Total Posts:109|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why does god exist?

TheBloodyScot
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 12:29:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Many religious people disclaim the big bang theory because they claim that the universe could NOT come from "nothing." My question is how did god come to exist if HE couldn't have came from nothing?
Something is not worth doing if it is not worth doing right.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."
-Socrates
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 12:36:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 12:29:57 PM, TheBloodyScot wrote:
Many religious people disclaim the big bang theory because they claim that the universe could NOT come from "nothing." My question is how did god come to exist if HE couldn't have came from nothing?

He always existed.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 12:49:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 12:29:57 PM, TheBloodyScot wrote:
Many religious people disclaim the big bang theory because they claim that the universe could NOT come from "nothing." My question is how did god come to exist if HE couldn't have came from nothing?

As through His maximal excellence, God exists necessarily rather than contingently.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 1:13:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 12:36:08 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/1/2012 12:29:57 PM, TheBloodyScot wrote:
Many religious people disclaim the big bang theory because they claim that the universe could NOT come from "nothing." My question is how did god come to exist if HE couldn't have came from nothing?

He always existed.

This. Similarly, the Big Bang didn't come from nothing...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 2:17:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 12:29:57 PM, TheBloodyScot wrote:
Many religious people disclaim the big bang theory because they claim that the universe could NOT come from "nothing." My question is how did god come to exist if HE couldn't have came from nothing?

God is by definition an all-powerful being. Because he is all powerful, he can create himself and/or exist forever. Also, God exists outside of the laws of the physical universe. This means he cannot entropy or die of pure age like conventional matter that exists inside the universe.

Also, the Big Bang is not what came from nothing. It is the singularity before the Big Bang that came from "nothing".
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
TheBloodyScot
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 2:32:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know that the big bang didn't come from nothing, but that is the argument that many religious people have against the big bang. "How could something this wonderful come from nothing?"
Something is not worth doing if it is not worth doing right.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."
-Socrates
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 2:37:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 12:29:57 PM, TheBloodyScot wrote:
Many religious people disclaim the big bang theory because they claim that the universe could NOT come from "nothing." My question is how did god come to exist if HE couldn't have came from nothing?

Like the others say, God exists necessarily. In other words, it's impossible for him to not exist, which means there never was a time when he didn't exist, which means God didn't come into existence.

According to Leibniz, for everything that exists, there is a sufficient reason for why exists rather than not. But there are two kinds of things that exist--contingent things and necessary things. Contingent things are things that exist but don't have to. Things could've been otherwise. Necessary things are things that must exist. Things could not have been otherwise.

The explanation for why contingent things exist must be found in an external cause. The explantion for why necessary things exist can be found in themselves. They exist by a necessity of their own nature. It's impossible for them to not exist.

You can make an argument for a necessary being from contingent things in a couple of ways.

1. If there were ever a time when nothing at all existed, then nothing wold exist now. The reason is because between then and now, something must've come into existence, but if nothing had already existed, then whatever came into existence would lack a sufficient reason. It would be a contingent thing without an external cause. So the fact that anything at all exists now proves that something necessary must exist.

2. The borrower and lender analogy. Let's say you want to borrow a lawnmower from your neighbor, but he doesn't have one. He says, "But not to worry. I'll borrow one from my other neighbor." He goes to his other neighbor, but that neighbor doesn't have a lawnmower either. "Not to worry," he says, "I can ask somebody else." And on and on it goes. Now if this goes on and on and nobody actually has a lawnmower, then you'll never get a lawnmower. The only way you can get a lawnmower is if eventually somebody asks to borrow one who actually has one and didn't have to borrow it from somebody else.

So think of contingent things as having gotten their existence from something else. I got my existence from my parents, they got theirs from their parents, and eventually, we all came from star dust, which got its existence from hydrogen, etc. The only way anything at all could have existence is if you eventually reach something that has existence but didn't get its existence from something else. In other words, you must ultimately get back to something with necessary existence.

We know the universe is contingent because it had a beginning. It came into existence a finite time ago. So there must be something that exists necessary but that isn't the universe. If the universe is the sum total of physical reality, then the necessary thing responsible for everything else must be a supernatural being.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 2:42:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 1:13:40 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/1/2012 12:36:08 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/1/2012 12:29:57 PM, TheBloodyScot wrote:
Many religious people disclaim the big bang theory because they claim that the universe could NOT come from "nothing." My question is how did god come to exist if HE couldn't have came from nothing?

He always existed.

This. Similarly, the Big Bang didn't come from nothing...

The "he always existed" thing really is a logical cop-out in my opinion. First of all, perpetual existence is illogical. Infinity & logic do not mix. So what these people are alluding to when they say "God always existed" is that God is above logic....and I'm sure we can all see the absurd consequences of that conclusion.

When it comes to apologetics on the nature of God people are too content to make glaring declarations, without actually investigating the implications or consequences on the whole religious debate if those declarations were true.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 2:42:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have a question.
If God (as defined by scripture) is real, why do you still exist?
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 2:49:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 2:42:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/1/2012 1:13:40 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/1/2012 12:36:08 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/1/2012 12:29:57 PM, TheBloodyScot wrote:
Many religious people disclaim the big bang theory because they claim that the universe could NOT come from "nothing." My question is how did god come to exist if HE couldn't have came from nothing?

He always existed.

This. Similarly, the Big Bang didn't come from nothing...

The "he always existed" thing really is a logical cop-out in my opinion. First of all, perpetual existence is illogical. Infinity & logic do not mix. So what these people are alluding to when they say "God always existed" is that God is above logic....and I'm sure we can all see the absurd consequences of that conclusion.

When it comes to apologetics on the nature of God people are too content to make glaring declarations, without actually investigating the implications or consequences on the whole religious debate if those declarations were true.

I find that's a disingenuous conclusion. God must exceed the very construct of logic and reason. Without an infinite nature,God would be nothing more than an "attainable higher state".
I.e., he's finite and therefore has a limit. If he has a limit, logic suggests we can become like him.
That's the cop-out. Through myopic reduction of the limitless, you would make God vulnerable to some measure of logic or physical law and in that, reduce him down to something that could be dismantled.

The problem is, every serious theologian and philosopher concedes that God must be infinite in order to be God. Anything less is not worth worshiping. Anything with an end can be (logically) ended. And an end to God would make him...not God.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 3:05:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 2:49:41 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 11/1/2012 2:42:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/1/2012 1:13:40 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/1/2012 12:36:08 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/1/2012 12:29:57 PM, TheBloodyScot wrote:
Many religious people disclaim the big bang theory because they claim that the universe could NOT come from "nothing." My question is how did god come to exist if HE couldn't have came from nothing?

He always existed.

This. Similarly, the Big Bang didn't come from nothing...

The "he always existed" thing really is a logical cop-out in my opinion. First of all, perpetual existence is illogical. Infinity & logic do not mix. So what these people are alluding to when they say "God always existed" is that God is above logic....and I'm sure we can all see the absurd consequences of that conclusion.

When it comes to apologetics on the nature of God people are too content to make glaring declarations, without actually investigating the implications or consequences on the whole religious debate if those declarations were true.

I find that's a disingenuous conclusion. God must exceed the very construct of logic and reason. Without an infinite nature,God would be nothing more than an "attainable higher state".
I.e., he's finite and therefore has a limit. If he has a limit, logic suggests we can become like him.
That's the cop-out. Through myopic reduction of the limitless, you would make God vulnerable to some measure of logic or physical law and in that, reduce him down to something that could be dismantled.

The problem is, every serious theologian and philosopher concedes that God must be infinite in order to be God. Anything less is not worth worshiping. Anything with an end can be (logically) ended. And an end to God would make him...not God.

If God was above logic, the argument you just made wouldn't even apply to him, since your argument presupposes logic (as all arguments do). If he was above logic, so too would he be above the law of noncontradiction....in which case, he can be above and subordinate to logic simultaneously. If he was above logic, he could exist and not exist simultaneously....It's a silly argument and only a few moments of thought suffices to refute it.

If God was above logic, then you have no means by which to arrive at the conclusion that he is above logic....because any arguments toward that end would require God to follow logical rules that your argument claims he doesn't follow. In the same vein, you can't use the rules of chess to predict the weather, you can't use logical arguments to assess the nature of a being that is "metalogical".
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 3:09:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Because he does.

Thats really it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 3:18:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I find that's a disingenuous conclusion. God must exceed the very construct of logic and reason. Without an infinite nature,God would be nothing more than an "attainable higher state".
I.e., he's finite and therefore has a limit. If he has a limit, logic suggests we can become like him.
That's the cop-out. Through myopic reduction of the limitless, you would make God vulnerable to some measure of logic or physical law and in that, reduce him down to something that could be dismantled.

The problem is, every serious theologian and philosopher concedes that God must be infinite in order to be God. Anything less is not worth worshiping. Anything with an end can be (logically) ended. And an end to God would make him...not God.

If God was above logic, the argument you just made wouldn't even apply to him, since your argument presupposes logic (as all arguments do). If he was above logic, so too would he be above the law of noncontradiction....in which case, he can be above and subordinate to logic simultaneously. If he was above logic, he could exist and not exist simultaneously....It's a silly argument and only a few moments of thought suffices to refute it.

The argument I made does apply, although it falls radically short if he exists. Also, I do not presuppose logic, because God would be the author of logic. Note that I called it a "construct". Hence it was constructed.

Essentially, you're arguing that the human cannot be real from the computer's perspective, because it presupposes digital code, the logic of the PC. That's obviously not the case.

Also, existence and non-existence are logic concepts. As the author of logic, God should be able to transcend existence. After all, what do you define "existence" as?
I have a feeling it constricts the definition to being "inside" some reality.


If God was above logic, then you have no means by which to arrive at the conclusion that he is above logic....because any arguments toward that end would require God to follow logical rules that your argument claims he doesn't follow. In the same vein, you can't use the rules of chess to predict the weather, you can't use logical arguments to assess the nature of a being that is "metalogical".

Of course I would have a means of arriving to the conclusion. I presuppose that God is the author of logic. It therefore serves no purpose to ask:" What was before everything?", because that presupposes that we could experience such a state.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 3:28:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 2:37:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/1/2012 12:29:57 PM, TheBloodyScot wrote:
Many religious people disclaim the big bang theory because they claim that the universe could NOT come from "nothing." My question is how did god come to exist if HE couldn't have came from nothing?

Like the others say, God exists necessarily. In other words, it's impossible for him to not exist, which means there never was a time when he didn't exist, which means God didn't come into existence.

There was never a time when the universe didn't exist either (for as long as time has existed, so has the universe). Thus, if that's your standard for something not coming into existence, then the universe didn't come into existence. It seems you just shot yourself in the foot ;)


According to Leibniz, for everything that exists, there is a sufficient reason for why exists rather than not. But there are two kinds of things that exist--contingent things and necessary things. Contingent things are things that exist but don't have to. Things could've been otherwise. Necessary things are things that must exist. Things could not have been otherwise.

The explanation for why contingent things exist must be found in an external cause. The explantion for why necessary things exist can be found in themselves. They exist by a necessity of their own nature. It's impossible for them to not exist.

You can make an argument for a necessary being from contingent things in a couple of ways.

1. If there were ever a time when nothing at all existed, then nothing wold exist now. The reason is because between then and now, something must've come into existence, but if nothing had already existed, then whatever came into existence would lack a sufficient reason. It would be a contingent thing without an external cause. So the fact that anything at all exists now proves that something necessary must exist.

2. The borrower and lender analogy. Let's say you want to borrow a lawnmower from your neighbor, but he doesn't have one. He says, "But not to worry. I'll borrow one from my other neighbor." He goes to his other neighbor, but that neighbor doesn't have a lawnmower either. "Not to worry," he says, "I can ask somebody else." And on and on it goes. Now if this goes on and on and nobody actually has a lawnmower, then you'll never get a lawnmower. The only way you can get a lawnmower is if eventually somebody asks to borrow one who actually has one and didn't have to borrow it from somebody else.

So think of contingent things as having gotten their existence from something else. I got my existence from my parents, they got theirs from their parents, and eventually, we all came from star dust, which got its existence from hydrogen, etc. The only way anything at all could have existence is if you eventually reach something that has existence but didn't get its existence from something else. In other words, you must ultimately get back to something with necessary existence.

We know the universe is contingent because it had a beginning. It came into existence a finite time ago.

Even though the universe has a finite past, that doesn't change the fact that it has always existed. There has never been a time when it didn't exist, thus, according to even yourself, the universe didn't come into existence.

So there must be something that exists necessary but that isn't the universe.

Too bad you contradicted yourself on this point.

If the universe is the sum total of physical reality, then the necessary thing responsible for everything else must be a supernatural being.

No need for a supernatural being.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 3:31:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 3:18:46 PM, Heineken wrote:
I find that's a disingenuous conclusion. God must exceed the very construct of logic and reason. Without an infinite nature,God would be nothing more than an "attainable higher state".
I.e., he's finite and therefore has a limit. If he has a limit, logic suggests we can become like him.
That's the cop-out. Through myopic reduction of the limitless, you would make God vulnerable to some measure of logic or physical law and in that, reduce him down to something that could be dismantled.

The problem is, every serious theologian and philosopher concedes that God must be infinite in order to be God. Anything less is not worth worshiping. Anything with an end can be (logically) ended. And an end to God would make him...not God.

If God was above logic, the argument you just made wouldn't even apply to him, since your argument presupposes logic (as all arguments do). If he was above logic, so too would he be above the law of noncontradiction....in which case, he can be above and subordinate to logic simultaneously. If he was above logic, he could exist and not exist simultaneously....It's a silly argument and only a few moments of thought suffices to refute it.

The argument I made does apply, although it falls radically short if he exists. Also, I do not presuppose logic, because God would be the author of logic. Note that I called it a "construct". Hence it was constructed.

What do you mean you "do not presuppose logic". That's impossible. Every time you speak, you're using logic. Every time you think, you're using logic. Every time you're arguing, you're using logic. Logic is not some negligible code you can turn on and off. Logic is the very configuration of the human intellect. So, no matter what it is you're doing, you're presupposing logic.

Essentially, you're arguing that the human cannot be real from the computer's perspective, because it presupposes digital code, the logic of the PC. That's obviously not the case.

Nope. that's not my argument. Let me repeat it using your analogy. The computer cannot use it's digital code to conclude the existence of its human creator, if human beings are not bound by that code. If I know that an apple is entirely red,...I know that it is NOT entirely green why? Because the apple exists in the physical world in is subordinate to logic. Lets say we postulate that the apple is metalogical. Suddenly, the apple can be entirely red and entirely green simultaneously, which of course, makes no sense to us. So we really can't conclude anything about that apple's nature. This is what happens when you say that God is beyond logic. It is an untenable position no matter what. This is not in dispute among theologians and atheists alike. Pretty much everyone realizes that if God was above logic that would be the end of theological discourse. So most Christians will say that he is bound by logic. I don't know why you're keeping to this argument, but I'm tell you now, it is without a shadow of a doubt, invalid.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 3:34:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 12:29:57 PM, TheBloodyScot wrote:
Many religious people disclaim the big bang theory because they claim that the universe could NOT come from "nothing." My question is how did god come to exist if HE couldn't have came from nothing?

Theists believe that God didn't "come from" at all, let alone "come from" "nothing". I believe the same to be true about the universe. Even though it has a finite past, there has never been a time when it didn't exist. Since it always existed, it didn't come into existence.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 4:08:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 2:37:02 PM, philochristos wrote:

We know the universe is contingent because it had a beginning. It came into existence a finite time ago. So there must be something that exists necessary but that isn't the universe. If the universe is the sum total of physical reality, then the necessary thing responsible for everything else must be a supernatural being.

We don't know that. You are assuming the big bang was the start of the universe. Big Bang is the start of space/time as we can currently observe it. We don't know what came before the big bang. There are countless ideas about it though.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 4:20:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 4:08:22 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/1/2012 2:37:02 PM, philochristos wrote:

We know the universe is contingent because it had a beginning. It came into existence a finite time ago. So there must be something that exists necessary but that isn't the universe. If the universe is the sum total of physical reality, then the necessary thing responsible for everything else must be a supernatural being.

We don't know that. You are assuming the big bang was the start of the universe. Big Bang is the start of space/time as we can currently observe it. We don't know what came before the big bang. There are countless ideas about it though.

I think it makes more sense to say that there is no "before" The Big Bang. This is because, if there was something before it, what was before that? This line of questioning could go on for infinity. If we just say that there is no "before" The Big Bang (which is what The Big Bang theory actually suggests), then we avoid an illogical infinite regress.
TheBloodyScot
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 4:41:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Honestly, I think the difference between Theists and Atheists is the ability to say "I don't know."
Something is not worth doing if it is not worth doing right.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."
-Socrates
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 4:57:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 3:28:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/1/2012 2:37:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
Like the others say, God exists necessarily. In other words, it's impossible for him to not exist, which means there never was a time when he didn't exist, which means God didn't come into existence.

There was never a time when the universe didn't exist either (for as long as time has existed, so has the universe). Thus, if that's your standard for something not coming into existence, then the universe didn't come into existence. It seems you just shot yourself in the foot ;)

Yes, I did. I did not anticipate an argument from semantics when I wrote that. It is true that ever since there has been time, there has been a universe, so in a sense, the universe has always existed. But that is mere semantics, since we usually think of "always" as implying there was no beginning, whereas there was a beginning to the universe. Time is part of the universe, and since time had a beginning, then time itself came into existence. That means time is contingent. And that means something caused time to begin. And that means something is causally prior to time. And that means something atemporal caused time to begin to exist.

Saying that "the universe has always existed" just because it has existed for the entire duration of time, even though time itself is finite in the past, does not help you escape the existence of a necessary being. It doesn't evade either one of my arguments from contingency, especially the second.

But that does raise interesting problems. Whatever caused time to exist couldn't have been temporally prior to the universe because there was no time before time. How could something atemporal be causally prior to time, then?

Well, there are a couple of ways of thinking about that. First of all, you can think of the past and the present as containing duration. There are intervals of time. But the present is not an interval. It is the boundary between the past and the future. It has no duration. If you represented it on a time line, the present would be a point, while the past would be everything before that point, and the future would be everything after that point. But the present is the only place we live. If you can imagine an illustration representing the past, present, and future, just remove the past, and the present represents the atemporal cause of time.

Another way is to think of intervals we all used to do in math. We write them like this:

(-1, 5], where the '(' represents an open interval, and the ']' represents a closed interval. You would represent it on a time line by drawing an open circle around -1, a line to 5, and a coloured in circle on 5. That means the interval includes every number greater than -1 up to 5, and including 5. Or, like this: -1 < x =< 5. (Sorry, it just gives me gibberish every time I try to put a 'greater than or equal to' sign.)

With that in mind, you could represent the existence of the universe/time and the creator of the universe/time like this:

the universe: (0, infinity) or 0 < x < infinity
creator: [0, infinity) or 0 =< x < infinity

In other words, whatever caused the universe and time to begin to exist would've existed in the timeless past boundary.

There's a third way to look at it. It is possible for there to have been a timeless being that never brought anything into existence, including time. This being would have no beginning or end. It would not have come into existence or gone out of existence. It will have always existence, not in the sense of existing for the entire duration of time (since there is no time), but in the sense that there is no state of affairs in that possible world in which that being does not exist. This would be a necessary being.

Now just imagine another possible world in which this being exists, but initiates the beginning of time. Then you would have a world just like ours--one where the universe and time had a beginning and was caused to begin by a timeless necessary being.

The only alternative to a supernatural necessary being is to say that the universe is necessary. Either way, a necessary being exists.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 5:00:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 4:08:22 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/1/2012 2:37:02 PM, philochristos wrote:

We know the universe is contingent because it had a beginning. It came into existence a finite time ago. So there must be something that exists necessary but that isn't the universe. If the universe is the sum total of physical reality, then the necessary thing responsible for everything else must be a supernatural being.

We don't know that. You are assuming the big bang was the start of the universe. Big Bang is the start of space/time as we can currently observe it. We don't know what came before the big bang. There are countless ideas about it though.

I'm using 'universe' to refer to the sum total of all space, time, matter, and energy, whether that includes what came out of our big bang or whether there is a multiverse with multiple big bangs and multiple bubble universes. Either way, it all had a beginning.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 5:08:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 12:29:57 PM, TheBloodyScot wrote:
Many religious people disclaim the big bang theory because they claim that the universe could NOT come from "nothing." My question is how did god come to exist if HE couldn't have came from nothing?

Supergod.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 6:13:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 4:57:19 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/1/2012 3:28:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/1/2012 2:37:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
Like the others say, God exists necessarily. In other words, it's impossible for him to not exist, which means there never was a time when he didn't exist, which means God didn't come into existence.

There was never a time when the universe didn't exist either (for as long as time has existed, so has the universe). Thus, if that's your standard for something not coming into existence, then the universe didn't come into existence. It seems you just shot yourself in the foot ;)

Yes, I did. I did not anticipate an argument from semantics when I wrote that. It is true that ever since there has been time, there has been a universe, so in a sense, the universe has always existed. But that is mere semantics, since we usually think of "always" as implying there was no beginning, whereas there was a beginning to the universe.

"Always" simply means "at all times". Now, If by "beginning" you mean a finite past of the universe, then sure, that seems to be true. However, if we assume a singularity was a reality 13.7 billion years ago, there is no warrant for claiming it came from nothing, or that it came into being at all. With regards to the singularity at t=0, time was at a stand still. This means, it was atemporally eternal.

Time is part of the universe, and since time had a beginning, then time itself came into existence.

Too bad there is no warrant for the claim that time, or the universe came into existence. We only know that all the matter, energy, and space-time was condensed into a single point. Any talk about how, or if it came into existence are purely speculative. Also, any popular hypothesis in this regards (M-Theory, for example) is nothing more than speculation as well, and could be interpreted as philosophy of science, and not strict science at all.

That means time is contingent.

There is no evidence that time is contingent.

And that means something caused time to begin.

How so?

And that means something is causally prior to time.

What evidence is there for a causally prior with regards to creation, without contingency upon a previous temporal relation? There is no reason why everything that begins to exist must have a cause in the first place. Maybe, if your view of causation is just a mere necessary condition, then sure. However, causation isn't complete with a sufficient explanation for existence (Philosopher Wes Morriston). If God exists, he has to be the sufficient cause. This is something there is no apriori support for, and one that needs to be demonstrated before adhering to the notion that the universe was caused. Also, the singularity coming into existence would have to be established as well. Of course, there is nothing that can establish that.

And that means something atemporal caused time to begin to exist.

This conclusion is based on baseless assumptions and falsehoods that I already mentioned above.


Saying that "the universe has always existed" just because it has existed for the entire duration of time, even though time itself is finite in the past, does not help you escape the existence of a necessary being.

There is nothing to escape though. There is no good reason to believe there is a necessary, sentient being.

It doesn't evade either one of my arguments from contingency, especially the second.

Actually, everything I said took down your elementary arguments quite nicely.


But that does raise interesting problems. Whatever caused time to exist couldn't have been temporally prior to the universe because there was no time before time. How could something atemporal be causally prior to time, then?

Here are a few problems... First, there is no evidence of a causally prior without a temporal dependency. Thus, trying to apply this concept to the universe is without warrant. Secondly, You assume a sufficient cause is required, just because a necessary condition would be if the singularity popped into existence. However, not only is it not required, there is no reason to think the singularity popped into existence in the first place. Time was at a stand still at T=0, there couldn't have been time, for there to have existed a state of reality which did not include the universe. It being contingent, doesn't seem very likely.


Well, there are a couple of ways of thinking about that. First of all, you can think of the past and the present as containing duration. There are intervals of time. But the present is not an interval. It is the boundary between the past and the future. It has no duration. If you represented it on a time line, the present would be a point, while the past would be everything before that point, and the future would be everything after that point. But the present is the only place we live. If you can imagine an illustration representing the past, present, and future, just remove the past, and the present represents the atemporal cause of time.

Time was always existed by definition, talking about it being caused just makes no sense. Also, which philosophical view of causation are you going with here? Hume argues that causation is contingent to time (so do many other great philosophers). Anyway, at t=0, time existed at a single point but it was at a stand still according to generally accepted cosmology. This could be analogous to a clock that exists, but has not moving parts. Temporal duration and movement, came after.


Another way is to think of intervals we all used to do in math. We write them like this:

(-1, 5], where the '(' represents an open interval, and the ']' represents a closed interval. You would represent it on a time line by drawing an open circle around -1, a line to 5, and a coloured in circle on 5. That means the interval includes every number greater than -1 up to 5, and including 5. Or, like this: -1 < x =< 5. (Sorry, it just gives me gibberish every time I try to put a 'greater than or equal to' sign.)

With that in mind, you could represent the existence of the universe/time and the creator of the universe/time like this:

the universe: (0, infinity) or 0 < x < infinity
creator: [0, infinity) or 0 =< x < infinity

In other words, whatever caused the universe and time to begin to exist would've existed in the timeless past boundary.

I already explained to you what your conclusions are based off baseless premises.


There's a third way to look at it. It is possible for there to have been a timeless being that never brought anything into existence, including time.

You can't bring time into existence. That's illogical. There has never been a time when there was no time. We can only say things came into existence, because there was a time when there was no said thing. For example, I can say I came into existence at 1987, because in 1986, I didn't exist. We cannot do this with the universe. There has never been a time when the universe could not have existed.

This being would have no beginning or end. It would not have come into existence or gone out of existence. It will have always existence, not in the sense of existing for the entire duration of time (since there is no time), but in the sense that there is no state of affairs in that possible world in which that being does not exist. This would be a necessary being.

Now just imagine another possible world in which this being exists, but initiates the beginning of time. Then you would have a world just like ours--one where the universe and time had a beginning and was caused to begin by a timeless necessary being.

The only alternative to a supernatural necessary being is to say that the universe is necessary. Either way, a necessary being exists.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 6:22:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 4:57:19 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/1/2012 3:28:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/1/2012 2:37:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
Like the others say, God exists necessarily. In other words, it's impossible for him to not exist, which means there never was a time when he didn't exist, which means God didn't come into existence.

There was never a time when the universe didn't exist either (for as long as time has existed, so has the universe). Thus, if that's your standard for something not coming into existence, then the universe didn't come into existence. It seems you just shot yourself in the foot ;)

Yes, I did. I did not anticipate an argument from semantics when I wrote that. It is true that ever since there has been time, there has been a universe, so in a sense, the universe has always existed. But that is mere semantics, since we usually think of "always" as implying there was no beginning, whereas there was a beginning to the universe. Time is part of the universe, and since time had a beginning, then time itself came into existence. That means time is contingent. And that means something caused time to begin. And that means something is causally prior to time. And that means something atemporal caused time to begin to exist.

Saying that "the universe has always existed" just because it has existed for the entire duration of time, even though time itself is finite in the past, does not help you escape the existence of a necessary being. It doesn't evade either one of my arguments from contingency, especially the second.

But that does raise interesting problems. Whatever caused time to exist couldn't have been temporally prior to the universe because there was no time before time. How could something atemporal be causally prior to time, then?

Well, there are a couple of ways of thinking about that. First of all, you can think of the past and the present as containing duration. There are intervals of time. But the present is not an interval. It is the boundary between the past and the future. It has no duration. If you represented it on a time line, the present would be a point, while the past would be everything before that point, and the future would be everything after that point. But the present is the only place we live. If you can imagine an illustration representing the past, present, and future, just remove the past, and the present represents the atemporal cause of time.

Another way is to think of intervals we all used to do in math. We write them like this:

(-1, 5], where the '(' represents an open interval, and the ']' represents a closed interval. You would represent it on a time line by drawing an open circle around -1, a line to 5, and a coloured in circle on 5. That means the interval includes every number greater than -1 up to 5, and including 5. Or, like this: -1 < x =< 5. (Sorry, it just gives me gibberish every time I try to put a 'greater than or equal to' sign.)

With that in mind, you could represent the existence of the universe/time and the creator of the universe/time like this:

the universe: (0, infinity) or 0 < x < infinity
creator: [0, infinity) or 0 =< x < infinity

In other words, whatever caused the universe and time to begin to exist would've existed in the timeless past boundary.

There's a third way to look at it. It is possible for there to have been a timeless being that never brought anything into existence, including time. This being would have no beginning or end. It would not have come into existence or gone out of existence.

Time itself never came into existence, and because the universe is flat (with a very low margin of error), it will continue forever. Time was at a stand still at t=0, but there is no "before" in which it did not exist. Thus, I don't see how one could claim it came into existence. When has the universe not been here in some form there? Never. Also, it will expand forever and never really quite stop.

It will have always existence, not in the sense of existing for the entire duration of time (since there is no time), but in the sense that there is no state of affairs in that possible world in which that being does not exist. This would be a necessary being.

A maximally great being is necessary, if and only if, if it is possible for that being to exist. It seems very intellectually dishonest of you, to just assume the most controversial premise of the ontological argument.

Now just imagine another possible world in which this being exists, but initiates the beginning of time. Then you would have a world just like ours--one where the universe and time had a beginning and was caused to begin by a timeless necessary being.

Imagine a world, where causes come before their effects, and we only say things come into existence because there was a time when those things didn't exist. Now, imagine a world where there is no "before" the universe, and there was never a time when the universe didn't exist. It would be pretty useless to claim this world came into existence and was caused. Oh, wait, that's the actual world!


The only alternative to a supernatural necessary being is to say that the universe is necessary. Either way, a necessary being exists.

Too bad this existence of this necessary being, hasn't been established by you in the slightest.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 6:24:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 12:29:57 PM, TheBloodyScot wrote:
Many religious people disclaim the big bang theory because they claim that the universe could NOT come from "nothing." My question is how did god come to exist if HE couldn't have came from nothing?

If God came from something then that something would be God..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 8:14:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 6:22:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
However, if we assume a singularity was a reality 13.7 billion years ago, there is no warrant for claiming it came from nothing, or that it came into being at all. With regards to the singularity at t=0, time was at a stand still. This means, it was atemporally eternal.

It seems to be a contradiction to say that time is atemporal, so I'm guessing you mean to say the universe was atemporal at the singularity.

You seem to take the singularity literally. You said, "We only know that all the matter, energy, and space-time was condensed into a single point." If you think about it, though, that's not possible because it contains a contradiction. A point is not spacial. It has no dimensions. So it's not possible for space to be condensed into a single point. A singularity is a boundary of space and time. It is not itself spacial and temporal. To squeeze all matter and energy into a point is to squeeze it out of existence. To say that all matter and energy exists in a point is to say the singularity literally has infinite density. I don't think that's possible.

Since it is not possible for the universe to have been atemporally eternal at t=0, then the universe had a beginning. Since the universe had a beginning, it is contingent. And since it is contingent, it had a cause.

But I do agree with you that if something exists at t=0, then it is atemporally eternal. And that is exactly what I have been saying about the cause of the universe. The cause of the universe exists at t=0, and the universe exists at every t < 0. After all, if there is time, then there is duration, and as you said yourself, "Time was at a standstill at T=0" and "there couldn't have been time" at T=0. T=0 is a boundary of time, not time itself.

You say that, "There is no reason why everything that begins to exist must have a cause in the first place." The principle of sufficient reason dictates that whatever begins to exist has a cause. It follows from the fact that all contingent things have a sufficient explanation of their existence in an external cause. If you deny the principle of sufficient reason, then I guess we're an an impasse. Any premise I used to support the principle of sufficient reason would probably be less obvious than the principle itself.

It doesn't evade either one of my arguments from contingency, especially the second.

Actually, everything I said took down your elementary arguments quite nicely.

That is optimistic of you. :-) So far, you have only attacked my first argument from contingency. You haven't said anything about my second argument. And even your attack on my first argument is problematic as I've shown.

First, there is no evidence of a causally prior without a temporal dependency.

Sure there is. First, there's the evidence from the argument I've been making. To object to the argument on this basis is to beg the question against my argument. Second, there's the evidence from thought experiments. If there has been a bowling ball sitting on a pillow from eternity, and the bowling ball is causing there to be a dent in the pillow, then the bowling ball is causally prior to the dent in the pillow, but not temporally prior.

Besides that, you said earlier that the universe was atemporally eternal at t=0. If that's true, then the expansion state of the universe was caused by its atemporal state. If you say the timeless state of the universe was causally connected to the temporal state of the universe, but then you say there is no causally prior without a temporal dependency, then you're contradicting yourself.

A maximally great being is necessary, if and only if, if it is possible for that being to exist. It seems very intellectually dishonest of you, to just assume the most controversial premise of the ontological argument.

I'm not really sure where this came from. I haven't made any ontological argument. I haven't said anything at all about the possibility of a maximally great being. I would accuse you of intellectual dishonesty for attacking something I didn't say, but I'm more charitable than that. I assume you must've misunderstood something I said.

Time was at a stand still at t=0, but there is no "before" in which it did not exist. Thus, I don't see how one could claim it came into existence.

To say that time is at a stand still is to say that time doesn't exist (and you said earlier that at t=0, "there couldn't have been time"). Time is duration, after all. If t=0 is prior in some sense to every t < 0, then time began to exist from a state of atemporality. I'm not saying that t=0 is temporally prior to the first moment of time. I am saying it is a boundary of time.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 8:43:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 8:14:30 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/1/2012 6:22:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


It seems to be a contradiction to say that time is atemporal, so I'm guessing you mean to say the universe was atemporal at the singularity.

Time was at a stand still.


You seem to take the singularity literally. You said, "We only know that all the matter, energy, and space-time was condensed into a single point." If you think about it, though, that's not possible because it contains a contradiction.

How is it a contradiction?

A point is not spacial. It has no dimensions.

So?

So it's not possible for space to be condensed into a single point.

Why not? This is a non-sequitur.

A singularity is a boundary of space and time.

Sure.

It is not itself spacial and temporal.

If by that you mean, does not exist within space-time itself, then of course.

To squeeze all matter and energy into a point is to squeeze it out of existence.

Huh? That makes no sense. To squeeze it into a single point means exactly that, to squeeze into a single point.

To say that all matter and energy exists in a point is to say the singularity literally has infinite density. I don't think that's possible.

Well, tell that to all the cosmologists who disagree with you. Regardless, I'm not sure if it had infinite density. However, there is 0 contradiction in saying that the universe was condensed into a single point. You have no reasons why that's a contradiction, you just asserted it.


Since it is not possible for the universe to have been atemporally eternal at t=0, then the universe had a beginning. Since the universe had a beginning, it is contingent. And since it is contingent, it had a cause.

False. Even if the term atemporally eternal doesn't fit, time was still at a stand still. Thus my point still stands. This means, there is no "before" for this cause to exist (causes come before their effects). Meaning, there was most likely no cause of The Big Bang. A causally prior without a temporally prior is pure fiction, and one there is no evidence for.


But I do agree with you that if something exists at t=0, then it is atemporally eternal.

Then you believe the singularity was eternal. You just contradicted yourself.

And that is exactly what I have been saying about the cause of the universe.

What cause? Why does there need to be a cause?

The cause of the universe exists at t=0

According to modern cosmology, the singularity existed at t=0.

, and the universe exists at every t < 0.

The universe existed at t=0, as a singularity. I suggest brushing up on your cosmology, because all you are doing in your response here is demonstrating your lack of understanding.

After all, if there is time, then there is duration, and as you said yourself, "Time was at a standstill at T=0" and "there couldn't have been time" at T=0. T=0 is a boundary of time, not time itself.

False. It's like a clock, it still exists even if there are no parts moving at all. Time still existed, but there was no temporal duration.


You say that, "There is no reason why everything that begins to exist must have a cause in the first place." The principle of sufficient reason dictates that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

No it doesn't. The principle of sufficient reason only talks about reasons, not causes specifically. Also, there is nothing to support the notion that this principle is universal. You just assume it without warrant.

It follows from the fact that all contingent things have a sufficient explanation of their existence in an external cause.

False. Quantum fluctuations rely on a necessary condition (the vacuum), but there is no sufficient cause for why each fluctuation occurs.

"Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the quantum realm this holds only on average." - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville

"Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physicist

If you deny the principle of sufficient reason, then I guess we're an an impasse. Any premise I used to support the principle of sufficient reason would probably be less obvious than the principle itself.

It's not obvious, modern physics seems to debunk it.


It doesn't evade either one of my arguments from contingency, especially the second.

Your argument is useless. There is no good reason to think the universe is contingent. A finite past of the universe doesn't cut it, because the universe always existed.


Actually, everything I said took down your elementary arguments quite nicely.

That is optimistic of you. :-) So far, you have only attacked my first argument from contingency. You haven't said anything about my second argument. And even your attack on my first argument is problematic as I've shown.

First, there is no evidence of a causally prior without a temporal dependency.

Sure there is. First, there's the evidence from the argument I've been making.

Your argument is baseless assertions, not evidence.

To object to the argument on this basis is to beg the question against my argument. Second, there's the evidence from thought experiments. If there has been a bowling ball sitting on a pillow from eternity, and the bowling ball is causing there to be a dent in the pillow, then the bowling ball is causally prior to the dent in the pillow, but not temporally prior.

The bowling ball had to be placed here temporally prior. An eternity in the past is impossible, and it appeals to an infinite regress.


Besides that, you said earlier that the universe was atemporally eternal at t=0. If that's true, then the expansion state of the universe was caused by its atemporal state. If you say the timeless state of the universe was causally connected to the temporal state of the universe, but then you say there is no causally prior without a temporal dependency, then you're contradicting yourself.

False. T=0 would be temporally prior to whatever came after, but there would be no temporally prior to t=0 itself.


A maximally great being is necessary, if and only if, if it is possible for that being to exist. It seems very intellectually dishonest of you, to just assume the most controversial premise of the ontological argument.

I'm not really sure where this came from. I haven't made any ontological argument. I haven't said anything at all about the possibility of a maximally great being. I would accuse you of intellectual dishonesty for attacking something I didn't say, but I'm more charitable than that. I assume you must've misunderstood something I said.

No, you clearly referenced the ontological argument. More intellectual dishonesty I see...


Time was at a stand still at t=0, but there is no "before" in which it did not exist. Thus, I don't see how one could claim it came into existence.

To say that time is at a stand still is to say that time doesn't exist (and you said earlier that at t=0, "there couldn't have been time").

False. Check clock analogy.

Time is duration, after all.

False. Read above.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 8:50:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 8:14:30 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/1/2012 6:22:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
However, if we assume a singularity was a reality 13.7 billion years ago, there is no warrant for claiming it came from nothing, or that it came into being at all. With regards to the singularity at t=0, time was at a stand still. This means, it was atemporally eternal.

It seems to be a contradiction to say that time is atemporal, so I'm guessing you mean to say the universe was atemporal at the singularity.

You seem to take the singularity literally. You said, "We only know that all the matter, energy, and space-time was condensed into a single point." If you think about it, though, that's not possible because it contains a contradiction. A point is not spacial. It has no dimensions. So it's not possible for space to be condensed into a single point. A singularity is a boundary of space and time. It is not itself spacial and temporal. To squeeze all matter and energy into a point is to squeeze it out of existence. To say that all matter and energy exists in a point is to say the singularity literally has infinite density. I don't think that's possible.

Since it is not possible for the universe to have been atemporally eternal at t=0, then the universe had a beginning. Since the universe had a beginning, it is contingent. And since it is contingent, it had a cause.

But I do agree with you that if something exists at t=0, then it is atemporally eternal. And that is exactly what I have been saying about the cause of the universe. The cause of the universe exists at t=0, and the universe exists at every t < 0. After all, if there is time, then there is duration, and as you said yourself, "Time was at a standstill at T=0" and "there couldn't have been time" at T=0. T=0 is a boundary of time, not time itself.

You say that, "There is no reason why everything that begins to exist must have a cause in the first place." The principle of sufficient reason dictates that whatever begins to exist has a cause. It follows from the fact that all contingent things have a sufficient explanation of their existence in an external cause. If you deny the principle of sufficient reason, then I guess we're an an impasse. Any premise I used to support the principle of sufficient reason would probably be less obvious than the principle itself.

It doesn't evade either one of my arguments from contingency, especially the second.

Actually, everything I said took down your elementary arguments quite nicely.

That is optimistic of you. :-) So far, you have only attacked my first argument from contingency. You haven't said anything about my second argument. And even your attack on my first argument is problematic as I've shown.

First, there is no evidence of a causally prior without a temporal dependency.

Sure there is. First, there's the evidence from the argument I've been making. To object to the argument on this basis is to beg the question against my argument. Second, there's the evidence from thought experiments. If there has been a bowling ball sitting on a pillow from eternity, and the bowling ball is causing there to be a dent in the pillow, then the bowling ball is causally prior to the dent in the pillow, but not temporally prior.

Besides that, you said earlier that the universe was atemporally eternal at t=0. If that's true, then the expansion state of the universe was caused by its atemporal state. If you say the timeless state of the universe was causally connected to the temporal state of the universe, but then you say there is no causally prior without a temporal dependency, then you're contradicting yourself.

A maximally great being is necessary, if and only if, if it is possible for that being to exist. It seems very intellectually dishonest of you, to just assume the most controversial premise of the ontological argument.

I'm not really sure where this came from. I haven't made any ontological argument. I haven't said anything at all about the possibility of a maximally great being. I would accuse you of intellectual dishonesty for attacking something I didn't say, but I'm more charitable than that. I assume you must've misunderstood something I said.

Time was at a stand still at t=0, but there is no "before" in which it did not exist. Thus, I don't see how one could claim it came into existence.

To say that time is at a stand still is to say that time doesn't exist (and you said earlier that at t=0, "there couldn't have been time"). Time is duration, after all. If t=0 is prior in some sense to every t < 0, then time began to exist from a state of atemporality. I'm not saying that t=0 is temporally prior to the first moment of time. I am saying it is a boundary of time.

So to sum it up, a singularity existed at t=0 according to modern cosmology. This is where the laws of physics break down, and time comes to a halt. There is no "before" this point in which a cause could exist. You say that there doesn't need to be a temporally prior, just a causally prior. However, there is no evidence of a causally prior that isn't contingent upon a temporally prior. Your bowling ball example fails for two reasons. First of all, the bowling ball had to be placed there temporally prior. It couldn't have been resting for eternity, because the universe is finite, and an infinite past is illogical. Thus, you committed the false analogy fallacy.

Since there is no "before" the universe, then it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the universe didn't come into existence. There must have been a time when something didn't exist, in order for it to come into existence. Since the universe has always existed, then to claim it came into existence is a contradiction.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 9:03:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 2:42:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/1/2012 1:13:40 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/1/2012 12:36:08 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/1/2012 12:29:57 PM, TheBloodyScot wrote:
Many religious people disclaim the big bang theory because they claim that the universe could NOT come from "nothing." My question is how did god come to exist if HE couldn't have came from nothing?

He always existed.

This. Similarly, the Big Bang didn't come from nothing...

The "he always existed" thing really is a logical cop-out in my opinion.

That"s just an unwarranted opinion, but hey, thanks for sharing.

First of all, perpetual existence is illogical. Infinity & logic do not mix.

First of all the argument isn"t for perpetual existence, it"s for transcendence, and transcendent and logic do mix.

So what these people are alluding to when they say "God always existed" is that God is above logic....and I'm sure we can all see the absurd consequences of that conclusion.

Nope, what is absurd is to make the bare assertion that nothing that transcends logic is possible.

When it comes to apologetics on the nature of God people are too content to make glaring declarations, without actually investigating the implications or consequences on the whole religious debate if those declarations were true.

When it comes to logic, it appears that you are the one who is quite content to make glaring declarations without actually investigating the implications or consequences if those declarations were true.

For instance, logic is conceptual, and you are making claims about the ontological primacy of logic, in effect, saying that logic completely defines what could possibly exist. Is it your contention that the universe is wholly conceptual? If the universe is conceptual by nature, then there needs to be a mind for it to exist in doesn"t there? This sounds more like an argument for God, rather than an argument against God.

If you are not saying that the universe is wholly conceptual, then you are minimally arguing that logic provides a complete and comprehensive accounting of reality in all its fullness; contending that nothing that transcends logic can exist. That is nothing but a bare assertion, and there is a logical proof that completely refutes your contention.

Kurt G"del"s Incompleteness Theorem is analytically perfect and rigidly deductive, therefore it is conclusive as far as logic is concerned. It states categorically that no axiomatic system is, or can be complete and consistent, that there will always be true statements that cannot be proven within a logical system of thought. Logically speaking, G"del proved that there will always be something that is true, that transcends logic. Logic itself then, refutes your contention that nothing can exist that does not conform to logic.

Apparently, you made glaring declarations without actually investigating the implications or conclusions if those declarations were true. By implication, you are either arguing for the existence of God, or against the validity of logic.

So which do you reject, God or logic?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 9:26:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 3:05:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/1/2012 2:49:41 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 11/1/2012 2:42:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/1/2012 1:13:40 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/1/2012 12:36:08 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 11/1/2012 12:29:57 PM, TheBloodyScot wrote:
Many religious people disclaim the big bang theory because they claim that the universe could NOT come from "nothing." My question is how did god come to exist if HE couldn't have came from nothing?

He always existed.

This. Similarly, the Big Bang didn't come from nothing...

The "he always existed" thing really is a logical cop-out in my opinion. First of all, perpetual existence is illogical. Infinity & logic do not mix. So what these people are alluding to when they say "God always existed" is that God is above logic....and I'm sure we can all see the absurd consequences of that conclusion.

When it comes to apologetics on the nature of God people are too content to make glaring declarations, without actually investigating the implications or consequences on the whole religious debate if those declarations were true.

I find that's a disingenuous conclusion. God must exceed the very construct of logic and reason. Without an infinite nature,God would be nothing more than an "attainable higher state".
I.e., he's finite and therefore has a limit. If he has a limit, logic suggests we can become like him.
That's the cop-out. Through myopic reduction of the limitless, you would make God vulnerable to some measure of logic or physical law and in that, reduce him down to something that could be dismantled.

The problem is, every serious theologian and philosopher concedes that God must be infinite in order to be God. Anything less is not worth worshiping. Anything with an end can be (logically) ended. And an end to God would make him...not God.

If God was above logic, the argument you just made wouldn't even apply to him, since your argument presupposes logic (as all arguments do).

Nonsense, a logical argument can be made that something that transcends logic exists. Kurt Godel made one, and it was a logical proof of that fact, all you have made are bare assertions.

If he was above logic, so too would he be above the law of noncontradiction....in which case, he can be above and subordinate to logic simultaneously. If he was above logic, he could exist and not exist simultaneously....It's a silly argument and only a few moments of thought suffices to refute it.

Nope, your argument is silly. Perhaps you"ve heard the word "faith" used when people are talking about God, go figure, but belief in God is considered to be a matter of faith. As such, the Theistic conclusion in not logically coercive, but it does provide an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value. Given that, it is in fact, a logical conclusion.

If God was above logic, then you have no means by which to arrive at the conclusion that he is above logic....because any arguments toward that end would require God to follow logical rules that your argument claims he doesn't follow. In the same vein, you can't use the rules of chess to predict the weather, you can't use logical arguments to assess the nature of a being that is "metalogical".

I'm guessing you don't know what the word "metalogical" actually means, Metalogic is a field of philosophical inquiry that examines the metatheory of logic, and it certainly uses logic to do so. Are you arguing against logic, or are you saying matalogic doesn't exist? It's really hard to tell because you are certainly using the word logic, but in a way that isn't logical.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater