The actual truth about how the universe came into play
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-09-2015, 09:31 PM
RE: The actual truth about how the universe came into play
(23-09-2015 02:05 PM)theophilus Wrote:  
(22-09-2015 03:14 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  Do you have anything at all to back up your "obvious fact"? Anything? Seriously, provide one smidgen for us to discuss like adults>

It is an observable fact. Just read any biology book that describes how complex life is at the cellular level and ask yourself if such complexity could have come about by chance.

Natural selection is not chance. Read a science book. Drinking Beverage

Quote:It is a characteristic of humans to ignore or explain away unpleasant facts so anyone who doesn't want to believe in God will find reasons to reject the evidence that proves his existence.

It is a characteristic of theists to ignore or explain away unpleasant facts so they can reject the evidence that indicates there are no gods.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
29-09-2015, 09:33 PM
RE: The actual truth about how the universe came into play
(29-09-2015 08:16 PM)jma12b Wrote:  Hey guys, so I go to a Christian university and for an assignment I need to present the cosmological argument and see what you guys think about it. Are there any holes in this argument as presented below that you see and how would you refute it if you can?

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Thanks!

So? Define 'cause'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-09-2015, 09:45 PM
RE: The actual truth about how the universe came into play
(29-09-2015 08:16 PM)jma12b Wrote:  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Bare assertion fallacy based on equivocation between things coming into existence from nothing and things coming into existence from pre-existing material.

Nothing in the universe really "begins to exist" in the sense implied by this premise. It is all rearrangements of pre-existing matter. To establish this premise as true, it would be necessary to show that something that comes into existence from nothing requires a cause.

And that might be slightly difficult, as, prior to the universe, there was no time. No time, no cause and effect. Without cause and effect, it's not just unnecessary for the universe to have had a cause - the very idea is incoherent.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
29-09-2015, 11:40 PM
RE: The actual truth about how the universe came into play
(29-09-2015 08:16 PM)jma12b Wrote:  Hey guys, so I go to a Christian university and for an assignment I need to present the cosmological argument and see what you guys think about it. Are there any holes in this argument as presented below that you see and how would you refute it if you can?

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Thanks!

OK so I answer. I think you should have seen these flaws yourself but... since you're going to Christee U, maybe they're not so hot on pointing out flaws in Christee arguments?

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

This is just an assertion. Secondly, why the weird phrasing? "Begins to exist???" Why not "Whatever *exists* has a cause"? How would you tell if something was "beginning to exist" over just existing? Do atoms "begin to exist"? Rolleyes

2. The universe began to exist.

Oh look, another assertion. How do you know this?

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Well if I grant you 1 and 2 then I have to grant you 3 don't I? I do not grant you 1 and 2 though.

What does "cause" even mean - events that precede the event in question that lead to it happening? I'm a bit suspicious of the whole cause and effect thing applied at a universe scale anyway. The universe simply progresses through time according to mathematical laws (as far as we know, and so far we have no reason to doubt this, although certainly the mathematical laws of quantum mechanics are quite weird and may introduce an inherent element of randomness into the evolution of the universe - good luck finding cause and effect at atomic scales Tongue ). If there's no time before the universe began... does "cause" mean anything?

TL; DR: The argument is full of holes.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
30-09-2015, 01:07 AM
RE: The actual truth about how the universe came into play
Haha, and once you've *got* that the universe has a cause? Is the next step to produce the creator? Who *just so happens* to be Jehovah-God, war-god of the Hebrews? Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2015, 06:45 AM
RE: The actual truth about how the universe came into play
(29-09-2015 08:16 PM)jma12b Wrote:  Hey guys, so I go to a Christian university and for an assignment I need to present the cosmological argument and see what you guys think about it. Are there any holes in this argument as presented below that you see and how would you refute it if you can?

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Begins to exist ex nihilo or ex materia?
If you mean ex nihilo then what examples do you actually have? The only things I know of that might qualify are quantum fluctuations that, as far as we know, do not have a cause.
If you mean ex materia then, within the universe, that appears to be the case although if quantum events really don't have a cause then aren't macro-level events ultimately affected by causeless events? Of course, if the universe was created ex materia (as Genesis actually can be read to imply) then saying it was 'created' is misleading at best.

Quote:2. The universe began to exist.

The universe as it is now apparently began to exist some 14+ billion years ago but we do not know if that was ex nihilo or ex materia. Perhaps the big bang was a transition from an earlier state (if that even makes sense if time began at that moment). If the net energy of the universe is zero then maybe it is the ultimate free lunch. The bottom line is that the real answer is "we don't know".

Quote:3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given that both premise 1 and premise 2 are malformed the conclusion they reach is worthless. They are attempting to apply everyday experience and "common sense" for what works within the universe to the universe itself and that's a category error. God-of-the-gaps doesn't get better no matter how much obfuscation is layered onto it.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
30-09-2015, 03:58 PM
RE: The actual truth about how the universe came into play
(29-09-2015 08:16 PM)jma12b Wrote:  Hey guys, so I go to a Christian university and for an assignment I need to present the cosmological argument and see what you guys think about it. Are there any holes in this argument as presented below that you see and how would you refute it if you can?

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Thanks!

What often gets taced on to this is

4. God is the best explanation for this cause.
5. Therefore, God Exists.

I am not a Physicist. So I don't feel well suited to give you a response. However here are two physicists.

Cosmological Closure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1DdWeK5XM
William Lane Craig Wrong about Cosmology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-K85WW4fNg

And if you have time. An amazing debate between William Lane Craig a man that basically makes his living on this premises alone. And Dr. Sean Carroll A Theoretical Physicist. It's over two hours long but if you're looking for some really details on the nitty gritty of this argument I highly recommend it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2015, 04:01 PM
RE: The actual truth about how the universe came into play
(29-09-2015 08:16 PM)jma12b Wrote:  Hey guys, so I go to a Christian university and for an assignment I need to present the cosmological argument and see what you guys think about it. Are there any holes in this argument as presented below that you see and how would you refute it if you can?

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Thanks!


I can refute? Really? Yay!!!

1. What do you mean by "begins to exist"?
2. We don't know if the universe did "begin to exist" in the sense I think you are implying.
3. So what? Even if I'm feeling incredibly generous and grant both previous points without contention, so what? This has no implications on the kind of cause it could be, and certainly does not lead to your God. I could say that trans-dimensional aliens did it and the conclusion would be just as valid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2015, 05:16 PM
RE: The actual truth about how the universe came into play
(29-09-2015 08:16 PM)jma12b Wrote:  Hey guys, so I go to a Christian university and for an assignment I need to present the cosmological argument and see what you guys think about it. Are there any holes in this argument as presented below that you see and how would you refute it if you can?

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Thanks!

First let’s look at the Cosmological argument:

Incorporating Aristotle's notion of a "prime mover" into Summa Theological and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas famously formulated his version of the cosmological or "first cause" argument. According to this argument, the things which we see around us now are the products of a series of previous causes. But that series cannot go back in time forever. Thus there must be some first cause which was not itself caused by anything else. And that first uncaused cause is God.

The argument can be put more formally as follows:

1. Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.
2. Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.
3. Therefore, at least one thing is itself uncaused.

There are several problems with this argument. The most crucial objection to the argument itself is that unless we know that premise 2 is true, the argument fails. If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, everything could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes—multiple gods, say—or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?" you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental question—"Why is there something rather than nothing?"—remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists? This is the epitome of god-of-the-gaps argument. We don’t know…so….god.

One cannot state with any degree of validity that the first causal theory doesn't apply to the mythical egocentric Abrahamic god because one has the unique opinion he is the "eternal god", thus wasn't "caused". How does one arrive at that thought? How does one ascertain ones version of "god" is eternal? Which god by the way? There are so many, yet each fan club thinks their god is the only god, the true god and the only true religion. The irony of that kills me. 4500 different religions, all of which claim their god is the one, the truth and the light. Christianity alone has over 40,000 strains of their delusion, and each declares all others are not "true Christians".

The major premise of the argument, ""everything had a cause," is contradicted by the conclusion that "god did not have a cause." You can't have it both ways. If everything had to have had a cause, then there could not be a first cause. If it is possible to think of a god as uncaused, then it is possible to think the same of the universe.

Some theists, observing that all "effects" need a cause, assert that god is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove. If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe. The word "cause" is a transitive verb. Causality requires temporality. If god exists outside of time, he cannot cause anything.

The latest spin on this position by Christian philosophers like William Lane Craig is that:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This may be seductive to those who already believe in a god. To me, it seems awfully suspicious. The clause "Everything that begins to exist" sounds artificial. It is not a phrase we hear outside the context of theistic philosophy. It appears to be an Ad Hoc construction designed to smooth over earlier apologetic efforts.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
23-11-2015, 11:25 AM
RE: The actual truth about how the universe came into play
(16-09-2015 10:45 AM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  
(16-09-2015 10:00 AM)trevor_jennings Wrote:  So all im hearing from all of is that the universe came from absolutely nothing. I swear you guys have a really ignorant sense of mind and choose to not believe the obvious. The universe is way to complex to made from nothing...you guys are absurd Laughat

I'd like to compliment you for this post. Not only did you keep it brief and to the point but the references were solid. You outlined your hypothesis and methods clearly, presented your data in a very user friendly manner and then the conclusion hammered it home with authority. I look forward to further posts from you. Please do share the peer reviewed article that I am sure you are working on right this moment when it is published. I see great potential in you and perhaps even a Nobel Prize. You are that good.

Hubris is anathema to good science, as are presupposed biases. There is a line between atheism and anti-theism. Am I right in noting that this site is anti-theist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: