Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2016, 10:49 AM
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
Theists often point to everyday things like cars and aeroplanes as "proof" that everything needs a creator. But none of these things have actually been "created", they are simply rearrangements of matter that already existed.

So that argument doesn't even go anywhere, its basically a straw man, they haven't actually addressed the question of how matter itself comes into existence.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Sam's post
13-02-2016, 10:59 AM
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
Nice viddie. We know absolutely nothing before 10^-43 seconds. Nada, zero, zilch. We can't. Planck time. We postulate a "Big Bang" because it was a period of accelerated expansion and inflation and we associate those with explosions so we made a metaphor.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
13-02-2016, 11:04 AM
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
(13-02-2016 10:59 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Nice viddie. We know absolutely nothing before 10^-43 seconds. Nada, zero, zilch. We can't. Planck time. We postulate a "Big Bang" because it was a period of accelerated expansion and inflation and we associate those with explosions so we made a metaphor.

Did somebody say "Planck Time"?

The Catholics have been on that for centuries.




[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Sam's post
13-02-2016, 12:21 PM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2016 12:29 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
(07-02-2016 10:48 AM)bussta33 Wrote:  I came across this in a g+ community today and found it really interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efsD-AlDxEo
Someone send this to willam lane craig lmao.

There's a more fundamental reason that the universe does not require a cause. That reason is that the concept existence, which subsumes everything that exists, is conceptually irreducible. That means it does not rest on any prior concepts. It can't be analysed or explained in terms of prior knowledge. That's why existence can only be defined ostensively.

Since "existence" is the most fundamental concept, which denotes the sum total of what exists, there can be no cause of the everything. To what would it refer? To nothing. So those who ask "what caused the universe" are literally beginning with nothing as their starting point. But in order to be a legitimate starting point to knowledge, a concept must have referents or it literally has no meaning.

Theists think they can escape this problem by defining the universe (arbitrarily) as physical existence, implying that there is more out there which exists but is not included in the concept "universe". But this will not work because now the concept "universe" is no longer conceptually irreducible. It now is defined in terms of prior knowledge. What does physical mean? The concept "physical" is also not conceptually irreducible. Physical as opposed to what?

They leave us in the dark as to what their conceptually irreducible starting point is. They say it is God, but God is even a more complex concept which brings with it all sorts of hidden assumptions. So what is their conceptually irreducible starting point? If they were to name it explicitly, it would be consciousness. Consciousness is conceptually irreducible but there's a problem. Consciousness presupposes existence. To be conscious a subject would have to first exist and so would some object have to exist for it to be conscious of. A consciousness without anything to be consciousness of is a contradiction in terms. Not only that but this would commit the fallacy of the stolen concept by positing consciousness without existence and the fallacy of pure self-reference by positing a consciousness which references only of its own object-less referencing. It's a total non starter.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
13-02-2016, 12:31 PM
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
(13-02-2016 10:49 AM)Sam Wrote:  Theists often point to everyday things like cars and aeroplanes as "proof" that everything needs a creator. But none of these things have actually been "created", they are simply rearrangements of matter that already existed.

So that argument doesn't even go anywhere, its basically a straw man, they haven't actually addressed the question of how matter itself comes into existence.

Awesome! very succinct!

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2016, 12:59 PM
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
(13-02-2016 12:21 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(07-02-2016 10:48 AM)bussta33 Wrote:  I came across this in a g+ community today and found it really interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efsD-AlDxEo
Someone send this to willam lane craig lmao.

There's a more fundamental reason that the universe does not require a cause. That reason is that the concept existence, which subsumes everything that exists, is conceptually irreducible. That means it does not rest on any prior concepts. It can't be analysed or explained in terms of prior knowledge. That's why existence can only be defined ostensively.

Since "existence" is the most fundamental concept, which denotes the sum total of what exists, there can be no cause of the everything. To what would it refer? To nothing. So those who ask "what caused the universe" are literally beginning with nothing as their starting point. But in order to be a legitimate starting point to knowledge, a concept must have referents or it literally has no meaning.

Theists think they can escape this problem by defining the universe (arbitrarily) as physical existence, implying that there is more out there which exists but is not included in the concept "universe". But this will not work because now the concept "universe" is no longer conceptually irreducible. It now is defined in terms of prior knowledge. What does physical mean? The concept "physical" is also not conceptually irreducible. Physical as opposed to what?

They leave us in the dark as to what their conceptually irreducible starting point is. They say it is God, but God is even a more complex concept which brings with it all sorts of hidden assumptions. So what is their conceptually irreducible starting point? If they were to name it explicitly, it would be consciousness. Consciousness is conceptually irreducible but there's a problem. Consciousness presupposes existence. To be conscious a subject would have to first exist and so would some object have to exist for it to be conscious of. A consciousness without anything to be consciousness of is a contradiction in terms. Not only that but this would commit the fallacy of the stolen concept by positing consciousness without existence and the fallacy of pure self-reference by positing a consciousness which references only of its own object-less referencing. It's a total non starter.

Yeah. That's what I was trying to say. You just did it a lot longer and better than I did. Tongue

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2016, 01:20 PM
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
(13-02-2016 12:59 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(13-02-2016 12:21 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  There's a more fundamental reason that the universe does not require a cause. That reason is that the concept existence, which subsumes everything that exists, is conceptually irreducible. That means it does not rest on any prior concepts. It can't be analysed or explained in terms of prior knowledge. That's why existence can only be defined ostensively.

Since "existence" is the most fundamental concept, which denotes the sum total of what exists, there can be no cause of the everything. To what would it refer? To nothing. So those who ask "what caused the universe" are literally beginning with nothing as their starting point. But in order to be a legitimate starting point to knowledge, a concept must have referents or it literally has no meaning.

Theists think they can escape this problem by defining the universe (arbitrarily) as physical existence, implying that there is more out there which exists but is not included in the concept "universe". But this will not work because now the concept "universe" is no longer conceptually irreducible. It now is defined in terms of prior knowledge. What does physical mean? The concept "physical" is also not conceptually irreducible. Physical as opposed to what?

They leave us in the dark as to what their conceptually irreducible starting point is. They say it is God, but God is even a more complex concept which brings with it all sorts of hidden assumptions. So what is their conceptually irreducible starting point? If they were to name it explicitly, it would be consciousness. Consciousness is conceptually irreducible but there's a problem. Consciousness presupposes existence. To be conscious a subject would have to first exist and so would some object have to exist for it to be conscious of. A consciousness without anything to be consciousness of is a contradiction in terms. Not only that but this would commit the fallacy of the stolen concept by positing consciousness without existence and the fallacy of pure self-reference by positing a consciousness which references only of its own object-less referencing. It's a total non starter.

Yeah. That's what I was trying to say. You just did it a lot longer and better than I did. Tongue

Really that was the short, short version. I'm glad you found it helpful. Wink

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2016, 01:32 PM
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
Lets state it the right way because QM isn't saying either way nothing or something. "Cause" is the wrong term. The universe doesn't need a cognitive cause. It does not need a super natural power, much less any human like cognition, anymore than Thor is needed to explain lightening. Stephen Hawking "A god is not required".

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2016, 01:38 PM
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
(13-02-2016 01:20 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Really that was the short, short version. I'm glad you found it helpful. Wink

Well that's true. I'm just here representing the "Joe the plumbers" view of philosophy. Facepalm

I do enjoy your take on it also. Thumbsup

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2016, 09:40 PM
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
(13-02-2016 01:38 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  I'm just here representing the "Joe the plumbers" view of philosophy.

Joe the plumber often underestimates how valuable his opinion of philosophy can be.

The thing about philosophy is that, when done well, it's just the art of thinking clearly. It is, however, very rarely done well. Joe the plumber, meanwhile, is generally pretty good at thinking clearly, because if you aren't thinking clearly while you're messing with the pipes, you're liable to end up knee-deep in sewage.

Never think that you're "not capable" of "real" philosophy, or anything similar. The only things that you need to be able to do are to define your terms clearly and not make any unwarranted leaps. The ability to think practically is often invaluable in this.

If more famous philosophers had been plumbers, we'd all have been spared quite a lot of nonsense.

"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
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: