Who created the creator?

It was me, all by myself. But don’t tell anyone.

@ETpro. The question is flawed. You might as well be asking “what does yellow smell like?”

This question is a common argument from athiests and skeptics that all things need a cause and so therefore God also needs a cause.

But you know that we can’t get something from nothing, and since nothing comes from nothing so then if there were ever a time when absolutely nothing existed then we never would of come into existence.

But stuff does exists.

Something had to have always been in existence since there may of never been nothing, there is no evidence to prove that otherwise.

So the ever existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated creator who created the universe and everything in it.

God is the initial and ultimate self created…

That something that overcame nothing to be Himself as the Ultimate of all Creation ,within which all other created thing lies…

Therefore He declares of Himself, I am That I am…. and I am… The First and the Last, the beginning and the End…No other thing exist except within Me.

It is remnant of the Epistemology of Christendom.

After the conversion of Constantine, and then the fall of Rome, the Pagans fell into disfavor and were persecuted as the European Christian movement grew, and the Church became a sort of European Central government.

That being the case, whatever passed for Epistemology at that time was not really Epistemology at all, but Church doctrine.
It wasn’t until the rediscovery of the Classical writings and the Humanist movement, the invention of the printing press, not to mention the Reformation, that people began to have the courage to ask your question.

For the thousand years or so in between, I figure nobody wanted to be burned alive as a heretic just to able to debate the point . After a millenium of the Dark Ages, the Renaissance provided a little relief, but did not cure the problem.

”..a Universe existing in some form eternally..” Is this another way of saying god? Is god nothing but the universe in disguise?

@elbanditoroso Thanks.

@KaY_Jelly No, I most decidedly do NOT know that we can’t get something from nothing. In fact, recent work in quantum mechanics and in trying to reconcile it with General Relativity and Gravity suggest that you MUST get something from nothing. To state categorically that you can’t get something form nothing is the height of arrogance. It is assuming with no foundational proof that your current human understanding of things in the macroscopic scale is all that can exist.

@kess Yes, the Bible, written by some bronze age desert nomads, tells you that is true. But there have been nearly 3,000 supreme beings posited by man. Most are mutually exclusive with one another, in that if one exists, then none of the others can. I would guess you do not believe the Thor creates thunder with his hammer or that tsunamis are created by the Great God Poseidon. You are probably atheistic toward 2,999 of the 3000 supreme beings. Why El when you deny all others.

And wording things in deliberate mumbo jumbo so your statements deliberately sound self contradictory does not confer truth on them. Just the opposite, in my mind.

@josie There’s an answer I can wrap my head around.

@rojo It currently looks like the Big Bang may have been a Universe from nothing and not an infinite, eternal universe changing form. But whichever is the case, I’m not sure our understanding of the word “God” fits the science.

In the beginning man created god and said it was the other way around.

MB Games?

@ETpro

link

I find that interesting. Theists always claim “something can’t come from nothing” as if it’s some sort of law that absolutely can never be violated. And yet, the idea that there is a metaphysical plane of existence beyond our comprehension is somehow plausible? I don’t see either one as being as all that plausible, but that’s what makes pondering the origin of our existence so interesting. No matter how you look at it, something either came from nothing, or something always was. And neither one of those is easy to explain.

Where the Creator came from and if some other entity created Him, is a mystery; an irrelevant mystery for the most part. Having the ability to create all that we see and know would definitely make Him wiser than us. If He chose to try to explain it, it would equal you trying to explain to a goldfish that he is in a glass fishbowl, and what he eats did not just float by, you sprinkled it in there. Where the food came from, the production of glass, the fact the fishbowl sits on a table inside a condo would be so far removed from what the fish could comprehend, it would not make any sense to it, so goes with understanding where and how the Creator came to be. Our greatest minds are less than feeble ants to Him.

The question seems to assume “perception” of “the creator” within (or more precisely, at the beginning of) time as we know it. As the story is told in Genesis, the creator first creates Heaven and Earth (Verse 1), then Light (Verse 3, and then divided the Light from the Darkness (Verse 5).The creation of Heaven and Earth, followed by the creation of Light, followed in turn by the division of Light into day and night, involved a sequence of events, which necessitates a timeline, in order to prevent these events from occurring simultaneously.So, in my humble opinion, it seems that the Creator, and Creation Itself, occurred (is occurring? will occur?) outside of the experience of time. All other creations (land/sea, plants, animals, man[kind]) unfold within time as a process of the original creation that occurred (is occurring? will occur?) and is recorded in Abrahamic scripture.

Edit to add:

BTW, my personal belief is that the Creator, being perfect, could not experience imperfection unless he experienced it through us, His creations.

@ETpro If you had known the nature of Truth, you would have known it does not come from writings.

These bronze age nomads, is the origin of your own heritage of which includes your written and spoken language, which you employ against them.

But then again, the cock is known by it crowing and the ass by its braying…

@kess But what do you think of the substance of what @ETpro was saying to you – that there are literally thousands of other creation stories, each with its own creator, yet you believe only one can be truth? Why do you suppose that you choose one to be truth, this one, and decide that the rest must be false?

Whoever did is obviously anonymous.
And Anonymous is Legion.

Religion. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.
—Ambrose Bierce

Not to be glib, but I answer, “Aristotle.”

@ETpro This is important for you..because the quatum vacuum you keep insisting IS nothing IS actually something because it is fluctuating energy. OK?

@ KaY_Jelly (

” But you know that we can’t get something from nothing ”

Really? Define nothing and then tell me how you know we can’t get something from nothing.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with modern physics.

@Neodarwinian and I suggest you watch the video posted above OK.

@ KaY_Jelly

Why should I watch a explanation about quantum physics from a christian apologist who fancies himself as some kind of philosopher?

@KaY_Jelly William Lane Craig’s fundamental argument is articulated in this video that supposedly supports his grasp of fundamental truth. He is claiming that extraordinary claims don’t require proof at all. He instead claims for his purposes that he can make a logically absurd claim, and that all who don’t accept his argument are committing the genetic fallacy, that they have to prove his assertion is false. Not so. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof from those making them, not disproof from those unswayed by them.

If you wish to accept that Craig is right, then I hereby assert that the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe. He boiled for you. Now, it is incumbent on you, a student and acolyte of the inspired William Lane Craig, to prove I am wrong and that it was El and not the Great FSM that created the universe. You cannot do that. QED, it was the great FSM and not El.

Now, on a more sane plane, I am perfectly comfortable admitting that I have no idea what caused the universe to exist, and I can live with the very definite possibility we will never know. I am not compelled to invent some magical explanation, some God of the gaps, to soothe my discomfort at not knowing. To do so ensures never knowing.

@ETpro When science disproves God let me know.

Watch the first 20minutes of this video of Robert Spitzer, PhD Science, God & Creation.

“Now on a more sane plane…” so this is just your attempt at poking fun? I figured after the fsm statement that there was some other reason to this question other than actually being pure of heart, unless poking fun at religious people is really what you know equality to be?

God is not magical. Funny enough is if we were to follow His rules and obey Him we actually would live more peacefully. Common morals have been set by Christian religion things like honor thy mother and father, don’t steal, don’t kill..etc, etc. If we all followed this stuff it would be pretty peaceful.

That’s all I’m saying now. Thanks.

“self created” – @kess.

God couldn’t help come into existence. He was forced to create himself against his own will. Alternatively, God was forced to will himself into existence. Either way he had no choice in the matter, the laws of existence tipped his hand. Just like the rest of the universe.

@KaY_Jelly Funny that those who are most vigorous about living by this or that God’s rules are so often murderous. One more time. Extraordinary claims are what require extraordinary proof, not the other way around. Since you believe otherwise, it’s incumbent on you to disprove the Great FSM is the creator. Till you do, “that’s all I’m saying.” Plonk.

Since the blowhard Dr. William Lane Craig and his absurd assertions have become a point of contention here, I submit this debate (a long one) in which Christopher Hitchens takes his idiocies apart.

@ KaY_Jelly

Now a questionable ( gay ” cure ” advocate ) psychiatrist pontificating in areas he knows nothing about.

” God is not magical.”

Really?

You would have to believe in magic to accept any of your arguments presented thus far.

Cause vs purpose, one of the reasons why I’m not too fond about debating the existence of a god, along with the fact that I feel it’s almost (if not) impossible to try to define the concept of God. There are some people out there who are open to the idea of an evolving god, a supreme intelligence who inevitibly came to be through chaos sorting itself out. Unless there’s a god who’s eternal and transcendent, I can’t think of any other way to get around the creator who was created by another creator loop.

To get something from nothing would prove God, because He said He spoke it into existence where there was nothing before. I can go with that. You guys are finally getting on board, glad to see it.

@ETpro Funny that those who are most vigorous about living by this or that God’s rules are so often murderous. I could be called THOSE PEOPLE, and I am not murderous. Because someone kills in the name of the Lord doesn’t mean they were holy, it just means they were trying to use God as a device to appease their own mind of the iniquity they were sowing. Most of those absent of God are more murderous, (as well as other things), that is why law enforcement exist to keep them from killing, raping, and pillaging themselves to extinction.

@Hypocrisy_Central “Most of those absent of God are more murderous, (as well as other things), that is why law enforcement exist to keep them from killing, raping, and pillaging themselves to extinction.”

I’m just going to leave this here.

(Shakes head) Atheist extremist are not extremist just because they are alcoholics, many do far more than that

I guess that is why the most secular nations also have the lowest crime rates.

@Hypocrisy_Central Wanting it to be true does not make it so.

That is why it is such a farce thinking true Christians bomb abortion clinics as a routine. If we use isolated instances, I guess we can say all suburban teens who are extreme arm themselves to the hilt and go shoot up their high school as oppose to painting their hair purple.

@Hypocrisy_Central How kind of you to concede my point.

Whatever that was….....

@ETpro I watched the debate. And nothing of the sort happened that you seem to be suggesting. Seems actually like “the blowhard” atheist Hitchens made many failed attempts at any argument Dr. William Lane Craig made whilst attacking Christianity more than anything and in the end Hitchens still failed to disprove God but proved that his atheistic assertions are no more different but quite similar to theist views and faith is a matter of opinion but not his opinion.

If you wish to accept that Hitchens is right, then I hereby assert that you now have absolutely no purpose for this life, so there is no point to strive for 40 home runs a day because goals are absolutely meaningless, according to Hitchens we are going to die some hellish way I can’t remember what he said exactly I did not take notes.

Sadly if Hitchens had of taken up Dr. William Lane Craig’s suggestion to become Christian, during the debate, or even earlier than the debate, he may have actually understood what it means to have the intrinsic values (real objective moral value) that Dr. Craig kept talking about through the entire debate and might not have fallen to addictions as he did and sadly Hitchens died from complications of oesophageal cancer, which he acknowledged was most likely caused by his lifelong acquired taste for heavy smoking and drinking and what does the bible say about addiction??

1 Peter 5:8
Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

…but then again since he had nothing to live for so why not drink and/or smoke a little or a lot in Hitchens case….so by all means, go right ahead believe that you have no purpose anyway, so live free as Hitchens also stated!

So again, “who created the creator?” This is still a flawed attempt at a real religious question or even a debate. But I am guessing this isn’t really about “who created the creator” as much as it is actually an attempt to poke fun at religious people.

@Neodarwinian He doesn’t “fancy” himself as a philosopher. That is an ignorant statement. He earned a doctorate in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England. I beg to differ, it is you who needs magic to prove we can get “something from nothing” since that is my first argument that you must seem to think is so magical.
Poof! Did you see that?

@KaY_Jelly
Are you serious? Your reasoning that a morality has to be externally validated through belief in a (your) god in order to offer intrinsic values is a logical fallacy.

The implication that there is no purpose for someone to live, if he hasn’t found your faith is repulsive. It is the type of despicable reasoning used as an excuse to kill people for centuries in good religious tradition.

@Hypocrisy_Central ” I could be called THOSE PEOPLE, and I am not murderous.” I said “so often” and not “always”. I suspect you know how to parse that simple sentence structure, but are just looking for some premise, albeit a false one if necessary, on which to hinge a rebuttal.

Hitler is often cited as an atheist, but he was a Catholic choir boy who later went around Germany preaching the gospel and using the fact that Jews killed Christ to whip up a fever pitch of anti-Semitic hate among German Catholics and Protestants alike. I will grant that Stalin, Mao and Kim Il-sung were atheists but they each initiated their own form of state religion where they were the God-head. True atheists tend to be among the most peaceful of people, as @glacial notes.

@Hypocrisy_Central Ah yes, the famous “No true Scotsman” falacy.

Apparently @KaY_Jelly doesn’t know what Plonk means.

@whitenoise Sadly, this person is serious. Wrong, but serious in being so. Since @KaY_Jelly and Dr. Craig both base their arguments on making outrageous assertions which they then claim must be taken as valid till science proves them wrong, I’m adding to @KaY_Jelly‘s “prove it” list. Not only do I want scientific proof that the Great FSM didn’t create the universe, scientifically prove also that Santa Claus does not exist and that reindeer can’t fly. Get back to me with undeniable scientific proof of those assertions, all of which have been made independent of myself, and I’ll take you off my Plonk list. Till then, I prefer to debate you in absentia, since your claims are absent of reason.

@whitenoise to fully grasp what I meant in my comment you really have to watch the full 2.5hrs debate that etpro politely posted the link for.

I watched over one and a half hour of it.

I’m not talking about what Hitchens or his opponent said. I was talking about what you wrote above.

The mere fact that I disagree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand. I know a lot about religion and understand a lot about it. Maybe even as much as you.

@ETpro lol I know what “plonk” means, you must be referring to the fact that you think I’m a newbie? If I’m wrong then it’s some other meaning I don’t know. But read my story….lol I’m not a newbie. You actually happen to know exactly who I am! :p

Also, you can have a list as long as you want, science is not about proving or disproving anything since that was my point about why science hadn’t disproved God yet..the statement is ignorant even I know that. It’s really about process of elimination and that’s exactly how Dr. Craig made his arguments in the debate. Because there are always more possibilities that have to be eliminated before the true reason is proved. So technically atheism would be complete elimination of an entire (Christian, or supernatural) process then, so really you have already disproved fsm, and Santa as not existing and even that his reindeer can’t fly, all through you’re own “scientific” process of elimination known as atheism. Theists must be more open to many possibilities than atheists.

@whitenoise well what I wrote was mostly about the debate. Except for the fact that I had to throw in that Hitchens died from doing stuff that most faithful Christians try not to do because they follow certain rules again you can’t see the point and neither did Hitchens. And if that’s an illogical fallacy, well then so be it. I never said I was giving a logical argument! That is a whole other argument, thank you!

Dear @KaY_Jelly,

Don’t worry about the logic of your statement. Faith isn’t about logic.

Please worry about your statement that people that haven’t found your religion are void of purpose. There are and have been times and countries where people without the right faith where killed because they were of no use.

There are religious people that seriously state that they don’t understand why people would be motivated to strive for ‘the good’ and be trustworthy, if these people don’t believe in God and an afterlife.

That is far from intrinsic values. To truly reach intrinsic values, one has to accept a wish to strive for moral behavior as a goal in itself, not as one to please god. It will please god, but as a secondary effect not a primary goal.

One has to wonder if morally right behavior pleases god, because the behavior is morally right, or… whether behavior is morally right because it pleases god.

Just to lighten the mood up a bit, every time this question pops up at the bottom of the page saying “Who created the creator?” I think of the scene in the castle in MP and the Holy Grail with the two guards and the line:

” I thought you meant him. You know, it seemed a bit daft to me that I were to guard him when he’s a guard.”

@whitenoise you see again you are mixing that up. “Please worry about your statement that people that haven’t found your religion are void of purpose. There are and have been times and countries where people without the right faith where killed because they were of no use.”

That is totally dependent upon the religion. And it was similarly stated in the debate that Jesus would not of been a guarded Auschwitz or someone who would of taken the human rights of another person <something to that effect in the debate and I really should of taken notes!

I may watch this debate over and take notes!

And as the great atheist Sam Harris has described Dr. William Lane Craig as “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into all my fellow atheists.”

All this is doing is reaffirming my beliefs, so thank you to Dr. William Lane Craig and to @Etpro for pointing me out to not just the one debate but numerous debates that Dr. Craig has had.

Even Richard Dawkins refused to debate Craig, in the debate that never was.

Then the comment, “This Christian ‘philosopher’ is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him.” is incredibly cowardly and ironically admitting self defeat. He then goes behind closed doors on his PC and secretly attacks the debater where one has no way of defending themselves. This in my eyes makes the “accuser” no different from the accusations he’s making.

I’m sorry, but IMHO I really don’t have to wonder to hard about who has the better intentions here.

@ KaY_Jelly

And some people have doctorates in sociology also. I find that as risible as a doctorate in philosophy.

” it is you who needs magic to prove we can get “something from nothing” ”

I am not trying to prove anything, but you insist on your magic man doing just that, getting something from what you think is nothing. An unsupported claim without a scintilla of evidence and also a ” god of the gaps ” argument rolled into argument from ignorance fallacy ( if not X, science, the Y, magic man ). So, any evidence or are you going to play the faith card again. That card is more than worn around the edges.

@Neodarwinian I am trying to make sense of your argument but really, I’m lost. I’m not even sure where you are trying to go with this.

Because if you don’t want to talk about faith and non faith which I already said was an “opinion” and more importantly if you would read everything I am writing instead of trying to have a one sided conversation with me then you may have duly note that I stated “in the end Hitchens still failed to disprove God but proved that his atheistic assertions are no more different but quite similar to theist views and faith is a matter of opinion but not his opinion.”

So in saying that I am under the assumption then you also should have duly noted that I said “technically atheism would be complete elimination of an entire (Christian, or supernatural) process then, so really you have already disproved fsm, and Santa as not existing and even that his reindeer can’t fly, all through you’re own “scientific” process of elimination known as atheism. Theists must be more open to many possibilities than atheists.”

You say: “So, any evidence or are you going to play the faith card again” and I say to you, “absence of evidence is is not evidence of absence.”

So I’ll call what you’re doing “argument from ignorance”.

@KaY_Jelly you really make an art of not addressing what is written, but rather something you imply that is written.

Your remark about not having purpose remains and remains a scary one.

Also you didn’t address my final remark, where I would really like your view on:

One has to wonder if morally right behavior pleases god, because the behavior is morally right, or… whether behavior is morally right because it pleases god.

@ETpro ” I could be called THOSE PEOPLE, and I am not murderous.” I said “so often” and not “always”. I suspect you know how to parse that simple sentence structure, but are just looking for some premise, albeit a false one if necessary, on which to hinge a rebuttal. If I have, I only learned it from the best I ever see do it (tipping my hat your way)

Hitler is often cited as an atheist, but he was a Catholic choir boy who later went around Germany preaching the gospel and using the fact that Jews killed Christ to whip up a fever pitch of anti-Semitic hate among German Catholics and Protestants alike. It has been said whoever brings up Hitler 1st in a debate lost it. Speaking of straw men and red herrings, not that Hitler has anything to do with anything attached to this question. The fact that he used the Bible to spread hate, and there are many who do, that is his and their folly. I can pass myself off as a lawyer but because I did, doesn’t make every real lawyer an unskilled hack.

I will grant that Stalin, Mao and Kim Il-sung were atheists but they each initiated their own form of state religion where they were the God-head. True atheists tend to be among the most peaceful of people, as @glacial notes. Further subterfuge because your statement holds as much water as a colander . You are trying to equate Stalin’s and Il-sung’s regime to something akin to belief in God. I can see why you would try to distance yourself from them, or discredit them as ”true atheist”. To not do so would show your statement to be false. They are atheist, that is fact, they were directly responsible for the murders of many, even though they did not get blood directly on their hands, that is a fact. Where is the fact that shows atheist are the nicest, gentlest, most peaceful ones on the planet? Are they nicer than the Tibetans? They may have a different religion than following the one true God, but I suspect they beat out nearly all atheist in the peace and nice department.

@ KaY_Jelly

” Hitchens still failed to disprove God ”

This phrase shows how confused you really are here. We do not disprove assertions of this nature as those asserting such nonsense must provide the evidence for the assertion.

” proved that his atheistic assertions ”

It is rather obvious that you do not even know what atheism is! Atheists are not asserting anything. Atheism is the non-stamp collecting position and to not know this marks one as not worthy of consideration in debate.

“absence of evidence is is not evidence of absence.”

Why you people dare to steal this quote from Carl Sagan is beyond me. What is really laughable is the usual believer quote mining here. Try understanding the whole quote.

” Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, THOUGH THAT WHICH IS ASSERTED,WITHOUT EVIDENCE CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE. ”

Carl Sagan ( In caps for emphasis )

We are quite through here as your ” argument ” begins to bore me with not only it’s ;ineffectual weakness but it’s redundancy.

@Neodarwinian Thank you for such a masterful rebuttal to the continued argument from assertion that @KaY_Jelly has been treating us to, exactly as her previous incarnation so often did. That’s why, when I realized what former Jelly @KaY_Jelly really is, I said plonk. I’m done wasting time and energy with one who will not hear.

@Hypocrisy_Central To your first false charge, examples please. Otherwise, it’s just meaningless assertion unsupported by any facts.

Regarding Hitler, you brought up the carnage that “atheistic” leaders have wreaked in the past, not I. In doing so, you brought in Hitler, Stalin, and Mao and so if you now wish to apply Godwin’s law, say sayonara. It’s you who violated it.

Regarding the Communist heroes, you can’t poke holes in someone’s argument by calling it a colander. If you want to argue that these leaders are not revered as Gods by their countrymen, then you need to look at the respective countries and contrast how devout worshipers gather at their mausoleums and view their bodies and the body of their work with how various other religions regard their messiah. Sitting on the sidelines here, not having any dog in that fight, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Maoists, Stalinists and the cult of Il-sung all share remarkable similarities. No, they don’t share theology. But their behavior within the theology they embrace is well known among humans smitten with religious fervor.

@Neodarwinian watch the entire debate! And then you will understand what I’m talking about! I love it! You people post a video that you assume is all for the atheism side, then when I watch the video and reference it, you attack my answers which decidedly are not good enough for you! But please watch the video. I am using the video as my topic of reference and using many points of Dr.Craig’s arguments they are not my arguments, they are his. Anything I am referencing is coming from the video!!! If this was a test on the debate, you guys would of failed.

“Absence of evidence is not evidence if absence”.. again another point I pulled from the debate as Dr.Craig says it in the debate! LOL. WOW. Am I the only one who watched the video.

I personally am not asserting anything other than my first point which was, “you can’t get something from nothing”. And my next idea which @whitenoise keeps bringing up continues on about the fact that Christians believe in an afterlife and immorality, therefore they have something to live for and not the atheistic view of which the belief is that of the idea of nothingness after death, which is also in the debate! Looks like you guys need to take notes, not me! lol So if you want to debate the points, then join the debate. Or watch this really good team debate and learn more and you will still find no answer because it is undecidable as Michio Kaku states.

@whitenoise “One has to wonder if morally right behavior pleases god, because the behavior is morally right, or… whether behavior is morally right because it pleases god.” So this is you wondering if we have a choice in the matter or not? I can tell you that in basic Christianity it is well known that God has given us free will, so rightfully if theism is true then it is you’re choice.

But if atheism is true then you are born free and therefore you have no supreme being who instilled morals and values like do not rape and murder. Because like in the animal kingdom where morals are very different from ours “rape” & “murder” happens often and frequently. Lets say that humans had the morals of the praying mantis and that was atheism. That would leave our human race almost insufficiently unable to grow as a population and therefore atheism has no purpose to glorify God as our creator and therefore as an atheistic view we would have no purpose for life because we would perish often, thus rendering the life meaningless or pointless and only useful for a certain thing for pro creation, but the pro creation is flawed because any attempts at pro creating more than once are most willfully denied for the most murderous beheading, but I suppose an atheist might say that maybe that is the purpose of life. So that is were I have to politely disagree.

People who choose to be evil are evil because they choose to be evil but they could choose to be good and yes you can be non murderous without following God, and you can be murderous while following God, but if you have the morals of a praying mantis then you do not really have a choice. Does that make sense? As I said before and again this is from the debate, “Jesus would not of been a guarded Auschwitz or someone who would of taken the human rights of another person.”

@ETpro “argument from assertion”? Again the only argument I have asserted is that “you can’t get something from nothing” and I have yet to hear anyone refute the point rationally. You had an attempt but it was a failed attempt.

@KaY_Jelly Un-plonk. You actually addressed what I said, albeit without ever comprehending it.

You assert that you can’t get something from nothing. That jibes with what we observe in the here and now with our senses. But not so long ago, we also knew that the Earth was flat because we could see that it was. We knew that it was suspended magically within the seven domes of heaven. We knew that Earth was the center of all that is, and that God moved the domes above it so that the sun passed overhead in the day, and the moon, the planets and the stars moved in their domes at night. Turns out every bit of that was utter nonsense, but it seemed so obvious.

Even if it were true that you can’t get something from nothing—which science has clearly demonstrated is a false assumption—that still does nothing to resolve how you then get God from nothing. You simply posit Him into existence then solve the something-from-nothing problem you insist on clinging to by declaring that he’s outside of everything and not bound by the rules that require a prior cause. I could as easily claim that the Universe is outside of everything and not bound by the rules that require a prior cause. Both are assertions that require proof, but none is available. One must accept either on blind faith alone.

Now, it turns out that recent research in particle physics shows that not only can you get something from nothing, but you must get something from nothing. Nothing is unstable, and it always breeds something. Sometimes what it breeds self annihilates very rapidly. But not always. Sometimes, something is left over. At a quantum level where all possibilities will, in due time, be explored, Nothing must explode in a big bang and yield a Universe.

I found it particularly amusing that Dr, Craig brought in String Theory. In true scientific terms, that’s not a theory. It’s a postulate that is so far unsupported by any observation or prediction. But since he decided to co-opt it for his theistic argument, if the string postulate bears out, then not only must you get something from nothing, you must get every possible Universe with every set of physical constants from nothing. And therein evaporates the esteemed Dr. Craig’s fine tuning argument. He cannot have it both ways.

I call him a blowhard because, intelligent though he most clearly is, he just spews out smart sounding stuff with little idea what it even means, content in the knowledge that his chosen audience has even less understanding of his blather than he does. There’s good money in it. He’s preaching to the bigger choir. Whether he believes any of his assertions or is truly worshiping the almighty dollar is anybody’s guess.

@ETpro First, here’s my problem with pretty much everything you said. Your ideas on “something from nothing” I provided you with a video of Dr. Craig explaining how that is just a popularized way for people such as yourself to continue to educate people the way you have. Your definition is in layman’s terms. If there was any gounds for your idea, it would be much more debated in one of the many debates that Dr. Craig has been apart of.

And face it he is not just debating regular run of the mill atheists, or atheist/unbeliever fluther jellies such as yourself or myself, the people he has debated are also highly educated esteemed colleagues of philosophy and many others who hold varying degrees.

Now I must ask why are you not debating Dr. Craig? You make it sound like you are up for the challenge, but it raises your idea above where you again seem to have tried to trump my answer with the popularized layman idea of “something from nothing” showing that you really do not understand quantum physics,
so maybe there is not much to debate.

My next thing is you decided to quote me the worse possible debate. Of course the debate you choose for me to watch was a enticing 2.5 of Dr. Craig having the upper hand in each argument, while Hitchens barely looked conscious and failed to address almost any of the arguments that Dr. Craig made. :D ok sorry for rooting but, go theism!

So then I will turn my attention to who I called the great atheist Sam Harris, which I tried to hint at you to watch that debate because it would of been one much better for you to quote.

But that is besides the point now, you missed the cue, talk about handing it to you on a silver platter.

Honestly though to be on point it is you who is actually making quite bold claims.

Your idea that Dr. Craig “brought in String Theory…” well you really need to read this more in depth answer to understand the idea then I suppose.

Another thing is I understand you’re need for atheism and to not follow a God, but when supposed great atheists like Richard Dawkins deny to stand in and argue for atheists, it sends a bad message and his explanations as to why only further prove to me that when I listen to all of the arguments that Dr. Craig makes then I must decide that Christianity for me IS the more rational real world view.

1833 letters, 336 words and 10 sentences pretend to address my question, yet none of them really do.

Again, my question is unambiguous and clear: ”“One has to wonder if morally right behavior pleases god, because the behavior is morally right, or… whether behavior is morally right because it pleases god.”

Can you not answer this question, share your opinion on it, or are you just refusing?

Why do you then again and again pretend to answer / address my questions and remarks? You don’t strike me as stupid, so are you trolling?

@ETpro To your first false charge, examples please. Otherwise, it’s just meaningless assertion unsupported by any facts.

Regarding Hitler, you brought up the carnage that “atheistic” leaders have wreaked in the past, not I. It was you who injected Hitler into the conversation; I just chose to respond to it because of the subterfuge you hung all over it. Less someone be bamboozled by that poppycock, I had to say something.

Regarding the Communist heroes, you can’t poke holes in someone’s argument by calling it a colander.
If you are trying to assert that favor or support or even adoration the communist had for their heroes, which was more a product of avoiding prison, to adoration for God, your argument is lest than a colander, it is more like a bucket with a gaping hole in the bottom.

If you want to argue that these leaders are not revered as Gods by their countrymen, then you need to look at the respective countries and contrast how devout worshipers gather at their mausoleums and view their bodies and the body of their work with how various other religions regard their messiah.
Let me clear it up for ya Jackson, I am not debating that they reverenced their political leaders as near gods or a god,—as I say, to avoid prison one will play whatever part, it however, hasn’t cleared the bar to being equal to believers belief in God; or those who believe they believe in God.

Sitting on the sidelines here, not having any dog in that fight, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Maoists, Stalinists and the cult of Il-sung all share remarkable similarities.
Sharing similarities is about as close as you can compare them. Modern day USA shares some similarities to the defunct Soviets, but that is all you can say of it.

@ ETpro

Thank you.

I see this person, KaY_Jelly , is trying to engage with me again. I do not see the point so I will decline this ” offer. ”

@whitenoise Well. I feel like my answer to you was perfectly clear.

First question.

Do you have the morals of a praying mantis? No you don’t!

Next Question.

Can you tell me why the purpose of you’re life is any greater than that of the praying mantis? Probably not.

Can I tell you why we don’t hold the views of a praying mantis? No.

But I can tell you that it appears that animals other than humans do not have faith like we do, instead they have leaders in their kingdom and no one person has ever been able to show that lions worship a God or even the fsm because lions aren’t as evolved as we are.
I’m not really sure what kind of better answer than that that you want. ^

OK, so here’s another answer that maybe you will like better than the first, I don’t know.

If it is as you say, “one has to wonder if morally right behavior pleases god, because the behavior is morally right, or… whether behavior is morally right because it pleases god.” Then personally to me that is the atheistic view between good and evil it is about a choice. It is not about what is morally right or wrong because I am sure we can agree on many morals, for instance don’t kill children, I don’t agree with that and I hope you don’t agree either.
Good people accept that in our human society but in the animal kingdom it is a widely accepted “moral” that we call infantcide.

But again watch nature for awhile and it will soon become evident that many other species do not hold “morals” to such a high standard as humans do. When a wolf teaches its pups to “murder” for food its called hunting. When your neighbors dog stalks your chickens it’s called uncontrolled behavior.

Anyway my point is that yes morally right behavior pleases God because it glorifies God. God wants humans to be forever mortal and join Him in His kingdom of heaven, not a praying mantis, the creatures here on earth are just part of His creation. And yes the pun was intended on the “praying” mantis I chose it because it amused me :)

Next I am not a troll, please do not depersonalize my character as such simply because you might have trouble understanding my answers, but if you really read into my previous post, the answer is there. I apologize that we may not be on the same page, I am trying to clarify as much as possibly so you understand and I hope that this comments answer does enough of such. Because now I am getting a headache. :/

I did actually ask for your clarification which you did not give me, because I was not really sure how exactly you wanted me to respond to your question of wonderment, I mean we can wonder all we want, like “why the sky is blue” but at the end of the day that does not really give us the answers, so are you seeking the the truth or are you looking for half truths, I don’t really know, you say you want my opinion, so really I could say the sky is yellow and that is my “opinion” and you should of accepted that. So I was kind of at a loss, and I got stuck making sense out of nonsense. Which I realize this entire question is just that. And since this question is posted in “social”, it really is not here to elicit actual honest answers about religion, so that is my bad for taking the bait. —Social basically means anything can be said. And I should know that by now. lol

I hope that covers everything for you, if not my opinion will revert back to being “the sky is yellow”. And you can just accept that for what it is, an opinion. :S

Here is something for you, I find it ironic that you say I did 18.3+3(=6) letters, 3+3(=6) 6 words and 10 sentences. Let me reconstruct this for you:

18.
3+3=6
3+3=6
6
3 6s are 18. So the bigger picture is that there is 666 behind the 10 sentences….so the devil is trying to send a message, or you just ironically pulled those numbers out of your butt, or you did that purpose :/ So now the only troll around here is Abigor. lmao!

Just stopped in to see if you guys were still at it?

Appears that way

OK. Let’s take a break. My most favorite song when I was a kid:

Een, twee, drie, vier, hoedje van, hoedje van.

Een, twee, drie, vier, hoedje van papier.

En heb je dan geen hoedje meer,

Maakt er een van wit papier
Een, twee, drie, vier hoedje van papier.

There you go!

Now, everyone take a deep breath and….............

Start again.

@KaY_Jelly
Scary thought that you may be Dutch. I give up on trying to discuss with you based on reason.

I think you a troll, sorry.

@whitenoise I’m not a troll. I am Dutch. I don’t know why that is scary. I’m actually half Canadian and Dutch. My father’s family actually built many of the small moving parts in Madurodam. I have a few things here in my house.

Anyway that doesn’t matter. I’m not sure why you think I’m a troll? I personally think that your argument is beyond rational reasoning. You’ve presented me with no other arguments to prove your opinion is true. But all you seek is my opinion and from here it looks I’m sorry but from here it looks to me like the sky is yellow. I’m not troll, sorry to disappoint.

I have bipolar, I prefer to keep the peace.

@KaY_Jelly

Maybe because I have become afraid of religious zealots, more so since living in the Middle East and you strike me as one. Had you been living in some backward American area, I would be more or less OK with that, after all we are products of our environment. Would you be Dutch and living in a far more open society, like The Netherlands, you have far less of an excuse.

I think you are a troll because you say very provocative things while using straw man arguments most if not all of the time.

@KaY_Jelly First, let me apologize for being absent from this discussion for so long. Work pressures prevented my taking the time required to listen to the debate on the purpose of lack thereof of the Universe, and giving your various assertions the time they deserve for a rebuttal.

First, let me take up the empty chair argument. Shame on you for using repeated ad hominem fallacies to attempt to discredit a dead man, Christopher Hitchens. None of your complaints about him have ANYTHING to do with the truth of falsity of the points he raises in debate. Those who routinely resort to deliberate logical fallacies in order to prove themselves right and make others wrong are generally not worth bothering to debate, because no real debate is even possible with them. For reasons of their own, their mind is already made up, and they will not allow themselves to be confused by mere facts.

A famous and renown creationist, Kurt Wise said, ”...if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the WOrd of god seems to indicate. Here I must stand.”

Rational people might refuse to waste their time debating Kurt Wise or Dr. William Lane Craig for the same reason I earlier dropped out of this debate with you—you were acting like a troll, ignoring points that refuted an assertion you had made and just restating your assertion in in tautological fashion. When pressed, you were turning to logical fallacies for support. Dr. Craig is a master of that technique. His financial empire depends on his not being swayed by any evidence of logic that refutes his assertions, and it is an utter waste of time to try to sway him. He will ALWAYS respond by restating his false premise, adorning it with lots of theological, philosophical and sometimes even scientific terms that have no bearing on what he is actually trying to prove but serve admirably to confound and convince the simplistic crowd he is trying to sway. Occasionally atheists do debate him simply to put on record for those willing to listen a clear refutation of his claims—at least those that can be refuted. He has a habit of dwelling on things that are outside the reach of science and pretending that because they are unknowable at this time, he knows all about them. The only argument to that is to point out what he, and you in following him, are doing.

For instance, his claim that the vacuum in terms of physics is not the void before the Big Bang. He doesn’t know that. He has no more idea what lies beyond the event horizon of the Big Bang than Dr. Michio Kaku or any other scientist today does, he’s just not as honest as Dr. Kaku is in admitting that.

“Here”;http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/02/02/can-you-get-something-for-noth/ and “here”;http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128221.100-existence-why-is-there-a-universe.html you will find more on something from nothing. We have a great deal of observed, factual data proving the above. Read here about the Casimir effect. And the Casimir-Polder force. In this experiment you can actually see quantum fluctuations—the famous something for nothing or as Douglas Adams aptly dubbed it, the “Free Lunch at the End of the Universe.”

And while we’re on the subject of nothing, here’s Dr. Craig on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Sadly, the same problem he is erecting as his straw man champion applies to his answer of God. God, if infinite, defies the same rule he claims proves the Universe can’t be internal. Here is a rebuttal, setting Dr. Craigs legion of straw men aside.

For all we know, the Universe itself is eternal and a collapse of some previous state precipitated the Big Bang. That we do not understand the math needed to deal with an infinity is no proof that what we do not understand is therefore incapable of existing. Humanity once understood nothing of the physical universe and laws governing it. Our lack of understanding did not make the Universe disappear or negate the laws that govern it. They went on working just fine without humans comprehending a single on of them.

Coming back to the purpose of the Universe, if it has one, I do not know what it is. Don’t fret that such an admission robs me of appreciation of its grandeur, though. I feel the same soaring reverence when I see the billions of stars in the Milky Way, or watch the beauty of the northern lights, or observe in detail the wonders of a blade of grass that Christian ascetics get from ages of chanting, counting prayer beads, and contemplating the glory of their god. It doesn’t worry one whit that the Universe is set to die of heat death in a trillion years. If that’s it’s end, so be it. Who knows but that the conditions that occur on heat death are not just what it takes to trigger another Big Bang. I can live a very purposeful life given either of those possible outcomes and without knowing which is going to come to pass.

@whitenoise You think I am a troll because I use straw man arguments? I already said that I wasnt making an argument from a logical point of view, to which you replied “Don’t worry about the logic of your statement. Faith isn’t about logic.” So now you are retracting your statement? OK. I don’t usually argue logic, _I am bipolar many times in my life I can be not logical.

@ETpro “Coming back to the purpose of the Universe, if it has one, I do not know what it is. Don’t fret that such an admission robs me of appreciation of its grandeur, though. I feel the same soaring reverence when I see the billions of stars in the Milky Way, or watch the beauty of the northern lights, or observe in detail the wonders of a blade of grass that Christian ascetics get from ages of chanting, counting prayer beads, and contemplating the glory of their god. It doesn’t worry one whit that the Universe is set to die of heat death in a trillion years. If that’s it’s end, so be it. Who knows but that the conditions that occur on heat death are not just what it takes to trigger another Big Bang. I can live a very purposeful life given either of those possible outcomes and without knowing which is going to come to pass.”

Everything you said in that comment is all illusory if you ask me, what is your evidence?

Ironically you can pass judgment on me for asserting my idea? But in the end of it all you end up asserting your idea to me like you have some higher authority and go right back to the irrational framework that most atheists base their ideas on!
And you say I am acting like a “troll”?

After this, I am the one who is not going to respond anymore, because regretfully after this, it has come to my attention that based on the subject and the implied intention of the question, I am the one being trolled here.

“A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way.
~Mark Twain~

@KaY_Jelly Goodbye.

The world’s pretty full of such stubborn reasoning as Dr. William Lane Craig displays. It’s amazing, humans have discovered they were wrong about just about everything they once claimed they intuitively knew about Nature. Nature is far, far more amazing than we can even imagine. And yet so many among us doggedly insist that, despite all the prior failures of our intuitive “knowledge” we still intuitively know what Nature could or could not have done 13.72 billion years ago. The silly arrogance of such a claim is astounding.

@ETpro I guess that’s what you get when you take a subjective reality and try to define it objectively. How can we truly state that anything is objective when we rely upon something as subjective as observation to measure it? (Enter Schroedinger’s cat.)
Of course if you throw quantum theory into it, it becomes more and more subjective!

@Yetanotheruser Indeed. Who could have, before we tried it, even imagined what would happen in the double slit experiment. And could Schroedinger’s hapless cat have imagined a supposedly loving master who would conceive so cruel an experiment. Hell, if you care when the radioactive atom decays, put the detector in a glass box and leave the cat outside lest Animal Cruelty officers get involved.

Thanks for the link. That is going to require some quality time, which I can’t give it right now. But I will peruse it in depth.

@ETpro time is relative, after all. Even quality time!~

I think what we have on our hands is another dead cat.

@rojo I never saw the cat, so it’s not dead yet!

All by myself, and I hope it isn’t off topic (didn’t read the other posts—it gives me a headache!) I will offer up that in the absence of a logical explanation of all the seemingly miraculous things that surround us a God WAS the most logical explanation at one point in our history. It was the only thing that made sense.

So humans created the creator.

But Dutchess III the creator created humans so doesn’t that put us in an endless loop?

What if WE are GOD?

Humans came first.

@Dutchess_III Careful! Them’s fighting words…

I suppose someone could turn it into that, but why they would is beyond me.

The OP is a strawman fallacy. The argument is not that “all things must have a cause,” but rather that “all things that begin to exist must have a cause.” For example, if the universe were eternal (IE infinitely old in the past) then it would need not causal explanation for its existence. That however, doesn’t appear to be the case and so we must explain the state change that went about for the universe to go from not existing to existing.

@Squatch347 Welcome to Fluther, and thanks for catching that point regarding the wording apologists have carefully worked out for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. You are correct that those who argue the Kalam word their set of assertions that way quite carefully to create a tautology. But they offer no proof that the Universe did “begin to exist.” By all observable evidence we have so far assessed (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, red shift of receding galaxies versus their current distance from us, etc.) the current condition of the Universe appears to have been established by a Big Bang some 13.798 +/- 0.037 billion years ago. But we have no idea what lies beyond the event horizon of that apparent singularity. To establish that the Universe did not exist in some previous form before the Big Bang, or that it did not in fact emerge from nothing, we would have to see the singularity itself, and perhaps beyond it to an earlier state if there was one. So far, this is not possible given our tools to observe.

So the fallacy in the Kalam Cosmological Argument becomes one or argument by assertion creating a deliberate tautology. It is every bit as easy to start with an a priori assertion that the Universe did not begin to exist as it is to start with God did not begin to exist. It’s also fallacious to argue that just because everything we notice beginning to exist has a cause, that condition applies everywhere in the universe at all scales and throughout all of time. What we observe with our extremely limited capacity to see at the macroscopic level on or near Earth need not be representative of what occurs at the quantum level or in other potential dimensions of spacetime billions of years in the past.

@ETPro, thanks, I’m a moderator over at another site and one of your members stopped by. I was impressed with her and she invited me over here. Thanks!

I think you are incorrect in characterizing the second premise (the universe began to exist) as unsupported. The evidence you laid out points to the fact that this local universe (in the context of perhaps a multi-verse) did begin to exist about 13.798 billion years ago. This evidence can be supplemented with arguments against infinities formed by successive addition (IE I can’t reach an infinitely old universe if I’m forced to age it in discrete increments), etc.

The argument you are offering in counter is that really we aren’t considering the right universe. That our local universe could well have a cause either in a cyclical pattern or within a multi-verse context.

Those are valid rebuttals. However, they don’t quite solve the problem. Cyclical universes are either expansionary in nature (each cycle being slightly larger than the last) and thus must originate at a discrete point or they violate the laws of thermodynamics. Thus they are inadequate explanations for the beginning of a universe.

The multi-verse theory also is expansionary in nature. In that set of theories, our universe is the result of a budding within the “false vacuum” into a region of “true vacuum.” That multi-verse must be, on average, expanding in those theories in order for this budding to occur. Thus, it too must originate in a discrete singularity and, as such, have a beginning.

I have often seen it argued “we can’t make any predictions as to the nature of that multi-verse without a unified theory.” I’m not sure if you are making that objection here or not exactly, my apologies if you are not. That objection fails for two reason. One it is an appeal to ignorance fallacy, lack of information is not a valid reason to accept or reject a premise. Two, we can rule out objections that run contrary to what we do know. For example, we can reject expansionary cosmologies as past eternal because they violate mathematical law. We can also reject steady state cyclical universes as violations of thermodynamics.

Finally, you seem to be arguing that empirical reasoning is fallacious. That is disconcerting for several reasons.

One, it seems to imply a special pleading fallacy, where empirical observation is adequate for naturalist explanations, but cannot be used for metaphysical or other observations. Unless you can offer a reason why empirical observation does not apply, there is no reason to reject it here.

Two, it also borders on an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Because we lack observational evidence to counter this principle does not support that we should reject the principle. Unless evidence is presented arguing that this principle is, perhaps, not universal, we have no basis for accepting that claim rationally.

We also base it on a lot more evidence than just “macro, earth bound phenomenon.” This principle applies both to the large scale in Relativity and Cosmology and to the small level with Quantum Mechanics.

Three, the premise is not held solely by empirical evidence, but also by logical principle. The latter not being an inherent trait of our universe there is no reason to limit its application. Specifically, the argument that a self-sufficient object cannot be temporally finite (like our universe is) without a non-sequitor paradox. If we had an object that could begin to exist absent a cause, it would always exist because all the necessary conditions for its existence have always been met.
To be a bit more technical, imagine a timeline that extends infinitely into the past. Now lets envision an object that can begin to exist without a cause, A. A exists when [ ]. IE, A exists when null set, since it requires no cause to bring about its existence. Now, is there any point along that timeline where the conditions required for A do not exist? No, hence there is no place along that timeline in which A does not exist.

@Squatch347 GA! Welcome.

I REALLY have a headache now. Welcome to Fluther @Squatch347.

I think you are incorrect in characterizing the second premise (the universe began to exist) as unsupported. The evidence you laid out points to the fact that this Local Universe (in the context of perhaps a multi-verse) did begin to exist about 13.798 billion years ago.

Strawman fallacy. I did not say there is no evidence that this local universe did not begin to exist. In fact, I said that our best current evidence suggests that it did, in the Big Bang. I suggested that the Universe in some form may have existed before the Big Bang in a different spacetime.

This evidence can be supplemented with arguments against infinities formed by successive addition (IE I can’t reach an infinitely old universe if I’m forced to age it in discrete increments), etc.

This is a special form of the fallacious argument presented in Zeno’s Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. We all know Zeno’s paradox is false, because we all know that a fast runner can easily overtake and run right on past a tortoise with a 10-meter head start. We pass other automobiles all the time on the interstate, even though they may have had a far greater head start. If the interstate stretched to infinity in both directions, that would have not suddenly render it impossible to pass another car that is ahead of us, but moving more slowly than we are.

Infinities indeed can exist. They are essential in maths. They are apparent a priori in thought experiments. And when we imagine a line extending infinitely long in either direction, we are under no obligation to begin dividing it into halves, then halves of halves, etc. Measurements, divisions of a line segment, are human constructs of great usefulness, but having no reality in regards to the line. Here’s an interesting discussion of infinities.

The argument you are offering in counter is that really we aren’t considering the right universe. That our local universe could well have a cause either in a cyclical pattern or within a multi-verse context.

Those are valid rebuttals. However, they don’t quite solve the problem. Cyclical universes are either expansionary in nature (each cycle being slightly larger than the last) and thus must originate at a discrete point or they violate the laws of thermodynamics. Thus they are inadequate explanations for the beginning of a universe.

We’re getting into territory that will leave most Fluther readers jumping to other threads, but what you are speaking of only applies to a universe that bounces between big bangs and big crunches. Throw in dark matter and dark energy and apply it to a universe like the one we are in, which appears to expand ever faster toward heat death, and there are several cosmological models that are entirely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

The multi-verse theory also is expansionary in nature. In that set of theories, our universe is the result of a budding within the “false vacuum” into a region of “true vacuum.” That multi-verse must be, on average, expanding in those theories in order for this budding to occur. Thus, it too must originate in a discrete singularity and, as such, have a beginning.

It either must do that, or be infinite. If you wish to assert infinity is impossible, I am going to ask why you feel that’s so.

I have often seen it argued “we can’t make any predictions as to the nature of that multi-verse without a unified theory.” I’m not sure if you are making that objection here or not exactly, my apologies if you are not. That objection fails for two reason. One it is an appeal to ignorance fallacy, lack of information is not a valid reason to accept or reject a premise. Two, we can rule out objections that run contrary to what we do know. For example, we can reject expansionary cosmologies as past eternal because they violate mathematical law. We can also reject steady state cyclical universes as violations of thermodynamics.

I was not making that argument about multiverses. I do feel, however, that we cannot make any predictions about the nature of a multiverse without any knowledge one even exists, or any understanding of how it works. If there was a Universe before the Big Bang, or others outside it from which it branched, we have no way of knowing what its laws of physics might be. That is far from an appeal to ignorance fallacy. It is being willing to say “I don’t know” when that’s the fact of the matter.

Finally, you seem to be arguing that empirical reasoning is fallacious. That is disconcerting for several reasons.

I am not arguing that. I am arguing against the empirical reasoning of the premises that are the foundation for the Kalam Cosmological Argument, nothing more. I have not heard an argument that supports them, and the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion.

@ETpro I suggested that the Universe in some form may have existed before the Big Bang in a different spacetime.

Which I address later. There is also evidence for those non-local universes being finite in nature as well. We can deal with those pieces of evidences as offered, but I think it is safe to say that the claim is not unsupported.

This is a special form of the fallacious argument presented in Zeno’s Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise.

This is incorrect. Zeno’s paradox arises because the questioner performs successive division and then bemoans the resulting infinite amount of time necessary due to the now infinitely small amount of distance covered. Zeno’s paradox fails because it doesn’t matter how small you divide a set up, the total of the set remains constant. IE if my set is 10 meters, I can have 10, 1 meter increments or 1000, 1 centimeter increments. Zeno forgets that regardless of the dx/dt interval, the ratio is still the same and that is what counts when comparing relative speeds. The runner has a larger dx/dt ratio than the tortoise and as such will overcome him.

That is different however from the well known problem I have put forward. We are not talking about infinite division of a finite set here, but rather successive addition of fixed, finite units to create an infinite set. In that problem, we have a premise that the set defined as the time prior to now is infinite. That set is composed of equal units of time measured (let them be a second or a year or whatever, it doesn’t matter, which is the first hint that the proposal made by a past eternal universe is nonsensical) that when summed are infinite. This set is also defined as an ordered set in which each value must come before or after any other value. That means that no two values within the set can have the same position. So far this sounds like a standard countable infinite like a coordinate system. The problem arises in the fact that this is a temporal vector, meaning that any given point along the timeline cannot exist until the one before it is complete. IE we can’t have 1950 until we’ve had 1949 and 1950 cannot be said to exist until 1949 has been completed. Given that limitation, there is no interval such that the value of T is infinite, it is always, by definition, a finite number.

Allow me to illustrate this with an analogy. Lets say you were counting pennies, you could count X number of pennies in time T (you can supply whatever values you wish to these numbers, as long as they are finite the objection holds). At what time T will the total number of pennies be infinite? That answer is, never. You cannot ever reach an infinite number of pennies, no matter how long you counted the number would always be finite (by definition a finite plus a finite always equals a finite). Hence there is not time T where the sum of X is infinite, just as there is no iteration set where the time passed in our universe is infinite.
I should point out that I am not questioning whether infinites exist (though their application in physics is usually as a placeholder, not a real value). Rather, I’m pointing to the fact than an infinite set cannot be formed by the successive addition of two finite sets (a mathematical impossibility).
We’re getting into territory that will leave most Fluther readers jumping to other threads, but what you are speaking of only applies to a universe that bounces between big bangs and big crunches. Throw in dark matter and dark energy and apply it to a universe like the one we are in, which appears to expand ever faster toward heat death, and there are several cosmological models that are entirely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.
Could you name one? There is only one eternal universe model that does not have a beginning that I am aware of and that model currently runs askew of Quantum Mechanics by proposing that when particles reach a full heat death state they become timeless and then the universe cycles again (with no current explanatory mechanism as to how).

I would be curious if you could point out a specific model of the universe that fits current observational evidence and known physical law.

It either must do that, or be infinite. If you wish to assert infinity is impossible, I am going to ask why you feel that’s so.
Actually, no, it must be finite in the past if it is, on average, expanding. Otherwise it would run askew of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which posits just that. That any cosmological model that is, on average, expanding must originate in a singularity.

_ I do feel, however, that we cannot make any predictions about the nature of a multiverse without any knowledge one even exists, or any understanding of how it works. If there was a Universe before the Big Bang, or others outside it from which it branched, we have no way of knowing what its laws of physics might be. That is far from an appeal to ignorance fallacy. It is being willing to say “I don’t know” when that’s the fact of the matter._
I’m afraid that is still an “appeal to ignorance fallacy”: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html because it proposes to reject a premise based upon a lack of information.
But let’s set that aside for now. We do have information about the multi-verse, hence why we can make predictions based upon the proposed models (cyclical, ekpyrotic, string-landscape, etc).
You are correct that we do not have an objectively true model for the nature of the multi-verse, but that doesn’t mean we reject a premise. What we do have are various models based upon empirical evidence and mathematical reality. Of those models, only those that are finite in the past are tenable and as such, until we have a thesis upon which to base an objection to the second premise there is no logical reason to reject the current candidates.

I am not arguing that. I am arguing against the empirical reasoning of the premises that are the foundation for the Kalam Cosmological Argument, nothing more
Would you then also reject the idea that gravity applies throughout the universe? This type of argumentation would seem to question our very premise of being able to know anything. The type of objection raised could equally apply to any argument.
P1: All men are mortal
P2: Socrates is a man
C: Socrates is mortal.
We could make the same argument you made initially to me, “our observations of the mortality of men are limited to a very brief amount of time and a limited set of people, thus our application to this new person, who has never been tested for mortality before is inappropriate.”
That is problematic for some obvious reasons.

@Squatch347 This is going to have to be brief, as time pressures don’t allow me to take up each point you presented.

The claim regarding the possibility of the Universe having come from nothing or some form of infinite Universe is supported by the vast preponderance of cosmologists and astrophysicists who publish in peer reviewed journals. As you move up the levels in scientific achievement and education to the doctorate level and beyond, the percentage of theists drops off rapidly. Only 25% of science professors believe. Move into the realm of top scientists publishing in top peer reviewed journals, and the number drops to a 5%. If we confined it to Astrophysicists and Cosmologists at the top rung of their disciplines, I would expect the number to be far lower than 5%. And these scientists are well aware of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. They do not find it persuasive for the same reasons I do not.

I’m not presenting an argument from authority when I say that. I’m telling you that we appear to hold to different ideas of what convincing evidence is.

If you don’t accept the scientific method as valid and feel you can make claims that are unsupported by evidence because they fit your confirmation bias and it’s possible to set up a series of definitions producing a tautology to support your claim for your pet god, then I do not care to push on with this discussion, as neither of us will convince the other of anything.

No, I wouldn’t argue that Socrates was immortal, because we already know that he was not. I’d agree that all men we have observed to date are either sill living, or proved to be mortal. I’d expect that to be likely remain true, but not accept it as an a priori truth, because all men could be a very large set and we may unlock the key to immortality some day.

I believe extraordinary claims such as “Therefore God did it.” in the Kalam Argument need extraordinary proof. And I am very suspicious of a priori statements that just seem obvious to us humans. The truth of quantum entanglement doesn’t seem logical, but it’s still truth. Same with the double slit experiment.

And I find it odd that Christian Apologists go through so much hand waving to “prove” their version of God exists when the foundational document they draw that belief from tells them that salvation is for those who have faith (not proof). John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Ephesians 2:8 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:” And yes, I know that elsewhere in the Bible various authors contradict those passages. It’s by baptism. It’s by works. It’s by predestination. Somehow, knowing how often your omnipotent, omniscient creator contradicts himself doesn’t strengthen my faith in this deity being the creator of the Universe.

@Squatch347 I really should also address this question of an infinite past. Just as nobody would require Achilles to constantly halve his steps while keeping the time for each constant, if the Universe actually existed infinitely long into the past, nobody is asking you to map out the time to its beginning by constantly adding on finite segments of time back into the past from the here and now. It it’s infinite, it just is infinite. No construction required on your part or mine.

You’re asking me to agree that things that begin to exist have a cause, but God isn’t a thing as you define it, so He doesn’t count. You’re asking me to believe that no thing can come from nothing, but God did. You’re asking me to believe that nothing can be infinite, but God is. Can you say special pleading any louder than that?

@ETpro
The claim regarding the possibility of the Universe having come from nothing or some form of infinite Universe is supported by the vast preponderance of cosmologists and astrophysicists who publish in peer reviewed journals.

Perhaps you could cite one or two? To my knowledge, no current model proposed in any journal is both a) past eternal and b) not in violation of current physical law and empirical observations. Of the multiple models out there, virtually all are past incomplete. The remaining few that are not either violate the BVG Theorem or the Laws of Thermodynamics.

I think we also need to be careful when we talk about “nothing” here. The current models being proposed do not mean literally nothing (that is a science writer’s convention), but rather something akin to the quantum vacuum in Quantum Mechanics, which is not a true vacuum, devoid of anything including dimensionality. “Nothing” literally means absent anything, absent matter, absent energy, absent dimensionality, that is not the proposed multi-verse model or Ekpyrotic model or any of the variants. They all resort to an extra dimensionality or external non-local universes and as such don’t constitute a “something from nothing” argument.

If you don’t accept the scientific method as valid and feel you can make claims that are unsupported by evidence because they fit your confirmation bias and it’s possible to set up a series of definitions producing a tautology to support your claim for your pet god, then I do not care to push on with this discussion, as neither of us will convince the other of anything.

I’m a bit surprised by this response. I have given you no reason to believed that I do not accept the scientific method or that I am making any kind of equivocation fallacy. Nothing about the argument I’ve provided or defended here is a tautology in any meaningful sense. This paragraph seems to be (and perhaps I’m reading it incorrectly) a bit condescending and violates the principle of charity.

No, I wouldn’t argue that Socrates was immortal, because we already know that he was not.

Of course that argument was made during his life and so this objection would be a bit hollow.

But I think your response proves my point. We are limited from making all a priori predictions in your epistemological model here. No predictions can be made because no hypothesis can, by definition become fully accepted. We cannot say that a Mars rover will land at such and such a spot because no matter what our understanding and observational evidence shows, the laws of physics could be different this time.

And if we apply this argument to the points I’ve made here we get a bizarre result indeed. The BVG Theorem, for example, is a mathematical proof. In order for it to not hold, we would need to find a condition where math and logic do not hold. If that were the case, in that instance, nothing would be knowable. There is no deduction or scientific method in that case and as such, no cosmology is possible. This is sort of the “nuclear option” of epistemology. If it is possible for such a state to exist where logic did not apply then we can avoid the conclusions of logic. Of course, in such a state the logical assertion I just made wouldn’t hold either, so we would have both A and not A. That would be a resort to irrationality, which is not problematic, it just needs to be acknowledged as an assumption to the conclusion formed.

And I find it odd that Christian Apologists go through so much hand waving to “prove” their version of God exists when the foundational document they draw that belief from tells them that salvation is for those who have faith (not proof).

You are attempting to smuggle an assumption in here. That assumption is that faith and rational argument are incompatible. They are not. Faith can be the holding of an idea in the absence (or even in spite) of evidence, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be. You can hold faith in a position (as you noted a few lines ago; “I’d expect that to be likely remain true:”) because of the preponderance of the evidence or argumentation. Faith is simply the state of holding a premise as true that has not been shown to be fact.

Further, the same work also tells us to: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” 1 Peter 3:15

The Greek word translated there as “to give an answer” is Apologia, which is used 8 times in the New Testament and is generally used to extol believers to be “set for the defence of the gospel.” (Phl 1:17)
It literally means:
1. verbal defence, speech in defence
2. a reasoned statement or argument
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G627&t=KJV

Just as nobody would require Achilles to constantly halve his steps while keeping the time for each constant, if the Universe actually existed infinitely long into the past, nobody is asking you to map out the time to its beginning by constantly adding on finite segments of time back into the past from the here and now. It it’s infinite, it just is infinite. No construction required on your part or mine.

But it is required on the part of the universe right? It can’t be said to have a past timeline unless those moments on the timeline actually occurred. They didn’t pop into existence simultaneously (otherwise we would be in a deterministic universe where all moments along the temporal dimension occur simultaneously). That countable infinites that are successive in construction do not just come into being is a basic premise in Set theory. That would be akin to arguing that the universe is, right now, infinitely old into the future. We don’t need to construct that set of future time, it just is.

The problem is, when you have a set composed of causally determinate items, you do need to construct them. Moments must be causally subsequent to each other or causality as a property within our universe breaks down, which is clearly problematic.

You’re asking me to agree that things that begin to exist have a cause, but God isn’t a thing as you define it, so He doesn’t count.

Yes He is. God is absolutely a “thing” in the definition I’ve provided. That He doesn’t begin to exist is the relevant point, not His nature as a noun. Just as if you could show a past eternal multi-verse, that would be a thing and would not have a beginning (and therefore not require a cause in this argument).

You seem to make this same mistake in you following objections as well:

_ You’re asking me to believe that no thing can come from nothing, but God did._

God didn’t “come” from anything since that implies a state change related to a beginning. Just as a past eternal multi-verse didn’t “come” from anything. Things that don’t begin to exist, don’t “originate” in the sense that “come from” implies.

You’re asking me to believe that nothing can be infinite, but God is.

I haven’t argued that nothing can be infinite, plenty of things are infinite. We have countable infinites like a coordinate system. We have uncountable infinites (such as the number of points along Achilles’ race track). What we do not have are countable infinites formed by successive addition, such as timelines, totals from finite sums, etc. Because I am arguing that a type of infinite cannot be formed by a certain process does not mean that I am arguing the concept itself is invalid.

I’m going blind.

In the beginning, there was None.
Then on the first of days, came Man who created God in his own image and said He was good.

^ Biggest joke yet! Sorry for those who see it as anything other than that.

It was of couse Chaos, the primordial and original divine mother, from which all other primordial Gods (Gaia, Tartarus, Eros, Erebus) sprang forth. It is important to note, that Zeus only comes in the 7th Generation.

I agree with @whitenoise.

@whitenoise Ha! At least 3,000 different gods have been invented since history began as mythical explanations of the hard question, “Why is there something and not nothing?” We can guess there were many more invented in the 200,000 years since modern man evolved in Africa, and perhaps many, many more over the 4 or 5 million years that hominids have been looking up at the bewildering night sky.

@ragingloli And I must say that with your new avatar, you’re looking more and more like the Great FSM yourself.

@Dutchess_III As so I.

@Squatch347 Let’s separate issues and hash them out one at a time to avoid walls of words. I’ll propose we address the issue of an infinite timeline for the Universe first. Note that time itself breaks down at the quantum level. Every possible history has a probabilistic possibility of being true of a particle at the quantum level (at least up to molecules as large as a Bucky ball having 60 carbon atoms) and when we measure a particle here and now, we collapse its waveform in the past, present and future—something I find a stunning example of the divergence between our intuitive sense of truth, and how this amazing Universe is actually built.

You wrote earlier, ”This evidence can be supplemented with arguments against infinities formed by successive addition (IE I can’t reach an infinitely old universe if I’m forced to age it in discrete increments), etc.”

That is only true if you insist the Universe began to exist. There is no need to measure out finite steps from then to now in an infinite Universe. No such steps exist. It was, and is and always will be. We map out a timeline back to the Big Bang, and we can map no further because we cannot peer into a singularity—or at least we don’t yet know how to. That’s a finite time, and poses no problem in discrete increments. But whether we are talking about an infinitely existing universe or an infinitely existing god, neither needs us to map out time to its beginning in discrete increments, because there is no place to stop that mapping.

So either we live in a universe that has always existed in some state, or we live in one created by a separate cause. And to avoid the problem if infinite regress, some cause has to be uncaused and thus infinite. As Carl Sagan sagely observed, “Why not save a step?”

Oh shit! Raggie changed her avatar for the first time in 7 years!

@ETPro

Let’s separate issues and hash them out one at a time to avoid walls of words. I’ll propose we address the issue of an infinite timeline for the Universe first.

Agreed.

Note that time itself breaks down at the quantum level. Every possible history has a probabilistic possibility of being true of a particle at the quantum level (at least up to molecules as large as a Bucky ball having 60 carbon atoms) and when we measure a particle here and now, we collapse its waveform in the past, present and future—something I find a stunning example of the divergence between our intuitive sense of truth, and how this amazing Universe is actually built.

I think this is a misapplication of Quantum Wave Functions. Because particles exist in a probability distribution prior to “observation” (this doesn’t need to include an observer, just some kind of interaction that requires a specific input) does not mean that time breaks down. The fact that the quantum wave function collapses at the moment of observation does not mean that it never existed (which is what you imply by arguing that we also collapse the past wave functions).

I would be curious if you could link a source on this interpretation. Specifically a source that shows that when a quantum wave function collapses that it collapses it for causally prior moments or into the past.

That is only true if you insist the Universe began to exist. There is no need to measure out finite steps from then to now in an infinite Universe. No such steps exist.

Not exactly, the argument against an infinite set formed by incremental succession is a set theory argument, not a cosmological argument. We can argue (more on this below) that any given time period, this year, last year, today, yesterday, etc. is a finite set of temporal periods. If that premise holds, then it also holds that the universe cannot be actually infinitely old because you cannot create an infinite set by the addition of any number of finite sets.

Now, the premise that any given period is a finite set of temporal periods. One of the brilliant realizations of Quantum Mechanics is that for our physical universe there is a lower boundary on the infinite divisibility of any part of the Minowski Metric. Below these scales time and space have no meaning. Planck length for distance and Planck time for temporal analysis. As such, sets of any finite time scale are finite in nature (because you can only break that time scale down so far before it becomes meaningless). Thus the conclusion formed in the paragraph above.

The confusion between our positions arises, I believe, because there are infinite sets. The set of all real numbers, for example, is an infinite set. However, that set differs because real numbers are not causally related. I can have a four without having a three. I can form both three and four and five into a set in one step. The same is not true of causally related sets such as time. Because “now”(T) requires the pre-existence (IE the inclusion within the set called “past”) of the moment before now (T-1), which for its own part, requires that T-2 already be in the set, we cannot form this set via simultaneous addition (like we do for the real number set). Rather, we have to form the set by a series of successive additions. The set defined as “the past” must be defined as {x|x=lim N-> ∞ {(T-N)+{(T-N)+{(T-N)+…}} Given that that set never actually reaches infinity the set is defined as “incomplete.” Hence we cannot have a set defined as the “past” for any given set such that N’s limit is infinite.

You’ve made the statement that we don’t actually need to map all those past points in order for it to exist. That is true for simultaneous sets. We don’t need to map out all real numbers in order to have a set of all real numbers. However, all past events are actualized, meaning they did occur, and as such, must have been mapped within the context of the universe. You cannot have both a past that is “not mapped” and which is causally relevant. Those two criteria are mutually exclusive.

So either we live in a universe that has always existed in some state, or we live in one created by a separate cause. And to avoid the problem if infinite regress, some cause has to be uncaused and thus infinite. As Carl Sagan sagely observed, “Why not save a step?”

Because that would be an irrational conclusion. IE it is a conclusion accepted by preference of wanting to avoid an infinite regress rather than based on a rational deduction. A finite universe requires a cause, I don’t think either of us disagrees with that assertion. That cause can either be finite or not. If we accept it as finite, it too must have a cause and on and on to infinite regress (problematic for an actualized state). If it is not finite in nature then it no longer requires a cause, be it a multi-verse, a deity or any other causal agent.

@ragingloli __…Zeus only comes in the 7th Generation_

Interesting correlation between 7 generations in Greek mythology and 7 generations allegedly referred to by the (Native American) Iroquois Confederation.

@Yetanotheruser
Only more proof that the Greek Religion is TRUE

@Squatch347 I think this is a misapplication of Quantum Wave Functions. Because particles exist in a probability distribution prior to “observation” (this doesn’t need to include an observer, just some kind of interaction that requires a specific input) does not mean that time breaks down. The fact that the quantum wave function collapses at the moment of observation does not mean that it never existed (which is what you imply by arguing that we also collapse the past wave functions).

I would be curious if you could link a source on this interpretation. Specifically a source that shows that when a quantum wave function collapses that it collapses it for causally prior moments or into the past.

This is not a misinterpretation of anything. It is an observed fact, verified by experiment, published, and confirmed by all other properly conducted tests. See Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment for confirmation and a bibliography. In his book The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking is quite clear about the point. See Chapter 4: Alternative Histories on pages 81–83.

But my central point was not that Wheeler’s original thought experiment turned out, when tested, to be just as he had guessed. It was that our common sense often leads us to think things are silly or impossible when the Universe has been happily doing these “silly” things from the time it formed as we know it. And to establish that, we need look no further than the original double-slit experiment; or quantum entanglement.

I said: “That is only true if you insist the Universe began to exist. There is no need to measure out finite steps from then to now in an infinite Universe. No such steps exist.”

To which you responded:

Not exactly, the argument against an infinite set formed by incremental succession is a set theory argument, not a cosmological argument. We can argue (more on this below) that any given time period, this year, last year, today, yesterday, etc. is a finite set of temporal periods. If that premise holds, then it also holds that the universe cannot be actually infinitely old because you cannot create an infinite set by the addition of any number of finite sets.

Now, the premise that any given period is a finite set of temporal periods. One of the brilliant realizations of Quantum Mechanics is that for our physical universe there is a lower boundary on the infinite divisibility of any part of the Minowski Metric. Below these scales time and space have no meaning. Planck length for distance and Planck time for temporal analysis. As such, sets of any finite time scale are finite in nature (because you can only break that time scale down so far before it becomes meaningless). Thus the conclusion formed in the paragraph above.

The confusion between our positions arises, I believe, because there are infinite sets. The set of all real numbers, for example, is an infinite set. However, that set differs because real numbers are not causally related. I can have a four without having a three. I can form both three and four and five into a set in one step. The same is not true of causally related sets such as time. Because “now”(T) requires the pre-existence (IE the inclusion within the set called “past”) of the moment before now (T-1), which for its own part, requires that T-2 already be in the set, we cannot form this set via simultaneous addition (like we do for the real number set). Rather, we have to form the set by a series of successive additions. The set defined as “the past” must be defined as {x|x=lim N-> 8 {(T-N)+{(T-N)+{(T-N)+…}} Given that that set never actually reaches infinity the set is defined as “incomplete.” Hence we cannot have a set defined as the “past” for any given set such that N’s limit is infinite.

You’ve made the statement that we don’t actually need to map all those past points in order for it to exist. That is true for simultaneous sets. We don’t need to map out all real numbers in order to have a set of all real numbers. However, all past events are actualized, meaning they did occur, and as such, must have been mapped within the context of the universe. You cannot have both a past that is “not mapped” and which is causally relevant. Those two criteria are mutually exclusive.

That sounds like the William Lane Craig’s argument against temporal finitism. If it had any credibility, I’d allow it, because it would be as true for God as for the Universe. Any special pleadings used to set the temporal finitism argument aside for God could just as easily be applied to the Universe, saving a step. But mathematicians tell us the argument is false. Infinite time is not troubling at all to mathematicians, as this PDF indicates. (NOTE: It’s a big file. Give it time and it will load.) For those who don’t wish to wait for the whole thing to load here’s a GIF of the salient part.

Among philosophers, I like Viney’s summation of matter. He says, “the debate between the finitist position and the infinitist position on time is a stalemate, since the former is no less paradoxical than the latter.” We come back to the fact that to our limited view, all explanations of the Universe’s existence are equally strange, and equally hard to examine.

If none of this convinces you, I suggest we adopt Viney’s position and move on.

@ETpro This is not a misinterpretation of anything. It is an observed fact, verified by experiment, published, and confirmed by all other properly conducted tests. See Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment for confirmation and a bibliography.
This represents a relatively common misperception of superposition within quantum mechanics. More on this can be found in this paper: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/51966442_A_Very_Common_Fallacy_in_Quantum_Mechanics_Superposition_DelayedChoice_Quantum_Erasers_Retrocausality_and_All_That
The fact that a photon can be determined to be either a particle or a wave after it passes the double slit section of the experiment does not mean that it did not exist in a super-positional state during the moment it passed that slit. Rather, as this paper in Nature points out, http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v6/n9/abs/nphoton.2012.179.html, not only is there not a conflict with super position (once we collapse a wave we remove any observed evidence of the super-positional state, the same is true in Schroedinger’s experiment, that does not mean the evidence did not exist), but there is a strong possibility that the detectors too are in a super-positional state and we simply observe the evidence of one of those two states.

None of which argues that once a quantum wave function collapses we have reverse causality or temporal reversal.

Any special pleadings used to set the temporal finitism argument aside for God could just as easily be applied to the Universe, saving a step

Special Pleading fallacies only apply when two premises are held with the same set of assumptions, but one is accepted/rejected while the other is not. That is not occurring here. You are assuming that the first cause is necessarily temporal, but that isn’t a warranted assumption here, be it for a deity or a multi-verse. Arguments presented towards the multi-verse’s temporal nature arise from the theories presented, not a special pleading fallacy.

But mathematicians tell us the argument is false. Infinite time is not troubling at all to mathematicians, as this PDF indicates.

The relevant slide/page for this argument is on page 9. You’ll notice that while Prof. Stenger says an eternal universe is possible, his graph seems to say the contrary. His position is that -10^100=∞. He offers no support for that. The reason is, it isn’t true. 10^100 (a googol) years is a very, very long period of time. It is not eternal. There is still a starting point, a beginning to that number. A set defined as {10^100,…,0} is not, by definition, an infinite set. It therefore cannot be “past eternal” and therefore is not a valid objection to the claim.
I think it extremely telling that Prof. Stenger offers no support for this either. Compare the difference between slide 9 and any other slide. He cites no sources, offers no explanation, just simply asserts that a googol is practically infinite, so it is therefore infinite. But from a mathematical point of view he is simply wrong:

“There are some really impressively big numbers.
A Googol is 1 followed by one hundred zeros (10100) :

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
A Googol is already bigger than the number of elementary particles in the known Universe, but then there is the Googolplex. It is 1 followed by Googol zeros. I can’t even write down the number, because there is not enough matter in the universe to form all the zeros:
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, ... (Googol number of Zeros)
And there are even larger numbers that need to use “Power Towers” to write them down.
For example, a Googolplex can be written as this power tower:
That is ten to the power of (10 to the power of 100),
But imagine an even bigger number like
And you can easily create much larger numbers than those!
Finite
All of these numbers are “finite”, you could eventually “get there”.
But none of these numbers are even close to infinity. Because they are finite, and infinity is… not finite!”
http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/infinity.html

The whole point of inventing the arbirtrary term of a googol was to highlight the difference between unimaginably large numbers and infinity. That is why Kasner coined the term in “Mathematics and the Imagination.” http://books.google.com/books?id=Ad8hAx-6m9oC&lpg=PP1&dq=Mathematics%20and%20the%20Imagination&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

So in summary we see that Prof. Stenger’s claim is simply false. A googol year old universe is not an infinitely old one, it is just very, very old.

A googol year old universe is not what my graphic showed. The timeline keeps going past the googol and right off the left side of the page to infinity. Clearly, you want it to be perfectly OK for your God to have existed infinitely long, but not OK for the Universe to have done so. That fits the definition of special pleading, but it that’s inconvenient for you, simply modify the definition as required to make yourself right.

As to the first portion about the collapse of the quantum wave function, better straighten out Dr. Hawking and not just me. Seems he needs you to enlighten him. I have other fish to fry and don’t care to take this to a can so/can not back and forth.

Science asks a question about observed conditions of the universe, then sets out to try to answer that by reductionist methods, letting observed evidence and experimental confirmation take it where it will. Theological apologists follow the exact opposite. They start with the answers in their particular holy book, then look for whatever evidence or set of a priori definitions they can establish to seemingly make their answers all appear valid.

@ETPro,

The timeline keeps going past the googol and right off the left side of the page to infinity.

The line on the graph lacks an arrow indicating a continuing timeline in that direction, but let’s assume that is what is meant there. In that case, Prof. Stenger has simply committed a bare assertion fallacy. Perhaps he speaks to the justification in the associated talk, but it isn’t offered here. Simply putting an arbitrary timeline marker does nothing to overcome the set principle that summation of two finite sets can never equal an infinite set. Slideshow not withstanding, do you have anything a bit more concrete that shows cosmologists to accept an infinite set within a temporal context?

Clearly, you want it to be perfectly OK for your God to have existed infinitely long, but not OK for the Universe to have done so.

Because the first cause isn’t a temporal one and as such cannot have been said to exist for a “long time.” The same would be true of an atemporal multi-verse. I can’t call something “old” or “eternal” if it lacks a presence in a temporal dimension. Just as I can’t call a 2-D object “deep.”

As to the first portion about the collapse of the quantum wave function, better straighten out Dr. Hawking and not just me.

Except that Prof. Hawking doesn’t make that claim in the book. Please see the referenced pages here: http://books.google.com/books?id=RoO9jkV-yzIC&q=page+81#v=snippet&q=page%2081&f=false
You’ll notice that Prof. Hawking describes the consequences of the experiment on our understanding of the past (bottom of page 82) he doesn’t state that our collapsing of the wave function removes the superposition of the past. Rather, it simply affects the data set we have at the present moment, dictating (through inference) which path the particle took. It doesn’t go back and remove the super-position at that moment. He doesn’t say, tellingly, that the universe has only a single history because we have now observed a result. You’ll notice that Prof. Hawking says that even now, the universe still has a set of possible histories, in fact all possible histories. IE, those superpositions existed in those temporal coordinates.

I believe your confusion arises from the inductive nature of limiting past events based on observational evidence. This is separate from the delayed nature of the two slit experiment. Consider, Schrodinger’s cat again. When we open the box, the cat is dead (lets say). Does that mean that the cat was always dead? No of course not, that is the “strangeness” of quantum mechanics. Even though the cesium atom triggered the cat’s death at some point (we know this because the cat is dead), the super position of alive cat and dead cat are present until the instant the cat is observed. Only at that temporal coordinate and forward are they removed, as stated in the cited paper in my last post. Don’t confuse our ability to infer backwards with actual backwards causation. To do so would be to disagree with Prof. Hawking’s work in the book you cite, because the universe wouldn’t have “all possible histories.” It would only have the one we can infer.

Science asks a question about observed conditions of the universe, then sets out to try to answer that by reductionist methods, letting observed evidence and experimental confirmation take it where it will. Theological apologists follow the exact opposite.

Condescension aside (I thought we were having a pleasant conversation), this is partially true. Science is generally an inductive reasoning method, while philosophy and mathematics are generally deductive reasoning methods. Neither are invalid methods to use, but you can’t compare them one for one in objections, they must be treated within their own rules and requirements.

There’s that damned can again!! LOL! I think that the cat died and still lives. It keeps popping up in these discussions!

@Yetanotheruser You think you know the answer to the hardest question man has ever asked. So do many other religious leaders from other faiths. They are just as certain they know how the universe got here, and why. Funny thing is each faith has the answer being different, so they clearly can’t all be right, and it’s entirely possible none of them are. I know that I don’t know the answer, but knowing that leaves me free to look, and I like it that way. I’ll leave you with this TED talk about hard questions. Fare the well. I did enjoy the debate for its duration, but saw in the end we were neither going to change the other’s mind, and so would prefer to apply my time elsewhere.

@Yetanotheruser The cat knew whether the cesium atom decayed or didn’t, and if it did, the cat knew when. :-)

@ETpro I think you meant to address the first part of your post to @Squatch347!

I think the cat has been here all along. That is the answer to the OP! THE CAT!

@Yetanotheruser Indeed I did. My sincere apologies to you both.

On the second point, good. I like cats. They like me too.

@ETPro,

_Funny thing is each faith has the answer being different, so they clearly can’t all be right, _

I could say the same to current particle physics models, I could say the same to the varying underlying conceptual models for mathematical reality (set vs point theory), I could offer the same for economics, history, cosmology, etc, etc, etc. The fact that someone has offered up a differing hypothesis has no bearing on the truth value of a premise or conclusion. Just as the lack of a hypothesis would not confirm an existing one. Consensus is a poor tool for truth discovery.

@Squatch347 Current particle physics models aren’t presented as truth for all time. They are proposed as possible explanations of observed phenomena, then tested to see which most accurately predicts new observations. They are constantly honed to better agree with observed reality, not accepted as absolute truth handed done by bronze age herdsmen who knew virtually nothing of how the world around them actually works and ascribed it all to miracles and magic.

I think the ultimate ignorance comes when one asserts in their final farewell that there is not going to be a change the oppositions mind /-:

I didn’t really think this was about conversion, but more about debating a topic, and a debate it was.

@ETpro maybe you have a chip on your shoulder for religion, idk, but you are so intelligent and then you ruin it all by going right back to your safe spot and start calling it “miracles and magic”, it all sounds so repetitive and familiar.

I’m sorry but you looked much more smart to me before the insults to faith started flying.

You wanted to know sometime previously before, so now I’m telling you, this is rule #1 of “How not to have a debate.”

@ETPro,

I agree with you, Science, as an inductive reasoning process, is prohibited from making definitive statements on theory. But that does not mean we simply eschew all knowledge and reasoning for the “possible.” We accept what the current evidence and reasoning offer as more likely than the opposing claim.

We are left between arguing between the following options:

1) The universe has a beginning.

2) The universe is eternal, and all current observational evidence, confirmatory experimentation and set theory are incorrect.

You are correct that neither option has been definitively ruled out (like say the existence of a married bachelor would be). But holding 2 in light of the the supporting evidence cannot be said to be a rational act.

@Squatch347 I am on board with you that the Universe as we know it had a beginning. Where we depart is in out confidence we know what came before that. As far as we know, all the laws of physics break down in a singularity. We can’t yet know what came before the singularity, or even if that is a well-formed question. Interestingly, while noted Christian apologists like William Lane Craig claim that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is irrefutable by modern science; nearly all published cosmologists, astrophysicists, mathematicians and physicists do refute it. How could that be?

Since it’s clear you are a Christian apologist yourself, I would be very interested to hear why you even want to prove the existence of a God you are asked to accept on faith alone, at penalty of eternal damnation.

@ETpro

As far as we know, all the laws of physics break down in a singularity.

I think you are over extending the fact that the laws of physic break down towards the singularity. Because the do break down within the confines of this universe is not sufficient warrant to argue that the mechanism giving rise to the universe does not follow logical and mathematical law. Especially given the reality that those two fields are underpinnings of physics, not consequences of it.

Further, wouldn’t your objection hold equally well for any proposed hypothesis? We can reject all possible knowledge beyond the local universe given your view and therefore must be strong agnostics forever. There doesn’t seem any reason to go that far however and most physicists and cosmologists would seem to disagree with your interpretation, hence why they are offering and exploring non-localized theories.

Since it’s clear you are a Christian apologist yourself, I would be very interested to hear why you even want to prove the existence of a God you are asked to accept on faith alone, at penalty of eternal damnation.

That is a caricature of Christianity, not an actual theological position. There is no exultation in the New Testament or elsewhere to ignore the evidence presented for us. You are implying that all faith is blind faith, but that is not the case. We can have different levels and certainties about belief given the support of evidence and argumentation. Just as you have a belief that your car will start in the morning because you have the evidence of past starts and an understanding of underlying principles.

Rather we are urged to be prepared to give a defense of the hope we have, which is what I am doing here.

@Squatch347 You’re welcome to think I am overextending the laws of physics. I happen to think that is what you are doing. You must be aware that it is true that the laws of physics as they apply outside a singularity break down in the singularity of a black hole, and that the same would apply to the singularity of the Big Bang. There may be other laws that apply. It would seem to me there must be, because singularities work. Here’s a discussion of what we do and don’t know about singularities.

I am not projecting things back before the Big Bang. You are doing that when you say, therefore God did it. You are claiming you know what caused the Big Bang. I am claiming neither you nor I know.

As to my projections, I am only suggesting possible areas to explore. It is you who are asserting certainty, not me. I have stated repeatedly that we do not know what caused the Big Bang, what came before it, or even if there was a before. I have stated that we don’t know if it came from nothing, or a prior something, or has an infinite past in some state.

For what it’s worth, here are just a few examples supporting the scientific view of the matter. I could post pages of them, and you could post pages full of material from apologists quote mining from science and spinning it to make themselves appear to have scientific proof of god/s. Nothing is to be gained from that, so if you care to post rebuttals, can we keep it to just a few?

A review of Dot Dot Dot: Infinity Plus God Equals Folly.
Dr. Alan Guth video on The Universe Might be Infinite.
Dr. John Mather video on Do You Believe that the Universe is Infinite

The first link it to a brief write-up, and second and third are to YouTube videos that are very brief and to the point.

Salvation being by faith is not a “caricature” of Christianity, it is a central tenet of numerous Christian denominations supported by multiple assertions to that effect in the New Testament. There is Ephesians 2:8 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” That implies both faith and predestination, which is difficult to reconcile. But the book says what it says.

That’s just one verse that asserts salvation is through faith, but here is a list of 27 verses in the Bible claiming salvation is by faith. I realize that some Christian denominations prefer to read only the verses claiming salvation is by works, by predestination, by baptism in water, by baptism in the Holy Ghost or by just the right combination of some or all of these things. But that doesn’t cancel the very real fact that salvation by faith is a central teaching of some Christian denominations.

@Squatch347 I took the time to scan Dr. Hawking’s aforementioned comments on the Wheeler delayed choice experiment‘s_delayed_choice_experiment applied to the double slit experiment. This should disabuse you of any notion that I am misinterpreting what Dr. Hawking said, or that if he had said that, it would conflict with his thoughts on a Multiverse, since that is the very thing he talks about after confirming that Dr. Wheeler’s thought experiment means you can collapse a wave function back to billions of years in the past.

From The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking, pg 83:
“Delayed-choice experiments result in data identical to those we get when we choose to observe (or not observe) the which-path information by watching the slits themselves. But in this case the path each particle takes —that is, its past— is determined long after it passed through the slits and presumably had to “decide” whether to travel through just one slit, which does not produce interference, or both slits, which does.”

“Wheeler even considered a cosmic version of the experiment, in which the particles involved are photons emitted by powerful quasars billions of light-years away. Such light could be split into two paths and refocused toward earth by the gravitational lensing of an intervening galaxy. Though the experiment is beyond the reach of current technology, if we could collect enough photons from this light, they ought to form an interference pattern. Yet if we place a device to measure which-path information shortly before detection, that pattern should disappear. The choice whether to take one or both paths in this case would have been made billions of years ago, before the earth or perhaps even our sun was formed, and yet with our observation in the laboratory we will be affecting that choice.

“In this chapter we have illustrated quantum physics employing the double-slit experiment. In what follows we will apply Feynman’s formulation of quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole. We will see that, like a particle, the universe doesn’t have just a single history, but every possible history, each with its own probability; and our observations of its current state affect its past and determine the different histories of the universe, just as the observations of the particles in the double-slit experiment affect the particles’ past. That analysis will show how the laws of nature in our universe arose from the big bang. But before we examine how the laws arose, we’ll talk a little bit about what those laws are, md some of the mysteries that they provoke.”

@ETPro
You must be aware that it is true that the laws of physics as they apply outside a singularity break down in the singularity of a black hole, and that the same would apply to the singularity of the Big Bang.

Well, a technical correction, the current laws of physics, as they are currently understood break down as we approach the singularity. But besides that small correction there is absolutely no question as to that happening. Our current understanding does not allow us to map the time between singularity and very early universe with any real understanding.

However, that isn’t my argument. My argument is that there was a singularity and that the laws I have referenced here are not within the realm of physics (and don’t break down as we approach a singularity), but rather are presupposed by physics.

I am talking about applying the laws of mathematics and rational thought to the realm outside our local universe, for which there is no reason to abandon them (or the laws of physics since we can apply certain laws to the non-singularity states of the multi-verse as is being done in several of the links you’ve offered here). I would be interested in how Dr. Hawking or any of the others would accept your argument that the laws of physics break down in singularities and therefore their models of inflationary cosmologies are therefore invalid.

You are claiming you know what caused the Big Bang. I am claiming neither you nor I know.

Not exactly, I am saying we can infer certain logical necessities based upon the observed outcome (the universe). We can say for example, that given the outcome of the observed universe, that a cyclical model that does not account for entropy cannot be the causal agent. We can say that because that model does not predict the kind of universe we have observed.

So to argue that we must throw up our hands in uncertainty is not quite accurate. While we might not have the full explanation, we do have some boundaries within which we can operate.

A review of Dot Dot Dot: Infinity Plus God Equals Folly.
This book review does little to challenge the point I made. It makes two major thrusts.

1) God as infinite. This claim is a strawman. Theologians do not claim God is “infinite.” What would he be “infinite” in? Are any of those concepts progressively elaborative? If not, then what is the objection?

A key point to remember here is that I’m not arguing infinite sets cannot exist, they absolutely do. The objection I’m making is that you cannot form an infinite set through successive addition, virtually a truisim.

Sometimes this strawman takes the form of claiming God is eternal. This attempts to argue that God is infinitely old as well. But that isn’t a theist’s position either. Rather, we are arguing that God is atemporal. Not very old, timeless.

2) Infinite is fine. The article’s author unfortunately does little to detail the actual arguments of the book, which is unfortunate. He argues that mathematicians have a specific understanding of the concept of infinity (which of course was my point three posts ago), but he does nothing to show how that concept would allow for an infinite set formed by successive addition.
Until we can see how that aspect of mathematics is wrong, the appeal to an infinitely old universe is invalid.

_Dr. Alan Guth video on The Universe Might be Infinite.
Prof. Guth’s explanation of an expansionary universe is an excellent one.

But there is one problem. He is pointing out the similarity between a universe appearing infinitely large to an observer within the universe to the same universe appearing to have an infinite future to an observer outside the universe.
Both of these are prospective observations, neither argues for a universe that is past eternal. You’ll notice that in his diagram he still has that initial singularity, right? An initial point?
Further, you’ll notice he refers to the Coleman-De Lucia paper published in 1980 called: “Gravitational effects on and of vacuum decay.” Found here: http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v21/i12/p3305_1
This concept is the further refinement of the expansionary model where a true vacuum decays into a false vacuum (the latter being local universes) as the larger true vacuum expands. The interesting portion of this paper comes early on where they show that any decay must begin with an initial singularity. Meaning that the point you are trying to make is incorrect. If this process defines the creation of our local universe, that universe must have initiated in a singularity.

Now, we could well talk about the larger true vacuum as well, but since, in this model, it too must be expanding in order to decay into false vacuums, we know that it, too, must have originated in a singularity and cannot then be past eternal.

Dr. John Mather video on Do You Believe that the Universe is Infinite
Dr. Mather’s answer is a bit empty on details concerning why he believes the universe is infinite or whether it “stops somewhere.” The bulk of his response would seem to indicate that all observable evidence indicates that the universe is finite in scale, but (echoing you here) it “could be larger, who knows?” I would again point out that that is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
I agree with you that it is a very succinct video, but perhaps you could indulge me. Where exactly does he argue that the universe is infinitely old? What evidence or reasoning does he use to come to that conclusion?

I only ask this because it would seem he makes a very compelling argument for the contrary position.

Salvation being by faith is not a “caricature” of Christianity, it is a central tenet of numerous Christian denominations supported by multiple assertions to that effect in the New Testament.
I agree, salvation through faith is a central concept in Christianity.

But that isn’t what you implied in your last question. Rather you implied an equivocation fallacy where you conflated “faith” with “blind faith.” Two related, but separate comments. Having faith in a position does not mean you ignore any evidence related to that belief.
As such the objection seems to be without merit. One can hold faith in a position as true based upon evidence and reasoning. It was your appeal to blind faith that I was noting was a caricature. No Christian denomination holds that you must hold your belief based solely on revelation and that you shouldn’t observe the world around you ( Romans 1:20 and Jesus’ actions would seem to argue that God has provided us with rationale and evidence). The New Testament never maintains that blind faith is necessary for salvation.

_ Dr. Wheeler’s thought experiment means you can collapse a wave function back to billions of years in the past._

Given that this section was the quote you originally referenced to me, I’m a bit surprised you hadn’t read it already. Further, your quote is simply the same section I quoted to you, so I’m unsure what new evidence it is suggested that you uncovered.

It is important to remember that you are referencing an observer centric experiment here. As such, all results are reported in relation to the observer. Hawking is talking about the inferential past in respect to the observer, not an absolute past point. It is important to remember that Hawking holds the B theory of time, and therefore requires that history be a series of inferential deductions rather than actualized states. As such it is consistent to argue both that the past is determined by later decisions and that the universe has a large number of possible histories.

There is a critical distinction between saying, “from the point of view of an observer, there was an inferred path of a photon” and saying “because the observer detected X there never was a quantum wave function at any historical point.”

@Squatch347 I’ll concede that “the true laws of physics” was a poor choice of words. Indeed, I should have said “the current laws of physics”. Still, the fact that the current laws of physics break down inside the event horizon of a singularity mean we can’t use them to project back to what might lie on the other side of that singularity.

The laws you have referenced apply only to the specially designed world you posit in order to make the conclusion you wish to reach in order to justify your religion true. They are the height of special pleading, and I don’t care to discuss them further, as it is apparent that no matter what I present as evidence, you will tap-dance around it. You already know the answer you want, while I am seeking answers that fit observation.

@ETPro,

Still, the fact that the current laws of physics break down inside the event horizon of a singularity mean we can’t use them to project back to what might lie on the other side of that singularity.

I think most cosmologists would be a bit surprised to hear such an argument. Are they just ill-informed to be offering their own cosmological models for singularity formation then?

A better explanation is that the current gap in knowledge concerning singularities is just that, a gap of knowledge about what happens inside singularities. It does not prevent us from understanding the processes that happen outside of that limiting condition.

An even more cogent point is that the argument I’ve made is unaffected by the gap to which you are referring. That gap does not include a mathematical gap (which is what is necessary to reject the BVG theorem) or a logical gap (which would be necessary to reject the laws of causation).

This is an atheism of the gaps style argument, where in essence you are implying “we don’t know what happened, therefore science will explain it.” The problem is that the gap is irrelevant. If I saw a man jump out of a plane, lost him in some clouds then saw him plummet to earth, I wouldn’t point to his times in the clouds and argue that we can’t tell if he fell to his death or not. The question here is not what physical laws apply in the singularity itself, for which I agree we are limited in our understanding (though not completely as you seem to imply), but rather what processes led to that state, for which we do have valid inductive and deductive tools.

If I am not mistaken, the laws of physics do not break down inside the event horizon, but at the point of the singularity, because at that point, both relativity and quantum mechanics apply, yet they do not work together at that stage.

@Squatch347

Sorry to have lost you through all those words…

What is your point exactly about that singularity? Are we still talking about the / a creator, or are you and ET just into intellectual masturbation?

@Squatch347 I am not at all saying “we don’t know what happened, therefore science will explain it.” I am saying “We don’t know.” PERIOD. You claim to know what you cannot know. Faith is claiming to know what is currently unknowable. I simply admit I don’t know when that is the fact. I am OK with not knowing, because I can then go on to look, to investigate, and to try to know. When you claim absolute knowledge via faith, that shuts the door on investigation.

@whitenoise, my understanding of ET’s argument is that because we lack a specific framework for the laws that govern actions at and very near a singularity, we therefore can make no arguement about what could have come causally prior. I am disputing that assertion with several points. 1) The objection I have raised is not based in that gap in cosmological knowledge, but rather based upon mathematics and logical necessity. 2) The gap pertains to the singularity itself, not to the actions causally prior. Because we don’t understand the exact physics of a black hole does not mean we can’t understand the physical process of stellar collapse.

@ETpro, and no one disagrees with you. We both accept and agree that there is not a clear understanding of what happens at and very near a singularity.

But that acceptance does nothing to respond to my points:

1) Clearly cosmologists disagree with you since they are proposing models absent that knowledge.

2) A gap in an understanding of a singularity does not limit understanding of what comes causally prior, see the black hole analogy above.

3) My points are not contained within that gap of knowledge. IE physics. They are based on mathematical law and logical necessity.

@Squatch347

1—“Clearly cosmologists disagree with you since they are proposing models absent that knowledge.” Sorry, but I am not the one here claiming absolute knowledge. That is you. I only threw out some conjectures that make your neat cosmology fall apart. And there are physicists proposing ALL the models I offered.

I don’t advocate for any of those. My point is to not pretend to know what is currently unknowable. I’d like to invite you to join me in that position, as it it tremendously liberating and sparks an enormous sense of wonder and desire to investigate and learn. Pretending to know what is unknowable is the fast track to failed epistemology.

2—Yes, it most certainly does. List for me the peer reviewed cosmologists that claim they know what came before the Big Bang.

3—Logical necessity deals only with what we observe. It is beyond obvious that much of the laws of the Universe lie outside our Marco-level “common sense” observations and mathematical laws applied only to such observations. I’m reasonably sure you don’t want to argue for the God-of-the-gaps.

@EtPro,

Sorry, but I am not the one here claiming absolute knowledge.

I believe this to be an inaccurate statement. You have made postiive, absolute claims towards knowledge. Specifically that our lack of information concerning actions at a singularity prohibits our making claims to what exists causally prior.

I am simply pointing out that that claim seems to be inaccurate given the large number of cosmologists and physicists doing just that.

2) Yes, it most certainly does. List for me the peer reviewed cosmologists that claim they know what came before the Big Bang.

Certainly,

A.D. Linde proposes the chaotic inflationary model where local universes are spawned from a larger universe. http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Paper/4158576

This model is not temporally eternal in the past.

Of course there is Hawking/Hartle, which proposes that our universe is a topology change from an eternal universe that exists in imaginary time of closed topology. http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Paper/12396579

That model however has recieved little academic support and its two fundamental assumptions (imaginary time is a real and more fundamental version of time and that it exists in a closed topology) are, as Hawking says “hopeful thinking.”

There is also the Steinhardt-Turok model for a cyclical universe. This is a ekpyrotic cyclical model that also falls within the realm of the BVG theorem and therefore cannot be past eternal.

In a broader sense you realize that all string theorists are doing exactly this. As is anyone attempting to understand quantum gravity. In reality very few cosmologists are attempting to explain the rise of the universe via the physics of the singularity.

3) Logical necessity deals only with what we observe.

This statement would seem to betray a lack of familiarity with modern physics. You do realize that mathematical formulation (which falls within deductive reasoning) is the basis for virtually all cosmology right?

Perhaps I didn’t understand your response, are you attempting to maintain that there are sections of physical law that do not conform to mathematics? If so, can you offer some support of that?

@Squatch347 If you are going to stoop to claiming that my saying “I don’t know.” is making a specific claim to absolute knowledge, then I am tired of this tap dance. You seem to have started your pursuit of knowledge knowing what you wanted to establish (that your particular God is the only possible answer to the hard question, “Why is there something and not nothing?”) and then cherry picked things that support the apologetics for Yahweh, while finding some way to quibble with the vast domain that doesn’t support such apologetics. I think that has left you doxastically closed and locked. I’m not. I’m actively searching.

Again, it’s odd if only your science and math is rational that 97% of those in The Royal Academy and 96% in The National Academy of Sciences are atheists. This isn’t because they are unaware of your mountain of evidence that God must exist, but because they are aware of the bankruptcy of the arguments in that mountain.

In parting, here’s one more cosmology that debunks your Kalam claim. http://physorg.com/news89399974.html

As to math, you can quibble with Dr. John Allen Pualos’ book, Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up.

@Squatch347 Please be assured I’m not cutting this discussion short because of any fault of yours. For reasons entirely unrelated to our discussion, I am limiting my activity here on Fluther. I felt this discussion had gone on long enough and gotten so bogged down in minutia that it was becoming increasingly difficult to follow even for the two of us, and seemed to have long since been abandoned by most of the others here. So ending this was a prime candidate for time saving. A final present. If you haven’t already seen it, you might enjoy this excellent YouTube video of the fine BBC program, Horizon: Infinity.

Some of us are still watching from a distance with popcorn and a drink.

@Hypocrisy_Central Move along. Nothing to see here.

@Hypocrisy_Central please pass the salt!

Vegan butter anyone? Pepper?

@ETPro,
If you are going to stoop to claiming that my saying “I don’t know.” is making a specific claim to absolute knowledge, then I am tired of this tap dance.
Well it is possible that I misunderstood you, however with your insistence in asking me to provide you with peer-reviewed cosmological models concerning the causally prior states of the local universe along with statements like: “Still, the fact that the current laws of physics break down inside the event horizon of a singularity mean we can’t use them to project back to what might lie on the other side of that singularity” I could be forgiven for assuming that you are making a claim about our current lack of understanding related to physical law prohibiting us from making positive statements towards those physical models.

To summarize (I recognize you would like to move away from this thread, no worries of course), the current gaps in our knowledge concerning the physical processes within or very near a singularity do not affect the Cosmological Argument for the following reasons:
1) They do not cover the scope necessary to object to the second premise. IE, none of the gaps allows for an eternal universe in the past. The current proposed models that do propose causally prior events fall into two categories. A) Those that are finite in the past and B) those that are not finite but violate either the BVG theorem or Thermodynamics.
2) The objections raised against the second premise are rebutted outside of the realm of physical law. I have used mathematics and logical necessity to rebut those objections. No gap in physical law (which is a sub-set of those two disciplines) applies to those arguments.
3) Even within the realm of these gaps we do have some limits as to the possible explanations. These limits provide a guide for what possible causally prior events led to the singularity itself. It is well and good to say, “I’m not sure what exact route you took from the store home yesterday.” That does not mean we can’t say “given that it took you 10 minutes the route that goes through Moscow can be ruled out.”

_Again, it’s odd if only your science and math is rational that 97% of those in The Royal Academy and 96% in The National Academy of Sciences are atheists. _
It is also interesting that virtually none of those scientists claim that the universe is infinitely old either right?

In parting, here’s one more cosmology that debunks your Kalam claim.
This paper is the Frampton and Baum model, which suffers from several notable flaws. The primary being, it isn’t past eternal. I have no objection to their being a causally prior state to this local universe. But if that causally prior state isn’t past eternal, it has the same questions as the current local universe.
The current Frampton and Baum model has a series of cycles during which entropy builds up. The problem with their current model (the actual paper, rather than just the reporter’s understanding can be found here: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610213) is that the collapse geodesic and the expansion geodesic are asymmetrical. That leads to a small, but non-zero entropy buildup over cycles (noted in their abstract). You’ll also notice that neither Baum nor Frampton really take this model seriously, as in their conclusion they say: “We publish our infinitely cyclic model mainly in the hope that it will stimulate a more detailed and compelling formulation.” IE our model isn’t really that compelling, but could be a stepping stone.

Their work isn’t even the most current along this model. The Aguirre-Gratton model is more recent and attempts to solve the asymmetry issue by reversing the sign on the minowski metric as it approaches the singularity. They note that the problem with this solution is that the mirror universe on the opposing side of the BVG boundary doesn’t represent a “past” in any sense and therefore, as they note, the question of a beginning is still relevant. Interestingly, in their conclusion they also note that this is clearly not a model for our physical universe, but propose that the sign change of the minowski metric might spur someone on to develop a different physical process that could reconcile the bounce to thermodynamics.
As to math, you can quibble with Dr. John Allen Pualos’ book, Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up.
The problem with Pualo’s work here is that it is a bit of a strawman. His formulation of the Cosmological Argument, for example, is nothing like what I or others have presented. He makes the critical error of ascribing to theists that “all things that exist have a cause” which of course is not the relevant argument at all. Paulo lacks formal training or familiarity with both philosophy and with sentential calculus which is why he makes some relatively fundamental errors in his formulations (for example he forgets that “or” in sentential calculus includes the “and” in its truth evaluation), unfortunately this shows in this work.

Please be assured I’m not cutting this discussion short because of any fault of yours.

I appreciate the kind words, it has been a pleasure.

Priests created creators. Each religion may have its own creator(s). In China, Pan Gu was the creator in our polytheistic religion called “Shenism” by westerners (“Shen” means “god” in Chinese). In Japan’s Kami no Michi (a.k.a. Shinto in copying Chinese Shen Dao), Izanami and Izanagi were co-creators, and now, their daughter Amaterasu is the supreme deity. In ancient babylonia, Marduk was creator. In India’s Hinduism, Brahma is creator. he does not live as long as Vishnu the Preserver and Shiva the Lord of Destruction.

@Squatch347 “Still, the fact that the current laws of physics break down inside the event horizon of a singularity mean we can’t use them to project back to what might lie on the other side of that singularity” I could be forgiven for assuming that you are making a claim about our current lack of understanding related to physical law prohibiting us from making positive statements towards those physical models.
OK, how about the Cliff Notes to this broken down to the level of the guy who follows the elephants at the circus. How does anyone know for sure what goes on in this event horizon? Has someone witnessed on, sent a probe in one to get data from it like a cosmic storm chaser? Is a positive statement a correct statement? Please answer those in simple terms.

@Hypocrisy_Central What goes on beyond the event horizon? ~The world may never know!~

Seriously speaking, though, anything physicists (or any other scientist) may say about that is conjecture. To be sure, this conjecture is backed up by rigorous calculation and scientific theorizing, but I see it as conjecture none the less.

@Hypocrisy_Central Essentially what ET is suggesting is that if we ran time backward, as we got closer and closer to the big bang, the physical laws of our universe change significantly, so much so that there is a point very, very close to the beginning of our universe where they don’t make sense any more. Essentially, when you try to apply the rules to that level of energy and small amount of space they give you nonsense answers. He is correct.

However, he says that that means we can’t possible know about how the universe began That we can’t know what happened “before” the big bang (I know that there really isn’t any such thing as before the big bang, but I’m trying to keep it simple).

I pointed out that if that was true, why are physicists making so many of these theories and why are they winning Nobel prizes for them?

More importantly, because I can’t apply our universe’s physical laws to those theories doesn’t mean I can’t apply any rational thought to them. Just because the laws that govern gravity don’t work on them doesn’t mean they are essentially magic, they still follow logical principles, there are some physical rules that also still apply to them, you aren’t going to find married bachelors in those theories for example.

Physicists are still able to say “this theory doesn’t work because of x” even if they know the laws of physics break down near the big bang singularity. They are able to point out that if a theory has a cyclic universe (one that expands, collapses, expands, collapses) that this universe can’t have already been going on doing cycles forever because the cycles get a little bit bigger every time (this is a function of the basic math used to generate the theory). Imagine having a balloon where you blew it up bigger, then let a little air out, then blew it up bigger than the first time, then let the air out. You know that this process hasn’t been going on forever, because if you reverse it (or imagine it going backward) you eventually reach a point where the balloon was empty.

So just because specific physical laws don’t apply doesn’t mean we can’t evaluate theories for the beginning of the universe at all, it simply means we have to use different tools.

Hope this answers your question. I’m not on Fluther almost ever anymore, but if you have any questions, you can find me at www.onlinedebate.net

Whoops I missed a portion of your question, by “positive” statements I meant that in the logical form, a claim essentially.

“The sky is blue” is a positive statement. A true one.

“The sky is red” is a positive statement. A false one.

“The sky is seven” is a positive statement. A fallacious one.

To rephrase my argument against ET in that post, I am saying that just because the laws of physics break down doesn’t mean I can’t dispute someone who says “the sky is seven in the big bang.” I can still say they are incorrect because the statement doesn’t make any sense, that it is a categorical error (skies are colors, not numbers). I don’t need a physical law to tell me that the statement is false.

@Squatch347 Essentially what ET is suggesting is that if we ran time backward, as we got closer and closer to the big bang, the physical laws of our universe change significantly, so much so that there is a point very, very close to the beginning of our universe where they don’t make sense any more.
Seeing there is no way to test it, I cannot really trust it. You say there are facts one expect to find or see that says it happened maybe this way, that way, or yet another way. There might be some evidence there, but that doesn’t mean the way scientist decide to piece together the riddle is correct. If I happened upon a field, I see a trough in the ground; it appears to have been wrought fairly recent. There are also signs of a fire, and there are shredded air plane parts scattered at one end. One can take those clues to deduct that a plane crashed and burned there, to someone who doesn’t know of planes, it doesn’t mean that, and would never lead them to think that. The clues themselves might give an appearance of what is expected but in reality be nothing close. That trough could have been dug to bury the parts in. If they were even plane parts, it could have been a plane whose flying days were long over. The signs of fire could have been done by those who dug the trench to keep warm or for light because they worked at night. Those who expect a plane crash because of the clues will take them as fact and believe it. What I believe is because most of what science say happened they were never witness to, the clues might look like what they want, but the true facts far from it.

Imagine having a balloon where you blew it up bigger, then let a little air out, then blew it up bigger than the first time, then let the air out. You know that this process hasn’t been going on forever, because if you reverse it (or imagine it going backward) you eventually reach a point where the balloon was empty.
That goes for seeing the balloon 5/7th of the way full, if you know there appears to be a tied off end where it looks like content can be placed in the balloon, you would assume the balloon can be inflated more, or that the balloon can even be deflated. What if there was no way to do either? You know the balloon has some give to the surface but it is opaque and you cannot see what is inside. All you have is the feel to go by and apply to what you know, matching it up known things as to what it could be filled with, sand, air, shaving cream, etc. If you could not handle the balloon, puncture it, etc. math all you want, you don’t know if the balloon would burst if you placed anymore are in there, or even if you untied it that what was in it would deplete. Clues might tell you it should do this or that, but since you can never witness it or have witnessed it, it is the best guess available, pure and simple.