rule the non-causal explanations as possibilities, please demonstrate this so we can inform the scientific community.

I'm not arguing that they are possibilities. I am just asking for a reason to pick that interpretation over the others. If you make claim X, I only have to give an alternative to X, being Y. The person who claimed X would have to show it's more likely than Y.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 10:08:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think we can agree though that there was an first cause, this doesn't prove God but at least we can agree that there is an eternal uncaused first cause.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 10:10:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Our space-time might not be the only space-time that exists. :D

That would imply that God did not create everything because there was a space-time that existed before he did :p

Yup, and that's what I believe. Best combination of religious belief and scientific data to me.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 10:10:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 9:56:19 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Before the formation of the singularity, all rules of cause-and-effect were suspended. There were no laws of physics, including the notion that something had to cause another thing. It was all chaos. As a result, particles could arbitrarily appear and disappear.

So what happened before the universe? The answer is nothing.

Something cannot come from nothing. There's actually a 0% chance. Even in quantum fluctuations, which is being discussed in this thread, it is not creation ex nihilo, but rather creation ex materia.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 10:11:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 10:08:20 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/18/2012 9:57:33 PM, drafterman wrote:

Not really. So long as they are accepted as possibilities it is premature to conclude that all such events necessarily require causes. If you can rule the non-causal explanations as possibilities, please demonstrate this so we can inform the scientific community.

I'm not arguing that they are possibilities. I am just asking for a reason to pick that interpretation over the others. If you make claim X, I only have to give an alternative to X, being Y. The person who claimed X would have to show it's more likely than Y.

And I'm saying you don't have to show that. So long as noncausality isn't summarily ruled out, premise 1 doesn't hold.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 10:12:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 9:57:33 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

It's like in the definition, dude. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Again, lots of different interpretations. Either way QF is creation ex materia not ex nihilo. Even if it is spontaneous.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 10:12:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 10:08:35 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
I think we can agree though that there was an first cause, this doesn't prove God but at least we can agree that there is an eternal uncaused first cause.

No. I don't agree.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 10:14:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 10:11:50 PM, drafterman wrote:

And I'm saying you don't have to show that. So long as noncausality isn't summarily ruled out, premise 1 doesn't hold.

But in philosophy you do have to show that. Either way the argument presented in the OP is deductive. So if the two premises are more plausibly true than their negations than the conclusion follows logically and inescapably. So to show that P1 doesn't hold you would have to show that we should take a certain interpretation of QF than the others.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 10:18:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 10:10:44 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/18/2012 9:56:19 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Before the formation of the singularity, all rules of cause-and-effect were suspended. There were no laws of physics, including the notion that something had to cause another thing. It was all chaos. As a result, particles could arbitrarily appear and disappear.

So what happened before the universe? The answer is nothing.

Something cannot come from nothing. There's actually a 0% chance. Even in quantum fluctuations, which is being discussed in this thread, it is not creation ex nihilo, but rather creation ex materia.

Actually, when there is a complete lack of laws, something can come from nothing.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 10:19:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 10:14:54 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/18/2012 10:11:50 PM, drafterman wrote:

And I'm saying you don't have to show that. So long as noncausality isn't summarily ruled out, premise 1 doesn't hold.

But in philosophy you do have to show that. Either way the argument presented in the OP is deductive. So if the two premises are more plausibly true than their negations than the conclusion follows logically and inescapably. So to show that P1 doesn't hold you would have to show that we should take a certain interpretation of QF than the others.

Uhm. No. That's not how it works. The argument is what is presented. The presentation inherits a burden. The burden is to demonstrate that we should accept the premises. Accepting premise 1 requires showing that noncausal explainations are impossible.

The aren't shown to be impossible, ergo premise 1 isn't demonstrated, ergo the burden hasn't been met, ergo the argument is rejected.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 10:20:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 10:12:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/18/2012 10:08:35 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
I think we can agree though that there was an first cause, this doesn't prove God but at least we can agree that there is an eternal uncaused first cause.

No. I don't agree.

Why not? Please explain.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 10:22:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 10:20:20 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 5/18/2012 10:12:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/18/2012 10:08:35 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
I think we can agree though that there was an first cause, this doesn't prove God but at least we can agree that there is an eternal uncaused first cause.

No. I don't agree.

Why not? Please explain.

Because no one knows what happened prior to the Planck epoch in the universe's history. So what happened before the is a compleye mystery, including the nature of any cause or if there even was a cause.