Total Posts:79|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Two options exist: Which one will you pick?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

-------

WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.

If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing? Assuming physical things have always existed to be the thing from which everything came from, did time not exist yet? If time did exist, then time is eternal. Since time is simply just the relative difference between two events, and if the first event is eternal, then how did passage of time within eternity permit the big bang to occur as a new sequential event? Example: Given event A and B, event A (before the big bang) is eternal. Event B is the instance the Big Bang began. The bridge between A and B is a new event. But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity? No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.

If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?

Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?
skinker
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 2:13:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Option C

The Universe was created by Us in our far future when we learned how to do it. The time line for the power of God to create a Universe could theoretically be calculated by the logic of historical advances in human acquisition of knowledge and technical powers. Once we reach the Krell Machine level, i.e. the ability to turn thought into matter, well, we will have arrived at Godhood. And we did. This is a done deal where we play out our roles exactly like characters on a movie tape, disc, chip, molecule, atom, Big Bang Programmed Creation. Here and there We sent back angels to tell prophets about this system. It's the Jacob's Ladder system only in time and space. I am telling you now because I learned it from Ariel, the Angel of Peace, who was taught it from the Elohim, led by EL Elyon, God Most High, in our Judeo-Christian symbolism system.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 3:09:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

What about quantum field fluctuations?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 3:31:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

-------

How many times must it be explained, explained over, and explained again that big bang DOES NOT propose that everything came from nothing? Big bang cosmologies ALWAYS (always, always, ALWAYS) begin with the pre-existing. It's either energy, a singularity or brane-worlds. And none of those options equate to nothing.

The claim that if we disbelieve in God we must believe everything came from nothing is a pure creationist strawman. It has no resemblance whatsoever to any accepted scientific premise.

The THIRD option (which you conveniently left out because it's the ONLY one which makes sense), is that energy has always existed. Energy doesn't have mass so it needn't have space. And in converting to mass (as Einstein showed resulting in his famous E=MC^2), it likely triggered big-bang which merged space and time into space-time. This happened approximately 13.7 billion years ago and every shred of pertinent objective evidence shows that to be the case.

Once again, the number one tool of theists is a mixture of pure ignorance, and raw dishonesty.

The correct Option is number 3; the universe has always existed (as matter/energy cannot be created - First Law of Thermodynamics), but has changed states from energy only, to matter/energy.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 4:20:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

-------

Personally: Either, I don't really care what the cause is. Could be 1 or 2, just don't know, will be interesting to find out. Could be neither too, it isn't logically incoherent for there to be other options.

My hunch is creation ex nihilo, so from absolutely nothing. Although the terminology is weird, since time and space would not have existed in the way we are accustomed to in classical spacetime.

WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.

Ok...

If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing?

Depends by what you mean by physical. If physical reality is defined by what is contained by classical spacetime then it would obviously be a non-physical explanation.

But this assumes that the PSR and causality hold in the same manner beyond that point, which it clearly doesn't. Especially when outside spacetime. Sean carroll satirised this, which I will paraphrase:

"Asking what the cause of spacetime is is akin to taking a photo with your iphone and asking 'where does the film go?'"

It's just a meaningless question.

...But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity? No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.

This all assumes a series of time. You don't have the same conceivability problems when assuming b series of time, which depicts time as a forth dimension.

If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?

No. First 'pre existence' in the absense of time is a nonsensical statement. And secondly you have all sorts of weird effects, such as reterocausality, self-determinicity, entropy and spontaneity, as well as an unbound potential/lack of potential. Weird stuff happening seems plausible.

Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?

No it doesn't.

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

No. You need further arguments to demonstrate God. As a preexisring 'stuff' or 'substance' =/= necessarily God, cf multiverse, quantum vacuum.

But then I am sure you are sick of having me reply to you :-p
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 4:23:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Or the universe never began to exist in the first place.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 4:36:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

If we go under the view of most religions (one universe), this cannot be. SNP1 pointed it out in your debate.
1) Cause and effect happen in time.
2) Time did not exist before the big bang.
3) There was no time before the big bang,
4) The big bang did not have a cause.

You tried the following argument:
(1) Causes must precede their effects in time
(2) There is no time prior to the beginning of time (the origin of the universe)
(3) Time began.
(4) Therefore, the universe must have a cause transcendent of time
(5) Theism requires that God, transcendent of time, must be the cause of the universe
(6) The universe has a cause transcendent of time.
(7) Therefore, theism is logical.

Let us look at this CAREFULLY.
Premise 1 and 4 contradict each other. Since you have 2 faulty premises, your argument is flawed.

If we go under the view of my religion (there might be a couple others out there) there is a multiverse, in which case an earlier universe's beings could cause the new universe.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

Define absolute nothing.

-------

WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.

I will address this the way I would when I was an atheist.

If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing?

All that is needed are the laws of quantum mechanics.

Assuming physical things have always existed to be the thing from which everything came from, did time not exist yet? If time did exist, then time is eternal.

Time, as we understand it, did not exist, but we can say that imaginary time did. Think of time as the x-axis, imaginary time is the y-axis. There is an endless amount of it, but it does not stop time from moving forward.

Since time is simply just the relative difference between two events, and if the first event is eternal, then how did passage of time within eternity permit the big bang to occur as a new sequential event? Example: Given event A and B, event A (before the big bang) is eternal. Event B is the instance the Big Bang began. The bridge between A and B is a new event. But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity?

Infinity is not a number. Because of this you cannot say "infinity + 1000", that is an illogical statement.

No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.

Unless we look at imaginary time as the infinite time.

If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?

All that is needed are the laws of quantum mechanics.

Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?

This is a flawed argument. Everything WITHIN the universe has come into existence ex materia (as far as we know), but that does not mean that the universe must, especially when science shows that it was ex nihilo.
http://journalofcosmology.com...

The universe is the only thing that came from nothing.

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

If there is only one universe, there cannot be a transcendent cause. If there is a multiverse, there can be, HOWEVER, if there is a multiverse it is actually more beneficial for the atheist arguments.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 4:56:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 3:09:45 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

What about quantum field fluctuations?

Then either they (1) arose from absolute nothing or (2) arose from an eternally existing substance like space.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 5:11:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 4:56:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/15/2014 3:09:45 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

What about quantum field fluctuations?

Then either they (1) arose from absolute nothing or (2) arose from an eternally existing substance like space.

Quantum fields are suggested to have existed forever themselves.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 7:26:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 3:31:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

-------

How many times must it be explained, explained over, and explained again that big bang DOES NOT propose that everything came from nothing? Big bang cosmologies ALWAYS (always, always, ALWAYS) begin with the pre-existing. It's either energy, a singularity or brane-worlds. And none of those options equate to nothing.

False. The Big Bang theory claims that the beginning of every physical thing was created in the instance of the big bang. No claim is made to know what might've caused it.

The claim that if we disbelieve in God we must believe everything came from nothing is a pure creationist strawman. It has no resemblance whatsoever to any accepted scientific premise.

No claim like that was ever made. Show me where I've ever said that everything must've come from nothing if you don't believe in God. In the beginning of this topic I have two options, one of which contradicts exactly what you're proposing is the only option I've given.

The THIRD option (which you conveniently left out because it's the ONLY one which makes sense), is that energy has always existed. Energy doesn't have mass so it needn't have space. And in converting to mass (as Einstein showed resulting in his famous E=MC^2), it likely triggered big-bang which merged space and time into space-time. This happened approximately 13.7 billion years ago and every shred of pertinent objective evidence shows that to be the case.

Energy requires space in order to exist. Space, or more correctly "space-time" was created in the instance of the Big Bang according to Stephen Hawking. Please link me the pertinent objective evidence showing that pre-existing energy is responsible for the big bang. In addition, this would not require a "third option" because option 1 covers an eternally existing thing, whether it be energy or something else.

Once again, the number one tool of theists is a mixture of pure ignorance, and raw dishonesty.

Regurgitated rhetoric.

The correct Option is number 3; the universe has always existed (as matter/energy cannot be created - First Law of Thermodynamics), but has changed states from energy only, to matter/energy.

So you mean option 1 right? That's the option referring to something that has always eternally existed.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 7:35:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 4:20:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

-------


Personally: Either, I don't really care what the cause is. Could be 1 or 2, just don't know, will be interesting to find out. Could be neither too, it isn't logically incoherent for there to be other options.

Logically, it would be incoherent for there to be other options due to the law of excluded middle.

My hunch is creation ex nihilo, so from absolutely nothing. Although the terminology is weird, since time and space would not have existed in the way we are accustomed to in classical spacetime.

What is the logical reasoning behind that conclusion?

WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.

Ok...

If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing?

Depends by what you mean by physical. If physical reality is defined by what is contained by classical spacetime then it would obviously be a non-physical explanation.

I agree.

But this assumes that the PSR and causality hold in the same manner beyond that point, which it clearly doesn't. Especially when outside spacetime. Sean carroll satirised this, which I will paraphrase:

"Asking what the cause of spacetime is is akin to taking a photo with your iphone and asking 'where does the film go?'"

It's just a meaningless question.

What the cause of space-time is, is a meaningless question? I don't find the iphone example analogous. It clearly has a reason behind why the photo exists.

...But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity? No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.

This all assumes a series of time. You don't have the same conceivability problems when assuming b series of time, which depicts time as a forth dimension.

What logical evidence leads us to believe a B series of time exists?

If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?

No. First 'pre existence' in the absense of time is a nonsensical statement. And secondly you have all sorts of weird effects, such as reterocausality, self-determinicity, entropy and spontaneity, as well as an unbound potential/lack of potential. Weird stuff happening seems plausible.

If pre-existence isn't plausible, then you mean to say that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang. Thus, the Big Bang did not have a pre-existence and arose from nothing.

Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?

No it doesn't.

I specifically asked for a contradictory example, can you show one?

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

No. You need further arguments to demonstrate God. As a preexisring 'stuff' or 'substance' =/= necessarily God, cf multiverse, quantum vacuum.

I didn't say God, I said a "transcendent cause, such as God". This is logically necessitated. Do you disagree?

But then I am sure you are sick of having me reply to you :-p

I am always open to discovering truth, wherever it might be.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 7:37:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 4:23:33 PM, n7 wrote:
Or the universe never began to exist in the first place.

Then that's option 1... Despite the evidence for the Big Bang, you're free to believe that.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 7:38:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 5:11:49 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 7/15/2014 4:56:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/15/2014 3:09:45 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

What about quantum field fluctuations?

Then either they (1) arose from absolute nothing or (2) arose from an eternally existing substance like space.

Quantum fields are suggested to have existed forever themselves.

Quantum fields still require emerging from an eternally existing substance or from nothing...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 7:50:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 7:35:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/15/2014 4:20:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

-------


Personally: Either, I don't really care what the cause is. Could be 1 or 2, just don't know, will be interesting to find out. Could be neither too, it isn't logically incoherent for there to be other options.

Logically, it would be incoherent for there to be other options due to the law of excluded middle.

No it's not. Law of the excluded only regards the propositions A and not A. The two options presented are not in that formulation. That is a asinine statement you just made...

Moreover other examples have already been given, such as the universe never began, or it doesn't actually exist.

My hunch is creation ex nihilo, so from absolutely nothing. Although the terminology is weird, since time and space would not have existed in the way we are accustomed to in classical spacetime.

What is the logical reasoning behind that conclusion?

I'll save that for a debate, I gave a few reasons here already though, reterocausality, self determinicity, and entropy, mathematical equivilence of 1+-1=0 to name a few.

WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.

Ok...

If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing?

Depends by what you mean by physical. If physical reality is defined by what is contained by classical spacetime then it would obviously be a non-physical explanation.

I agree.

But this assumes that the PSR and causality hold in the same manner beyond that point, which it clearly doesn't. Especially when outside spacetime. Sean carroll satirised this, which I will paraphrase:

"Asking what the cause of spacetime is is akin to taking a photo with your iphone and asking 'where does the film go?'"

It's just a meaningless question.

What the cause of space-time is, is a meaningless question? I don't find the iphone example analogous. It clearly has a reason behind why the photo exists.

You ignored my point on the PSR (principle of sufficient reason).

The PSR lacks epistimological justification other than pragmatics within spacetime, therefore I reject the statement 'it clearly has a reason', since you have no grounds to say that.

But even assuming that the PSR holds, spacetime could well be self-explanatory (self-determined).

...But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity? No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.

This all assumes a series of time. You don't have the same conceivability problems when assuming b series of time, which depicts time as a forth dimension.

What logical evidence leads us to believe a B series of time exists?

General Relativity, quantum vacuum, lack of tensed models of time that work in physics, and more recently, inflationary theory. All models on B theory and make very accurate statements on reality, especially relativity (which seems absurd to deny)/

If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?

No. First 'pre existence' in the absense of time is a nonsensical statement. And secondly you have all sorts of weird effects, such as reterocausality, self-determinicity, entropy and spontaneity, as well as an unbound potential/lack of potential. Weird stuff happening seems plausible.

If pre-existence isn't plausible, then you mean to say that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang. Thus, the Big Bang did not have a pre-existence and arose from nothing.

You really need to take my previous statement to heart... When I say its meaninglesss, it really is meaningless. To speak of 'prior' and 'nothing' absent time are incoherent concepts.

Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?

No it doesn't.

I specifically asked for a contradictory example, can you show one?

I don't need to in order to counter your claim that 'anything that begins to exist requires the pre existence of something else'. It is not one that is epistemically supported, and most definitely not one that has a logical justification outside of inductive reasoning, which is invalid outside of spacetime.

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

No. You need further arguments to demonstrate God. As a preexisring 'stuff' or 'substance' =/= necessarily God, cf multiverse, quantum vacuum.

I didn't say God, I said a "transcendent cause, such as God". This is logically necessitated. Do you disagree?

I disagree with throwing in the word salad 'trancendent' term, since it is a euphemism for divine properties. By this reasoning the 2 examples i states, the quantum vacuum and eternal inflation would be a 'transcendent' entity.

But then I am sure you are sick of having me reply to you :-p

I am always open to discovering truth, wherever it might be.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 7:59:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 3:31:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

-------

How many times must it be explained, explained over, and explained again that big bang DOES NOT propose that everything came from nothing? Big bang cosmologies ALWAYS (always, always, ALWAYS) begin with the pre-existing. It's either energy, a singularity or brane-worlds. And none of those options equate to nothing.

The claim that if we disbelieve in God we must believe everything came from nothing is a pure creationist strawman. It has no resemblance whatsoever to any accepted scientific premise.

The THIRD option (which you conveniently left out because it's the ONLY one which makes sense), is that energy has always existed. Energy doesn't have mass so it needn't have space.

Mass and Energy through all observations state both need space.

YOU HAVE absolutely no evidence to support this claim.

Energy needs space to exist.

Blatant Lies = 1 and counting now.

And in converting to mass (as Einstein showed resulting in his famous E=MC^2), it likely triggered big-bang which merged space and time into space-time. This happened approximately 13.7 billion years ago and every shred of pertinent objective evidence shows that to be the case.

Once again, the number one tool of theists is a mixture of pure ignorance, and raw dishonesty.

The correct Option is number 3; the universe has always existed (as matter/energy cannot be created - First Law of Thermodynamics), but has changed states from energy only, to matter/energy.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 8:09:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 4:36:42 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

If we go under the view of most religions (one universe), this cannot be. SNP1 pointed it out in your debate.
1) Cause and effect happen in time.
2) Time did not exist before the big bang.
3) There was no time before the big bang,
4) The big bang did not have a cause.


I reject p1. Antithesis to 4 I reword, "What changed to produce the Big Bang?"

You tried the following argument:
(1) Causes must precede their effects in time
(2) There is no time prior to the beginning of time (the origin of the universe)
(3) Time began.
(4) Therefore, the universe must have a cause transcendent of time
(5) Theism requires that God, transcendent of time, must be the cause of the universe
(6) The universe has a cause transcendent of time.
(7) Therefore, theism is logical.

Let us look at this CAREFULLY.
Premise 1 and 4 contradict each other. Since you have 2 faulty premises, your argument is flawed.

If we go under the view of my religion (there might be a couple others out there) there is a multiverse, in which case an earlier universe's beings could cause the new universe.


Unprovable and unfalsifiable. At least God has some physical evidence of an interaction.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

Define absolute nothing.

-------

WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.

I will address this the way I would when I was an atheist.

If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing?

All that is needed are the laws of quantum mechanics.

Assuming physical things have always existed to be the thing from which everything came from, did time not exist yet? If time did exist, then time is eternal.

Time, as we understand it, did not exist, but we can say that imaginary time did. Think of time as the x-axis, imaginary time is the y-axis. There is an endless amount of it, but it does not stop time from moving forward.

Since time is simply just the relative difference between two events, and if the first event is eternal, then how did passage of time within eternity permit the big bang to occur as a new sequential event? Example: Given event A and B, event A (before the big bang) is eternal. Event B is the instance the Big Bang began. The bridge between A and B is a new event. But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity?

Infinity is not a number. Because of this you cannot say "infinity + 1000", that is an illogical statement.

No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.

Unless we look at imaginary time as the infinite time.

If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?

All that is needed are the laws of quantum mechanics.

Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?

This is a flawed argument. Everything WITHIN the universe has come into existence ex materia (as far as we know), but that does not mean that the universe must, especially when science shows that it was ex nihilo.
http://journalofcosmology.com...

The universe is the only thing that came from nothing.

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

If there is only one universe, there cannot be a transcendent cause. If there is a multiverse, there can be, HOWEVER, if there is a multiverse it is actually more beneficial for the atheist arguments.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 8:19:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 7:50:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/15/2014 7:35:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/15/2014 4:20:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

-------


Personally: Either, I don't really care what the cause is. Could be 1 or 2, just don't know, will be interesting to find out. Could be neither too, it isn't logically incoherent for there to be other options.

Logically, it would be incoherent for there to be other options due to the law of excluded middle.

No it's not. Law of the excluded only regards the propositions A and not A. The two options presented are not in that formulation. That is a asinine statement you just made...

"In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Either some "thing" exists or "nothing" exists. What could possibly constitute the negation of "any thing" other than "nothing"?

Moreover other examples have already been given, such as the universe never began, or it doesn't actually exist.

Have these examples been given logically?

My hunch is creation ex nihilo, so from absolutely nothing. Although the terminology is weird, since time and space would not have existed in the way we are accustomed to in classical spacetime.

What is the logical reasoning behind that conclusion?

I'll save that for a debate, I gave a few reasons here already though, reterocausality, self determinicity, and entropy, mathematical equivilence of 1+-1=0 to name a few.

Name a logical reason or example why I should believe this.

WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.

Ok...

If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing?

Depends by what you mean by physical. If physical reality is defined by what is contained by classical spacetime then it would obviously be a non-physical explanation.

I agree.

But this assumes that the PSR and causality hold in the same manner beyond that point, which it clearly doesn't. Especially when outside spacetime. Sean carroll satirised this, which I will paraphrase:

"Asking what the cause of spacetime is is akin to taking a photo with your iphone and asking 'where does the film go?'"

It's just a meaningless question.

What the cause of space-time is, is a meaningless question? I don't find the iphone example analogous. It clearly has a reason behind why the photo exists.

You ignored my point on the PSR (principle of sufficient reason).

The PSR lacks epistimological justification other than pragmatics within spacetime, therefore I reject the statement 'it clearly has a reason', since you have no grounds to say that.

Upon logical grounds, everything requires pre-existence of something in order to exist. I'll wait until you provide an example to the contary.

But even assuming that the PSR holds, spacetime could well be self-explanatory (self-determined).

...But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity? No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.

This all assumes a series of time. You don't have the same conceivability problems when assuming b series of time, which depicts time as a forth dimension.

What logical evidence leads us to believe a B series of time exists?

General Relativity, quantum vacuum, lack of tensed models of time that work in physics, and more recently, inflationary theory. All models on B theory and make very accurate statements on reality, especially relativity (which seems absurd to deny)/

Give a source that shows why the B series of time logically exists.

If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?

No. First 'pre existence' in the absense of time is a nonsensical statement. And secondly you have all sorts of weird effects, such as reterocausality, self-determinicity, entropy and spontaneity, as well as an unbound potential/lack of potential. Weird stuff happening seems plausible.

If pre-existence isn't plausible, then you mean to say that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang. Thus, the Big Bang did not have a pre-existence and arose from nothing.

You really need to take my previous statement to heart... When I say its meaninglesss, it really is meaningless. To speak of 'prior' and 'nothing' absent time are incoherent concepts.

Does this contradict my previous statement where I infer that everything must've then came from nothing?

Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?

No it doesn't.

I specifically asked for a contradictory example, can you show one?

I don't need to in order to counter your claim that 'anything that begins to exist requires the pre existence of something else'. It is not one that is epistemically supported, and most definitely not one that has a logical justification outside of inductive reasoning, which is invalid outside of spacetime.

So in other words, you cannot provide a single example? Why should I defy inductive reasoning, or any logic whatsoever, to consider what you believe is true? And also, why would inductive reasoning not have merit outside of space-time?

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

No. You need further arguments to demonstrate God. As a preexisring 'stuff' or 'substance' =/= necessarily God, cf multiverse, quantum vacuum.

I didn't say God, I said a "transcendent cause, such as God". This is logically necessitated. Do you disagree?

I disagree with throwing in the word salad 'trancendent' term, since it is a euphemism for divine properties. By this reasoning the 2 examples i states, the quantum vacuum and eternal inflation would be a 'transcendent' entity.

Transcendent meaning different than physical properties. Seemingly perfectly rational given that (1) according to logic, everything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else, and (2) since the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing, and since something cannot cause itself to exist without pre-existence of something else, it's erroneous to believe that physical causes created physical beginnings.

But then I am sure you are sick of having me reply to you :-p

I am always open to discovering truth, wherever it might be.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 8:23:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

-------

WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.

If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing? Assuming physical things have always existed to be the thing from which everything came from, did time not exist yet? If time did exist, then time is eternal. Since time is simply just the relative difference between two events, and if the first event is eternal, then how did passage of time within eternity permit the big bang to occur as a new sequential event? Example: Given event A and B, event A (before the big bang) is eternal. Event B is the instance the Big Bang began. The bridge between A and B is a new event. But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity? No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.

If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?

Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

Everything we experience is nothing but God's dream. Quantum physicists are learning that particles are only illusions that aren't real but they're afraid to admit that we're living in a dream.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 8:33:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 8:09:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/15/2014 4:36:42 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

If we go under the view of most religions (one universe), this cannot be. SNP1 pointed it out in your debate.
1) Cause and effect happen in time.
2) Time did not exist before the big bang.
3) There was no time before the big bang,
4) The big bang did not have a cause.


I reject p1. Antithesis to 4 I reword, "What changed to produce the Big Bang?"

Can you find any instance where a cause did not predate the effect?

You tried the following argument:
(1) Causes must precede their effects in time
(2) There is no time prior to the beginning of time (the origin of the universe)
(3) Time began.
(4) Therefore, the universe must have a cause transcendent of time
(5) Theism requires that God, transcendent of time, must be the cause of the universe
(6) The universe has a cause transcendent of time.
(7) Therefore, theism is logical.

Let us look at this CAREFULLY.
Premise 1 and 4 contradict each other. Since you have 2 faulty premises, your argument is flawed.

If we go under the view of my religion (there might be a couple others out there) there is a multiverse, in which case an earlier universe's beings could cause the new universe.


Unprovable and unfalsifiable.

Which is why I do not push my religion on people. I know that the only evidence for it is anecdotal.

At least God has some physical evidence of an interaction.

Which is? Can you give one example?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 8:38:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

Logically, it would be incoherent for there to be other options due to the law of excluded middle.

No it's not. Law of the excluded only regards the propositions A and not A. The two options presented are not in that formulation. That is a asinine statement you just made...

"In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Either some "thing" exists or "nothing" exists. What could possibly constitute the negation of "any thing" other than "nothing"?

Because you have other qualifiers there, such as 'came from', uncauaed, and eternally existing. It's not a true dichotomy. It's not a case of 'something or nothing' it's a case of 'something XYZ began QRS or nothing.

Moreover other examples have already been given, such as the universe never began, or it doesn't actually exist.

Have these examples been given logically?

I see nothing prima facie illogical about them..

My hunch is creation ex nihilo, so from absolutely nothing. Although the terminology is weird, since time and space would not have existed in the way we are accustomed to in classical spacetime.

What is the logical reasoning behind that conclusion?

I'll save that for a debate, I gave a few reasons here already though, reterocausality, self determinicity, and entropy, mathematical equivilence of 1+-1=0 to name a few.

Name a logical reason or example why I should believe this.

No need, it's just a personal belief. It had no theological implications for me.

What it has going for it though:

1. Elegance
2. Absurd simplicity
3. Begs no questions about the necessary existance of some 'stuff'
4. Seems to be supported by the zero energy hypothesis, if true, which seems likely.

It's very speculative I agree, but I don't particularly think atheists or theists can say much with confidence about absolute origins. This seems to be the most elegant solution.

WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.




What the cause of space-time is, is a meaningless question? I don't find the iphone example analogous. It clearly has a reason behind why the photo exists.

You ignored my point on the PSR (principle of sufficient reason).

The PSR lacks epistimological justification other than pragmatics within spacetime, therefore I reject the statement 'it clearly has a reason', since you have no grounds to say that.

Upon logical grounds, everything requires pre-existence of something in order to exist. I'll wait until you provide an example to the contary.

You can keep asserting 'on logical grounds' by you have yet to provide anything of substance to affirm it, you just assume it. And then assume it holds outside of a universe which contains both laws, entropy, an arrow of time and time itself, all of which are required to say anything meaningful about causation

The PSR is known to be highly controversial in philosophical circles, it's what virtually every physicist tries to tell theists who use arguments such as the Leibniz or KCA.

But even assuming that the PSR holds, spacetime could well be self-explanatory (self-determined).

...But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity? No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.

This all assumes a series of time. You don't have the same conceivability problems when assuming b series of time, which depicts time as a forth dimension.

What logical evidence leads us to believe a B series of time exists?

General Relativity, quantum vacuum, lack of tensed models of time that work in physics, and more recently, inflationary theory. All models on B theory and make very accurate statements on reality, especially relativity (which seems absurd to deny)/

Give a source that shows why the B series of time logically exists.

They are evidence. You can look it up yourself.

If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?


If pre-existence isn't plausible, then you mean to say that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang. Thus, the Big Bang did not have a pre-existence and arose from nothing.

You really need to take my previous statement to heart... When I say its meaninglesss, it really is meaningless. To speak of 'prior' and 'nothing' absent time are incoherent concepts.

Does this contradict my previous statement where I infer that everything must've then came from nothing?

It means we are using the wrong terminology. 'Coming from' is a nonsensical statement.

In some sense, on zero energy theory, the universe IS nothing, just the appearance of something overall is because of our myopic view of the larger picture.

Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?

No it doesn't.

I specifically asked for a contradictory example, can you show one?

I don't need to in order to counter your claim that 'anything that begins to exist requires the pre existence of something else'. It is not one that is epistemically supported, and most definitely not one that has a logical justification outside of inductive reasoning, which is invalid outside of spacetime.

So in other words, you cannot provide a single example? Why should I defy inductive reasoning, or any logic whatsoever, to consider what you believe is true? And also, why would inductive reasoning not have merit outside of space-time?

Because you are trying to take your excellent expertise to repair a car, and try to use it to fix a human. They are completely different concepts. It's a sweeping generalisation fallacy, as zmike puts it. Why would we have an example when we only observe within spacetime, where there is rules, time and entropy?

Wy should I expect to we a single example in spacetime? Your logic simply doesn't : : : : No. You need further arguments to demonstrate God. As a preexisring 'stuff' or 'substance' =/= necessarily God, cf multiverse, quantum vacuum.

I didn't say God, I said a "transcendent cause, such as God". This is logically necessitated. Do you disagree?

I disagree with throwing in the word salad 'trancendent' term, since it is a euphemism for divine properties. By this reasoning the 2 examples i states, the quantum vacuum and eternal inflation would be a 'transcendent' entity.

Transcendent meaning different than physical properties. Seemingly perfectly rational given that (1) according to logic, everything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else, and (2) since the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing, and since something cannot cause itself to exist without pre-existence of something else, it's erroneous to believe that physical causes created physical beginnings.

But then I am sure you are sick of having me reply to you :-p

I am always open to discovering truth, wherever it might be
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 8:51:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
(which seems absurd to deny)/

Give a source that shows why the B series of time logically exists.

They are evidence. You can look it up yourself.


I have. No logical evidence supports existence of the B series of time.

Does this contradict my previous statement where I infer that everything must've then came from nothing?

It means we are using the wrong terminology. 'Coming from' is a nonsensical statement.

In some sense, on zero energy theory, the universe IS nothing, just the appearance of something overall is because of our myopic view of the larger picture.


So did the universe come from absolute nothing or didn't it? Simple question here.

So in other words, you cannot provide a single example? Why should I defy inductive reasoning, or any logic whatsoever, to consider what you believe is true? And also, why would inductive reasoning not have merit outside of space-time?

Because you are trying to take your excellent expertise to repair a car, and try to use it to fix a human. They are completely different concepts. It's a sweeping generalisation fallacy, as zmike puts it. Why would we have an example when we only observe within spacetime, where there is rules, time and entropy?


I asked what good reason do we have to defy logic? If no good reason to defy how we know reality to be true, there is no good reason to reject it. If you disagree, a good reason should be shown as to why we should reject how we know reality to be true.

Wy should I expect to we a single example in spacetime? Your logic simply doesn't : : : : No. You need further arguments to demonstrate God. As a preexisring 'stuff' or 'substance' =/= necessarily God, cf multiverse, quantum vacuum.


I never said God was required. I said a transcendent thing, such as God.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 8:53:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

-------

WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.

If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing? Assuming physical things have always existed to be the thing from which everything came from, did time not exist yet? If time did exist, then time is eternal. Since time is simply just the relative difference between two events, and if the first event is eternal, then how did passage of time within eternity permit the big bang to occur as a new sequential event? Example: Given event A and B, event A (before the big bang) is eternal. Event B is the instance the Big Bang began. The bridge between A and B is a new event. But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity? No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.

If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?

Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

False-Dichotomy.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 8:55:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 8:53:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

-------

WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.

If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing? Assuming physical things have always existed to be the thing from which everything came from, did time not exist yet? If time did exist, then time is eternal. Since time is simply just the relative difference between two events, and if the first event is eternal, then how did passage of time within eternity permit the big bang to occur as a new sequential event? Example: Given event A and B, event A (before the big bang) is eternal. Event B is the instance the Big Bang began. The bridge between A and B is a new event. But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity? No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.

If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?

Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

False-Dichotomy.

Name the third option between "something" and "nothing".
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 8:58:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 8:55:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/15/2014 8:53:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

-------

WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.

If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing? Assuming physical things have always existed to be the thing from which everything came from, did time not exist yet? If time did exist, then time is eternal. Since time is simply just the relative difference between two events, and if the first event is eternal, then how did passage of time within eternity permit the big bang to occur as a new sequential event? Example: Given event A and B, event A (before the big bang) is eternal. Event B is the instance the Big Bang began. The bridge between A and B is a new event. But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity? No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.

If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?

Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

False-Dichotomy.

Name the third option between "something" and "nothing".

There isn't one, but what you are saying is still a false-dichotomy. Maybe everything always existed in some form. Meaning that it wasn't caused, but it also didn't come from nothing either (as that would presuppose it began to exist).
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 8:59:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 8:58:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2014 8:55:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/15/2014 8:53:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

-------

WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.

If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing? Assuming physical things have always existed to be the thing from which everything came from, did time not exist yet? If time did exist, then time is eternal. Since time is simply just the relative difference between two events, and if the first event is eternal, then how did passage of time within eternity permit the big bang to occur as a new sequential event? Example: Given event A and B, event A (before the big bang) is eternal. Event B is the instance the Big Bang began. The bridge between A and B is a new event. But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity? No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.

If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?

Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

False-Dichotomy.

Name the third option between "something" and "nothing".

There isn't one, but what you are saying is still a false-dichotomy. Maybe everything always existed in some form. Meaning that it wasn't caused, but it also didn't come from nothing either (as that would presuppose it began to exist).

Which still entails option (1) or option (2)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 9:04:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 8:59:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/15/2014 8:58:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2014 8:55:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/15/2014 8:53:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

-------

WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.

If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing? Assuming physical things have always existed to be the thing from which everything came from, did time not exist yet? If time did exist, then time is eternal. Since time is simply just the relative difference between two events, and if the first event is eternal, then how did passage of time within eternity permit the big bang to occur as a new sequential event? Example: Given event A and B, event A (before the big bang) is eternal. Event B is the instance the Big Bang began. The bridge between A and B is a new event. But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity? No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.

If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?

Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

False-Dichotomy.

Name the third option between "something" and "nothing".

There isn't one, but what you are saying is still a false-dichotomy. Maybe everything always existed in some form. Meaning that it wasn't caused, but it also didn't come from nothing either (as that would presuppose it began to exist).

Which still entails option (1) or option (2)

Nope. It is option (3), which entails neither option (1) or (2).
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 9:05:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 8:51:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(which seems absurd to deny)/

Give a source that shows why the B series of time logically exists.

They are evidence. You can look it up yourself.


I have. No logical evidence supports existence of the B series of time.

I gave you the lines of evidence, especially relativity which shows time is better described as a forth dimension, given time dilation. Quantum mechanics with interpretations that entail reterocausality, etc. A series of time appears to require granting ad hoc explanations to avoid these falsifications. Ergo a bad theory.

Does this contradict my previous statement where I infer that everything must've then came from nothing?

Yes, because the universe would then exist tenselessly.

It means we are using the wrong terminology. 'Coming from' is a nonsensical statement.

In some sense, on zero energy theory, the universe IS nothing, just the appearance of something overall is because of our myopic view of the larger picture.


So did the universe come from absolute nothing or didn't it? Simple question here.

Neither. It didn't 'come from'. It just 'is' assuming what I mentioned.

So in other words, you cannot provide a single example? Why should I defy inductive reasoning, or any logic whatsoever, to consider what you believe is true? And also, why would inductive reasoning not have merit outside of space-time?

Because you are trying to take your excellent expertise to repair a car, and try to use it to fix a human. They are completely different concepts. It's a sweeping generalisation fallacy, as zmike puts it. Why would we have an example when we only observe within spacetime, where there is rules, time and entropy?


I asked what good reason do we have to defy logic? If no good reason to defy how we know reality to be true, there is no good reason to reject it. If you disagree, a good reason should be shown as to why we should reject how we know reality to be true.

Please provide your 'logic'. You have cited 'logic' multiple times but I have yet to see a shred of it. I deny your application of logic.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 9:06:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 9:04:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2014 8:59:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/15/2014 8:58:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2014 8:55:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/15/2014 8:53:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

-------

WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.

If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing? Assuming physical things have always existed to be the thing from which everything came from, did time not exist yet? If time did exist, then time is eternal. Since time is simply just the relative difference between two events, and if the first event is eternal, then how did passage of time within eternity permit the big bang to occur as a new sequential event? Example: Given event A and B, event A (before the big bang) is eternal. Event B is the instance the Big Bang began. The bridge between A and B is a new event. But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity? No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.

If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?

Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

False-Dichotomy.

Name the third option between "something" and "nothing".

There isn't one, but what you are saying is still a false-dichotomy. Maybe everything always existed in some form. Meaning that it wasn't caused, but it also didn't come from nothing either (as that would presuppose it began to exist).

Which still entails option (1) or option (2)

Nope. It is option (3), which entails neither option (1) or (2).

Then you've just contradicted yourself by saying that nothing exists between something and nothing.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 9:07:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 8:59:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/15/2014 8:58:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2014 8:55:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/15/2014 8:53:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Option 1: An uncaused, eternally existing thing is the original cause of everything else.

OR

Option 2: Everything came from absolute nothing.

-------

WARNING: Only read this next portion if you're ready for a barrage of questions. Otherwise you can just respond with your opinion on the top options.

If you choose option 1 and reference any physical material (time-space, matter, energy) as the thing from which everything else came, do you think that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of every physical thing? Assuming physical things have always existed to be the thing from which everything came from, did time not exist yet? If time did exist, then time is eternal. Since time is simply just the relative difference between two events, and if the first event is eternal, then how did passage of time within eternity permit the big bang to occur as a new sequential event? Example: Given event A and B, event A (before the big bang) is eternal. Event B is the instance the Big Bang began. The bridge between A and B is a new event. But if event A is eternal, no sequence in time could allow for it to bridge to event B. Eternity has an infinite value. Is infinity + 1,000 years any greater than infinity? No. 1,000 years past infinity is the same value as infinity. Therefore the bridge event would be logically impossible to ever occur.

If you believe that the Big Bang was the beginning of every physical thing and reference physical means as the cause of its origin, wouldn't you agree that in order for physical things to create itself, it would necessarily require its own pre-existence?

Logic tells us that anything that begins to exist requires the pre-existence of something else. Can you provide any contradictory example?

Do you think a transcendent cause, such as God, is not necessitated given the above conditions?

False-Dichotomy.

Name the third option between "something" and "nothing".

There isn't one, but what you are saying is still a false-dichotomy. Maybe everything always existed in some form. Meaning that it wasn't caused, but it also didn't come from nothing either (as that would presuppose it began to exist).

Which still entails option (1) or option (2)

If everything popped into being out of nothing, then that implies a beginning point temporally speaking at which it began to pop into existence out of nothing. If the universe is eternal, whether temporally or atemporally, then it couldn't have came into being out of nothing. Things that are eternal can't come into being.