Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

God is the only logical choice.

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 5:19:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Argument 1:


Either everything began to exist from physical means:

(1) From pre-existence of something physical, or (2) from absolute nothing

Or

everything began to exist from metaphysical means:

(a) from metaphysical means defying logic, or (b) from other metaphysical means consistent with logic.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)

Everything that begins to exist require pre-existence of something physical. This leads to an infinite regression (logically impossible because this moment in time builds upon a progression of prior events. If prior events are endless, nothing can progress.)

(2)

Everything that begins to exist has never shown to come from absolute nothing (Inductively, logically impossible).

(a)

Everything that began to exist could've been originated from different laws than the current ones that govern our universe. Logic is a process that allows us to make predictions based on how the universe behaves. If we attribute different laws than our current ones that've allowed the creation of matter, we are defying logic. Therefore, this relies upon logically impossible means in order to explain matter creation.

(b)

Everything that began to exist began from a metaphysical, eternally existent cause. This is the only logically consistent option.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 5:37:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Logic and reasoning are not wanted like claimed, they want "objective evidence" from some scientist, logic and reason went out the window.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 6:32:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 5:19:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Argument 1:


Either everything began to exist from physical means:

(1) From pre-existence of something physical, or (2) from absolute nothing

Or

everything began to exist from metaphysical means:

(a) from metaphysical means defying logic, or (b) from other metaphysical means consistent with logic.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)

Everything that begins to exist require pre-existence of something physical. This leads to an infinite regression (logically impossible because this moment in time builds upon a progression of prior events. If prior events are endless, nothing can progress.)


(2)

Everything that begins to exist has never shown to come from absolute nothing (Inductively, logically impossible).

(a)

Everything that began to exist could've been originated from different laws than the current ones that govern our universe. Logic is a process that allows us to make predictions based on how the universe behaves. If we attribute different laws than our current ones that've allowed the creation of matter, we are defying logic. Therefore, this relies upon logically impossible means in order to explain matter creation.

(b)

Everything that began to exist began from a metaphysical, eternally existent cause. This is the only logically consistent option.

You're excluding the possibility that "everything physical" didn't actually "begin to exist," but has always existed. All matter is just a form of energy, so it would be fair to say that "everything physical" can be said to be the total of all energy that exists. According to the laws of the universe, as we understand them, energy can't be created or destroyed. Therefore, all energy that exists has always existed. No metaphysical anything necessary.

So, evidence shows that everything physical is a form of energy, which can't be made to exist or not exist. By contrast, we have no evidence that a state of nothingness can exist, nor that anything metaphysical exists. To me, it looks like the best fit for the available evidence is that "everything physical" has always existed, but that its form constantly changes.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 6:41:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 6:32:56 PM, Burzmali wrote:

You're excluding the possibility that "everything physical" didn't actually "begin to exist," but has always existed. All matter is just a form of energy, so it would be fair to say that "everything physical" can be said to be the total of all energy that exists. According to the laws of the universe, as we understand them, energy can't be created or destroyed. Therefore, all energy that exists has always existed. No metaphysical anything necessary.

Didn't he address this, as this would be an infinite regression? If there existed an infinite regression such as this (energy having always existed), then progress would be impossible, as he stated. In other words, we could've never reached today. Or tomorrow. Or yesterday. It's impossible because an infinite amount of time must have occurred before when the energy existed. So it's impossible to get anywhere.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 6:48:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 6:41:14 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 8/18/2014 6:32:56 PM, Burzmali wrote:

You're excluding the possibility that "everything physical" didn't actually "begin to exist," but has always existed. All matter is just a form of energy, so it would be fair to say that "everything physical" can be said to be the total of all energy that exists. According to the laws of the universe, as we understand them, energy can't be created or destroyed. Therefore, all energy that exists has always existed. No metaphysical anything necessary.

Didn't he address this, as this would be an infinite regression? If there existed an infinite regression such as this (energy having always existed), then progress would be impossible, as he stated. In other words, we could've never reached today. Or tomorrow. Or yesterday. It's impossible because an infinite amount of time must have occurred before when the energy existed. So it's impossible to get anywhere.

Energy always existing isn't an infinite regression. An infinite regression happens when something comes from something else, which came from something else, etc. Basically, who created the creator is an infinite regression that theists always stop by saying "the creator has always existed." The OP does that himself by saying that the metaphysical cause for everything physical has always existed. I'm pointing out the same thing with energy. Energy just changes forms, it can't be created or destroyed. Therefore, it has always existed. Either the "has always existed" argument works for both energy and whatever the OP's alleged metaphysical creator is, or it doesn't work for both. We can't have it apply to one and not the other.
Keltron
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 6:51:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 5:37:13 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Logic and reasoning are not wanted like claimed, they want "objective evidence" from some scientist, logic and reason went out the window.

It is neither logical nor reasonable to accept the physical existence of something which cannot even be defined except in metaphysical and anthropomorphic terms. What is God of itself? I honestly don't have a problem with the concept of God provided it stays wholly within the realm of metaphysics. Archetypal modelling is useful in a mythological context. But to bring God into the physical realm you have to define what it is intrinsically, and demonstrate its existence- neither of which is possible in my opinion.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 6:55:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 6:48:15 PM, Burzmali wrote:

Energy always existing isn't an infinite regression. An infinite regression happens when something comes from something else, which came from something else, etc. Basically, who created the creator is an infinite regression that theists always stop by saying "the creator has always existed."

You're correct there. I used the term incorrectly, but the overarching concept is still the same - it's still impossible to progress. We could not have ever reached today if there was an infinite amount of time before today.

The OP does that himself by saying that the metaphysical cause for everything physical has always existed. I'm pointing out the same thing with energy. Energy just changes forms, it can't be created or destroyed. Therefore, it has always existed. Either the "has always existed" argument works for both energy and whatever the OP's alleged metaphysical creator is, or it doesn't work for both. We can't have it apply to one and not the other.

Well, not quite. A metaphysical force that exists outside time, for example, would fulfill the problem of always existing. Physical matter, however, must exist within time, and thus the problem I presented earlier rises. On the other hand, if the metaphysical force exists outside of time or it transcends time (perhaps it created time), then this problem is solved.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 7:07:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 6:55:37 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 8/18/2014 6:48:15 PM, Burzmali wrote:

Energy always existing isn't an infinite regression. An infinite regression happens when something comes from something else, which came from something else, etc. Basically, who created the creator is an infinite regression that theists always stop by saying "the creator has always existed."

You're correct there. I used the term incorrectly, but the overarching concept is still the same - it's still impossible to progress. We could not have ever reached today if there was an infinite amount of time before today.

That comment is akin to Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise. The existence of infinite time doesn't preclude progression, as far as I can tell. Also, why does the eternalness of energy automatically mean time is eternal?

The OP does that himself by saying that the metaphysical cause for everything physical has always existed. I'm pointing out the same thing with energy. Energy just changes forms, it can't be created or destroyed. Therefore, it has always existed. Either the "has always existed" argument works for both energy and whatever the OP's alleged metaphysical creator is, or it doesn't work for both. We can't have it apply to one and not the other.

Well, not quite. A metaphysical force that exists outside time, for example, would fulfill the problem of always existing. Physical matter, however, must exist within time, and thus the problem I presented earlier rises. On the other hand, if the metaphysical force exists outside of time or it transcends time (perhaps it created time), then this problem is solved.

That then brings us to the question of how anyone can know whether a metaphysical force exists at all, and, if we can know of it, how we can possibly ascribe "timeless" to it as an attribute.

As for energy and time, time is not a thing that exists in the sense that energy exists. In fact, we use change to define what time is. Change is only possible when energy exists, so it could be argued that energy does create time. If there is no energy, then there is no change, and then there is no time. So as long as energy has existed in a state where change was possible, then time has existed. Therefore, energy has always existed.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 7:08:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 6:51:48 PM, Keltron wrote:
At 8/18/2014 5:37:13 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Logic and reasoning are not wanted like claimed, they want "objective evidence" from some scientist, logic and reason went out the window.

It is neither logical nor reasonable to accept the physical existence of something which cannot even be defined except in metaphysical and anthropomorphic terms. What is God of itself? I honestly don't have a problem with the concept of God provided it stays wholly within the realm of metaphysics. Archetypal modelling is useful in a mythological context. But to bring God into the physical realm you have to define what it is intrinsically, and demonstrate its existence- neither of which is possible in my opinion.

I'm not trying to accept the physical existence of God or bring God into the physical, actually it's quite the opposite lol, Atheists do that, God is not physical.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 7:19:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 7:08:44 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 6:51:48 PM, Keltron wrote:
At 8/18/2014 5:37:13 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Logic and reasoning are not wanted like claimed, they want "objective evidence" from some scientist, logic and reason went out the window.

It is neither logical nor reasonable to accept the physical existence of something which cannot even be defined except in metaphysical and anthropomorphic terms. What is God of itself? I honestly don't have a problem with the concept of God provided it stays wholly within the realm of metaphysics. Archetypal modelling is useful in a mythological context. But to bring God into the physical realm you have to define what it is intrinsically, and demonstrate its existence- neither of which is possible in my opinion.

I'm not trying to accept the physical existence of God or bring God into the physical, actually it's quite the opposite lol, Atheists do that, God is not physical.

Unless of course you are agreeing with me, but you're an Atheist that's not possible lol...
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 7:20:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 7:07:33 PM, Burzmali wrote:

That comment is akin to Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise. The existence of infinite time doesn't preclude progression, as far as I can tell.

Logically speaking, it'd be impossible to reach a certain point X in an infinite time scale. Example: we could not have reached today. Why? Because there was an infinite amount of time before that point, and there was never a beginning.

Also, why does the eternalness of energy automatically mean time is eternal?

I find the theory that time is an emergent property of quantum entanglement (which necessarily requires the existence of matter or energy) to be the most convincing and logical theory concerning what time is; thus, time should necessarily exist with physical matter.


That then brings us to the question of how anyone can know whether a metaphysical force exists at all, and, if we can know of it, how we can possibly ascribe "timeless" to it as an attribute.

You're right. We can only apply the term "timeless" to it as an attribute in the sense that this metaphysical force must have existed outside of time if it is supposed to be the first cause of all things, because if it existed in time, then it couldn't have been the first cause. There would necessarily have to be a cause preceding that and so on.

We can't exactly fully comprehend the metaphysical force, though. A timeless world is something that we cannot understand - it is akin to an infinite world. We cannot truly understand infinity, either.

As for energy and time, time is not a thing that exists in the sense that energy exists. In fact, we use change to define what time is. Change is only possible when energy exists, so it could be argued that energy does create time. If there is no energy, then there is no change, and then there is no time. So as long as energy has existed in a state where change was possible, then time has existed. Therefore, energy has always existed.

This relates to what I believe time is in the above paragraphs. In a world of time, there is necessarily a sequence of events (or change, as you've said), but if there is an outside observer or extrinsic thing observing the system, the world of time would appear static despite it being a world that has time in it.
Keltron
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 7:32:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 7:19:12 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 7:08:44 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 6:51:48 PM, Keltron wrote:
At 8/18/2014 5:37:13 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Logic and reasoning are not wanted like claimed, they want "objective evidence" from some scientist, logic and reason went out the window.

It is neither logical nor reasonable to accept the physical existence of something which cannot even be defined except in metaphysical and anthropomorphic terms. What is God of itself? I honestly don't have a problem with the concept of God provided it stays wholly within the realm of metaphysics. Archetypal modelling is useful in a mythological context. But to bring God into the physical realm you have to define what it is intrinsically, and demonstrate its existence- neither of which is possible in my opinion.

I'm not trying to accept the physical existence of God or bring God into the physical, actually it's quite the opposite lol, Atheists do that, God is not physical.

Unless of course you are agreeing with me, but you're an Atheist that's not possible lol...

Well, maybe I am. Like I said, I don't have a problem with a purely metaphysical God. It can be useful in any number of ways as a literary device. When Pagans talk about the Goddess and the God, I understand that they are personifying natural forces. I'm a little more confused when it comes to conversing with those of the Abrahamic tradition. Some Christians talk about God as a sort of connecting force of consciousness, or they will simply say that God is love. Others believe in the white bearded Celestial Poobah. I'm never sure what people are actually talking about when they use the term God.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 7:46:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 7:32:33 PM, Keltron wrote:
At 8/18/2014 7:19:12 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 7:08:44 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 6:51:48 PM, Keltron wrote:
At 8/18/2014 5:37:13 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Logic and reasoning are not wanted like claimed, they want "objective evidence" from some scientist, logic and reason went out the window.

It is neither logical nor reasonable to accept the physical existence of something which cannot even be defined except in metaphysical and anthropomorphic terms. What is God of itself? I honestly don't have a problem with the concept of God provided it stays wholly within the realm of metaphysics. Archetypal modelling is useful in a mythological context. But to bring God into the physical realm you have to define what it is intrinsically, and demonstrate its existence- neither of which is possible in my opinion.

I'm not trying to accept the physical existence of God or bring God into the physical, actually it's quite the opposite lol, Atheists do that, God is not physical.

Unless of course you are agreeing with me, but you're an Atheist that's not possible lol...

Well, maybe I am. Like I said, I don't have a problem with a purely metaphysical God. It can be useful in any number of ways as a literary device. When Pagans talk about the Goddess and the God, I understand that they are personifying natural forces. I'm a little more confused when it comes to conversing with those of the Abrahamic tradition. Some Christians talk about God as a sort of connecting force of consciousness, or they will simply say that God is love. Others believe in the white bearded Celestial Poobah. I'm never sure what people are actually talking about when they use the term God.

Wow I'm impressed that you can discern at least that. The nature of the "Biblical" God is Spirit, which simply means He is not a physical Entity, no physical properties but spiritual beings still have a form, we are created in the image of God. Since God is a Spirit our connection with God is spiritual and is revealed in scripture. When people(Christians) use the term "God" they are referring to the Creator of what exists, lol sorry to state the obvious there.
Keltron
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 8:11:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 7:46:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 7:32:33 PM, Keltron wrote:
At 8/18/2014 7:19:12 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 7:08:44 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 6:51:48 PM, Keltron wrote:
At 8/18/2014 5:37:13 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Logic and reasoning are not wanted like claimed, they want "objective evidence" from some scientist, logic and reason went out the window.

It is neither logical nor reasonable to accept the physical existence of something which cannot even be defined except in metaphysical and anthropomorphic terms. What is God of itself? I honestly don't have a problem with the concept of God provided it stays wholly within the realm of metaphysics. Archetypal modelling is useful in a mythological context. But to bring God into the physical realm you have to define what it is intrinsically, and demonstrate its existence- neither of which is possible in my opinion.

I'm not trying to accept the physical existence of God or bring God into the physical, actually it's quite the opposite lol, Atheists do that, God is not physical.

Unless of course you are agreeing with me, but you're an Atheist that's not possible lol...

Well, maybe I am. Like I said, I don't have a problem with a purely metaphysical God. It can be useful in any number of ways as a literary device. When Pagans talk about the Goddess and the God, I understand that they are personifying natural forces. I'm a little more confused when it comes to conversing with those of the Abrahamic tradition. Some Christians talk about God as a sort of connecting force of consciousness, or they will simply say that God is love. Others believe in the white bearded Celestial Poobah. I'm never sure what people are actually talking about when they use the term God.

Wow I'm impressed that you can discern at least that. The nature of the "Biblical" God is Spirit, which simply means He is not a physical Entity, no physical properties but spiritual beings still have a form, we are created in the image of God. Since God is a Spirit our connection with God is spiritual and is revealed in scripture. When people(Christians) use the term "God" they are referring to the Creator of what exists, lol sorry to state the obvious there.

Some people think that God is controlling the weather, and others, like yourself have a more nuanced point of view. I'm always interested in other people's experience of things. I have an evangelical Christian background so I tend to see the literalist position as defacto- a bias that I'm trying to undo. Anyway, I appreciate the reply.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 8:27:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 7:20:42 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
Logically speaking, it'd be impossible to reach a certain point X in an infinite time scale. Example: we could not have reached today. Why? Because there was an infinite amount of time before that point, and there was never a beginning.

And, logically, it's impossible for Achilles to overtake the tortoise since there are an infinite number of points he must reach before then. Yet Achilles will overtake the tortoise, and here we are at today.

I find the theory that time is an emergent property of quantum entanglement (which necessarily requires the existence of matter or energy) to be the most convincing and logical theory concerning what time is; thus, time should necessarily exist with physical matter.

Time should exist with physical matter, but not necessarily if there is no matter. It's possible that the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang was only energy. And it's widely accepted that time, as we know it, did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Then it's not necessarily so that time is infinite if energy is eternal. If all energy that exists is in an unchanging state, then there is no time.

You're right. We can only apply the term "timeless" to it as an attribute in the sense that this metaphysical force must have existed outside of time if it is supposed to be the first cause of all things, because if it existed in time, then it couldn't have been the first cause. There would necessarily have to be a cause preceding that and so on.

We can't exactly fully comprehend the metaphysical force, though. A timeless world is something that we cannot understand - it is akin to an infinite world. We cannot truly understand infinity, either.

That makes the argument circular, then. And ultimately means that the possibility of a metaphysical, eternal being has nothing other than words to support it. Meanwhile, we have empirical evidence that shows energy can't be created or destroyed. So the OP is posing the idea that a force evidenced by nothing other than an argument is more logical than something we have irrefutable proof of existing, and that appears to be eternal.

This relates to what I believe time is in the above paragraphs. In a world of time, there is necessarily a sequence of events (or change, as you've said), but if there is an outside observer or extrinsic thing observing the system, the world of time would appear static despite it being a world that has time in it.

Again, presupposing that the external observer exists at all. So far, there are only words claiming it to be so.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 9:10:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 8:27:28 PM, Burzmali wrote:

And, logically, it's impossible for Achilles to overtake the tortoise since there are an infinite number of points he must reach before then. Yet Achilles will overtake the tortoise, and here we are at today.

Zenos continues to argue that everything we perceive is merely an illusion, and there is no such thing as motion. So unless his argument is refuted, his points still stand.

Furthermore, a closed infinity is not the same as an open-ended infinity. In the Achilles example, there is the problem that there is an infinite number of values between two points, but in this problem, there is the fact that it's open ended. There is no beginning or end point for there to be an infinite number of points between. There is simply ... well, we don't know. There's never a beginning, there's never an end. It's an open-ended infinity, of a completely different nature, and is thus an entirely different problem.

Time should exist with physical matter, but not necessarily if there is no matter. It's possible that the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang was only energy.

Only energy and no time? I find this hard to believe. A sequence of events would have been absolutely necessary for a process such as the Big Bang to occur. The very fact that the Big Bang is a process in itself requires the existence of time, as a process is a sequence of events (or change), which cannot exist without time.

Indeed, people are studying how quantum fields and their fluctuations bring particles with their opposite pairs into and out of existence (for reasons not fully known), and this is believed to have played a part in the Big Bang; necessarily, there should have been time if there were such quantum fields.

That makes the argument circular, then.

How is it circular? It does not assume it's conclusion to reach it's conclusion. Everything that exists purely within time cannot be the first cause of everything; however, if something exists outside of time, then it can be the first cause.

Necessarily, whatever was the first cause must have existed outside of time, even if it was just energy (as you proposed above).

And ultimately means that the possibility of a metaphysical, eternal being has nothing other than words to support it.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a "being." It could just be some unknown force, correct? For example, you proposed that energy has always existed - from your point of view, it's possible that energy that existed without time could have potentially been the first cause, though as I've already explained this does not make sense. Physical matter, energy, and processes require sequences of events or changes to occur or exist (i.e. time).

Furthermore, these words that are supporting the existence of metaphysical forces or beings are actually logical arguments and rational thinking. We are speaking of metaphysical forces, after all. If we're going to consider them, we have to heavily rely upon logical arguments and rational thinking, since we currently (and probably never will, as we are bounded by time) have the means to obtain empirical evidence of such things.

Meanwhile, we have empirical evidence that shows energy can't be created or destroyed. So the OP is posing the idea that a force evidenced by nothing other than an argument is more logical than something we have irrefutable proof of existing, and that appears to be eternal.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed ... provided it's a closed system. If you add energy or take energy away, then the system has a gain or loss in energy. It's possible this metaphysical force, existing timelessly (potentially overlapping with time itself) could act as an outside source of energy to be the first cause.

Again, presupposing that the external observer exists at all. So far, there are only words claiming it to be so.

Logical and rational arguments hold as viable theories until they are disproven.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 12:37:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 9:10:46 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
Zenos continues to argue that everything we perceive is merely an illusion, and there is no such thing as motion. So unless his argument is refuted, his points still stand.

Furthermore, a closed infinity is not the same as an open-ended infinity. In the Achilles example, there is the problem that there is an infinite number of values between two points, but in this problem, there is the fact that it's open ended. There is no beginning or end point for there to be an infinite number of points between. There is simply ... well, we don't know. There's never a beginning, there's never an end. It's an open-ended infinity, of a completely different nature, and is thus an entirely different problem.

The Big Bang was the start of time, as we know it. So that end of infinite time is closed, as far as we know. Which directly refutes the supposed problem with energy being eternal. There isn't infinite time up to this point. There's only ~14 billion years.

Only energy and no time? I find this hard to believe. A sequence of events would have been absolutely necessary for a process such as the Big Bang to occur. The very fact that the Big Bang is a process in itself requires the existence of time, as a process is a sequence of events (or change), which cannot exist without time.

The current theory is that time began at the start of the Big Bang. Yes, it was a process. But we don't know of any processes before it, so time before it is not required. I understand that it's hard to believe, but energy without change would be a timeless state.

Indeed, people are studying how quantum fields and their fluctuations bring particles with their opposite pairs into and out of existence (for reasons not fully known), and this is believed to have played a part in the Big Bang; necessarily, there should have been time if there were such quantum fields.

Right, time during the Big Bang, but not before.

How is it circular? It does not assume it's conclusion to reach it's conclusion. Everything that exists purely within time cannot be the first cause of everything; however, if something exists outside of time, then it can be the first cause.

Necessarily, whatever was the first cause must have existed outside of time, even if it was just energy (as you proposed above).

Outside of time, but not outside of what we understand as physical existence. You keep using within time as though it's the same as physical existence. Anyway, the assumption is that anything metaphysical can exist at all and has some unknown properties that make it undetectable physically but still somehow able to interact with the physical universe. Circular was the wrong descriptor. Rather, it's vague nonsense.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a "being." It could just be some unknown force, correct? For example, you proposed that energy has always existed - from your point of view, it's possible that energy that existed without time could have potentially been the first cause, though as I've already explained this does not make sense. Physical matter, energy, and processes require sequences of events or changes to occur or exist (i.e. time).

According to our universe, as we know it, that may be correct. But we have no idea what the universe was like prior to the Big Bang. Regardless, it doesn't matter whether the proposed metaphysical cause is a force or a being. We have no evidence, aside from words, that it could even exist. But we know energy exists and that it appears to be eternal. Again, the choice being offered in the OP is observable, testable, known forces or a force that has none of that to support it.

Furthermore, these words that are supporting the existence of metaphysical forces or beings are actually logical arguments and rational thinking. We are speaking of metaphysical forces, after all. If we're going to consider them, we have to heavily rely upon logical arguments and rational thinking, since we currently (and probably never will, as we are bounded by time) have the means to obtain empirical evidence of such things.

So we need to consider something that we can't know except in so far as we can make up stories to pretend that it exists. That isn't logical. It's garbage in and garbage out.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed ... provided it's a closed system. If you add energy or take energy away, then the system has a gain or loss in energy. It's possible this metaphysical force, existing timelessly (potentially overlapping with time itself) could act as an outside source of energy to be the first cause.

No, energy cannot be created or destroyed, period. Energy introduced into a system is not created. It's just transferred. If something metaphysical introduces more energy into the universe, then it is simply additional energy moved from outside to inside. It existed prior to being transferred, so it wasn't created. And since energy is physical, that would make the force at least partially physical. Maybe we ought to back track and start with a definition for "metaphysical."

Logical and rational arguments hold as viable theories until they are disproven.

The metaphysical force idea might fit a logical structure, but it isn't rational. The premises that people propose for it are flawed. There is no rational reason to think that anything metaphysical exists. With only words to support it, the entire thing comes off like an argument from ignorance.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 9:15:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 5:19:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Argument 1:


Either everything began to exist from physical means:

(1) From pre-existence of something physical, or (2) from absolute nothing

Or

everything began to exist from metaphysical means:

Or something began to exist without a cause ?


(a) from metaphysical means defying logic, or (b) from other metaphysical means consistent with logic.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)

Everything that begins to exist require pre-existence of something physical. This leads to an infinite regression (logically impossible because this moment in time builds upon a progression of prior events. If prior events are endless, nothing can progress.)


(2)

Everything that begins to exist has never shown to come from absolute nothing (Inductively, logically impossible).


(a)

Everything that began to exist could've been originated from different laws than the current ones that govern our universe. Logic is a process that allows us to make predictions based on how the universe behaves. If we attribute different laws than our current ones that've allowed the creation of matter, we are defying logic. Therefore, this relies upon logically impossible means in order to explain matter creation.

(b)

Everything that began to exist began from a metaphysical, eternally existent cause. This is the only logically consistent option.

Not really. You just stacked the decked with what is or is not possible to get to your desired conclusion. Two can play at that game...

"Everything that begins to exist has never shown to come from absolute nothing (Inductively, logically impossible)."

Minds have not never being shown to not be dependent on brains.

It's easy to state something is logically impossible, proving that is quite hard.

1) X begins to exist if X exists and there is some point in the past where it did not exist
2) There is no point in the past where the universe did not exist
C) Therefore the universe did not exist
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 10:24:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 8:11:56 PM, Keltron wrote:
At 8/18/2014 7:46:43 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 7:32:33 PM, Keltron wrote:
At 8/18/2014 7:19:12 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 7:08:44 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 6:51:48 PM, Keltron wrote:
At 8/18/2014 5:37:13 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Logic and reasoning are not wanted like claimed, they want "objective evidence" from some scientist, logic and reason went out the window.

It is neither logical nor reasonable to accept the physical existence of something which cannot even be defined except in metaphysical and anthropomorphic terms. What is God of itself? I honestly don't have a problem with the concept of God provided it stays wholly within the realm of metaphysics. Archetypal modelling is useful in a mythological context. But to bring God into the physical realm you have to define what it is intrinsically, and demonstrate its existence- neither of which is possible in my opinion.

I'm not trying to accept the physical existence of God or bring God into the physical, actually it's quite the opposite lol, Atheists do that, God is not physical.

Unless of course you are agreeing with me, but you're an Atheist that's not possible lol...

Well, maybe I am. Like I said, I don't have a problem with a purely metaphysical God. It can be useful in any number of ways as a literary device. When Pagans talk about the Goddess and the God, I understand that they are personifying natural forces. I'm a little more confused when it comes to conversing with those of the Abrahamic tradition. Some Christians talk about God as a sort of connecting force of consciousness, or they will simply say that God is love. Others believe in the white bearded Celestial Poobah. I'm never sure what people are actually talking about when they use the term God.

Wow I'm impressed that you can discern at least that. The nature of the "Biblical" God is Spirit, which simply means He is not a physical Entity, no physical properties but spiritual beings still have a form, we are created in the image of God. Since God is a Spirit our connection with God is spiritual and is revealed in scripture. When people(Christians) use the term "God" they are referring to the Creator of what exists, lol sorry to state the obvious there.

Some people think that God is controlling the weather, and others, like yourself have a more nuanced point of view. I'm always interested in other people's experience of things. I have an evangelical Christian background so I tend to see the literalist position as defacto- a bias that I'm trying to undo. Anyway, I appreciate the reply.

Sure thing, you have me curious now could you give me an example of what you mean by a "literalist position" in the context of this discussion?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 10:41:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 9:15:26 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/18/2014 5:19:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Argument 1:


Either everything began to exist from physical means:

(1) From pre-existence of something physical, or (2) from absolute nothing

Or

everything began to exist from metaphysical means:

Or something began to exist without a cause ?

Explain how that's different than option 2. If something began to exist without a cause it's something originating from absolute nothing and has no cause of its existence.

If something physical was eternally existent to cause the Big Bang to exist, that's option 1. I stated that everything began to exist from pre-existence of something physical. If something physical has existed eternally it never began to exist.


(a) from metaphysical means defying logic, or (b) from other metaphysical means consistent with logic.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)

Everything that begins to exist require pre-existence of something physical. This leads to an infinite regression (logically impossible because this moment in time builds upon a progression of prior events. If prior events are endless, nothing can progress.)


(2)

Everything that begins to exist has never shown to come from absolute nothing (Inductively, logically impossible).



(a)

Everything that began to exist could've been originated from different laws than the current ones that govern our universe. Logic is a process that allows us to make predictions based on how the universe behaves. If we attribute different laws than our current ones that've allowed the creation of matter, we are defying logic. Therefore, this relies upon logically impossible means in order to explain matter creation.

(b)

Everything that began to exist began from a metaphysical, eternally existent cause. This is the only logically consistent option.

Not really. You just stacked the decked with what is or is not possible to get to your desired conclusion. Two can play at that game...

I'm using the cards of logic. Tell me where I was wrong?

"Everything that begins to exist has never shown to come from absolute nothing (Inductively, logically impossible)."

Minds have not never being shown to not be dependent on brains.

I don't know what "...not never being shown to not be..." means.

It's easy to state something is logically impossible, proving that is quite hard.

1) X begins to exist if X exists and there is some point in the past where it did not exist
2) There is no point in the past where the universe did not exist
C) Therefore the universe did not exist

So the universe existed before the Big Bang? What leads you to believe that? If this was meant only as an example argument I don't see how it's analogous to what I've presented.