CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Who cares if there's a scientific explanation? Those explanations just give god more credit.
How so?
It doesn't disprove that God created it.
No, but why does god need to be disproven to not believe. To not believe in anything doesn't require evidence, it requires a lack of evidence for logical justification.
No, but why does god need to be disproven to not believe. To not believe in anything doesn't require evidence, it requires a lack of evidence for logical justification.
Because the explanation just points out how much more amazing a particular something is and that transitions to God.
So the awe of something is evidence for god? How so? especially when "amazing" or a positive disposition towards something is purely perceptual? I could be in awe of the stupidest thing ever, I could be amazed by a tortoises ability to hide in its shell, doesn't mean god had anything to do with it. You have supplied no sufficient logic.
For instance: When you do something cool and then someone figures out an explanation for how you did it, it makes whoever did it, sound even more amazing, because of how complex it was. Therefore science can't disprove the existence of God, because science just makes God, sound like a badass.
That is a horrible analogy. In that situation we KNOW someone did this impressive thing, therefore it does look good on them. However you claimed that scientific discovery is evidence of god, because it makes him/her/it look more impressive, however in this situation we don't know if anything is a result from god's doing. You still haven't made a logical argument on how scientific discovery is evidence of god, just an argument for if it was, it would be impressive of him.
I completely disagree however i will agree that there is sufficient reason to accept a god as a possibility no matter how small. What reasons exactly do you think belief in a higher being is acceptable to have?
Mainly due to the weight of philosophical evidence for the existence of God. There are some good arguments against the existence of God (such as occam's razor), however it is outweighed by evidence for. Unfortunately most arguments against deal with an involved creator God, which is understandable because religion deals with those sorts of gods.
Of course there is evidence for God(some of which I have already mentioned), you'd have to be ignorant or very poorly read to believe that. You could attempt to argue that there is no good evidence for God and that there is good evidence against which leads to my question
What is this good evidence against the Philosophical concwpt that is God?
Well that's dumb. Nobody says that they don't believe in God because they know there is a God. People say they don't believe in God because they don't! It's that simple.
"I believe in the Flying Spagghetti Monster. The reason people say there is no FSM, is because they know there is a FSM, but they don't want to admit it." How much more credible is your argument than that?
This is an appeal to ridicule fallacy. It is also sophistry. If you define FSM with all the same attributes as a deity (which is usually done), but simply call it something else you are committing the above fallacy. Changing the name of something in order to ridicule it is not critical thinking.
Exactly, even if the universe was created, that does not mean a deity created it. There are numerous other possibilities, to simply say God must have done it is an unfactual argument, Ive posted this before twice but it seems you need to read this:
The classic "Something can't come from nothing argument made by Theists"
3 major flaws in this argument:
1. If you are stating that the world had to be created because something cannot come from nothing then you must explain where God came from, if you are like most theists your reply will probably be "God doesn't need a creator, he's eternal." Then why can't the universe be eternal? Why did it need to be created?
2. Even if something did create the cosmos, it wouldn't necessarily need to be a God, it is more likely that a rock created the universe, not very likely but more so than God because we know that rocks exist, we can see them, touch them, etc. But God we have no evidence for.
3. Even if it was a God, Goddess, Gods, etc. that created the universe, how likely is it that your God of your faith is the correct one? Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Thor, Shiva, etc. have about the same probability, it may even be none of these Gods, but a God we don't even know of
Exactly, even if the universe was created, that does not mean a deity created it.
I agree, the criteria for the aspects of the cause of the universe are deduced given the arguments offered in the cosmological argument, which I've posted here before. To Whit:
The Cosmological Argument:
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: The universe therefore as a cause.
Premise 1
This is generally considered a relatively fundamental law of causation [1]. Changes in state (going from not existing to existing) require causation. We should consider that any effect that lacks a cause becomes, by definition "necessary." And self sufficient effects cannot, by definition "begin."
In the past, some have sought to object to this premise by forwarding different aspects of Quantum Mechanics. These fail however because the causal mechanism still exists, it is the quantum wave function [2]. The confusion often arises because we confuse a probabilistic cause for no cause at all. If there was a random number generator that killed a cat on odd numbers, we wouldn't say that the cat's death was uncaused.
Premise 2
This premise also is generally scientifically accepted. Inflationary cosmology dictates that the universe began from a near singularity[3]. I think it is important here to point out that time is a physical dimension of our universe, just like the other dimensions[4]. Just as they expanded from a singularity, so did the temporal dimension of our universe. This necessitates a beginning of the universe when the temporal dimension was a singularity as well.
Objections to this premise are usually in the form of alternative hypotheses about our current universe. Historically, the steady state universe was used. That is to say, it was argued until recently that the universe is eternal, that it had always been. This is problematic for several reasons. Primary amongst them is the evidence indicating the universe is expanding. It is for this reason that virtually no cosmologist holds to steady state theory today. The historic objection also still holds. If the universe was eternal, we would expect that all the stars and galaxies to have burned out by now. If there is an infinite past, an infinite amount of time would already have occurred, which is far greater than the possible time limit on all the fission of all the matter in the universe.
The first modification of this theory to deal with the expansion of the universe came with the cyclic model. In which the universe expands, collapses and expands again. This theory however fails because it also cannot recede into the infinite past. Entropy between cycles would build up causing later cycles to be high entropy states and prohibit matter and star formation[5]. Again, if the universe were infinitely old, this would have already occurred and we could not observe star formation now.
Finally, the most modern objection arises from an appeal to a multiverse or multiple universes. This objection also fails for two reasons. One, since it produces a temporal effect, the multiverse itself would need a temporal component (non intentful causes cannot act outside of a dimension they exist in), making it open to the same appeals to an infinite past that we have above. Two, a multi-verse hypothesis would need to be reconciled to the Borde-Vilinken-Guth Theorem [6] which prohibits low entropy, expanding universes (ie the kind we live in) from any multiverse. To date, no reconciliation has been put forward, with Stephen Hawking noting that this is the single greatest objection to his views.
Characteristics
It naturally follows from the premises that the universe therefore had a cause.
But we can go a little bit further than that. Given the established premises and conclusions and some other observed facts, we can reason out a few of the properties of this cause.
1) Omnipotence. This word is often used in a differing manner than how theists intend it. It does not mean, for example, the ability to do anything such as creating a round square. Rather, when used here it refers to the ability to actualize states of affairs. I will borrow William Lane Craig’s definition here:
Rather we should think of omnipotence in terms of the ability to actualize states of affairs. A state of affairs is just a way something might be – for example, the state of affairs of there being chairs in this room, or the state of affairs of our being in the lower story of the church building, or there being a piano here. Those are all states of affairs that actually obtain. Omnipotence should be understood in terms of the ability to actualize states of affairs. To be omnipotent means the ability to bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for any one in that situation to bring about.
[7]
This ability is a natural conclusion to the CA as I have presented it. In order for a cause to be sufficient to cause the universe, it must be able to actualize states of affairs related to all the specifics of our universe. It must be able to affect physical laws, physical constants, and dimensionless constants. This ability fits the definition proposed above as omnipotent.
2) Aphysical and atemporal. Both of these terms mean that the item in question lacks physical and temporal characteristics. Given that both time and space are properties of this universe and that an effect cannot be its own cause (a logical paradox), we see that the cause defined in our conclusion cannot exhibit properties of its own effect. Given that it must be transcendent of this universe (ie it cannot be bound to this universe otherwise it couldn’t exist to elicit the effect) it cannot be limited by the dimensions of this universe.
3) Intentfulness. This conclusion arises from the observed temporal finiteness of the universe. We know that the cause cannot be a mechanistic cause (IE if the cause exists the effect exists) because we can describe a state of affairs where the cause exists, but the effect does not. This is really a long winded method of saying “the universe began.”
Likewise, we can say that the cause is not a probabilistic cause either. Probabilistic causes require a dimension to act along. IE along a temporal dimension (chance over time) or a physical one (chance over distance). However, all probabilistic causes must act along the dimensions that they elicit effects within. IE, a quantum wave function acts along a temporal and physical dimension to create an effect in both (a particle’s location). You cannot have a quantum wave function (or any other probability function) that only discusses time, but produces a physical effect.
Given now that we’ve ruled out those two methods of causation we are only left with intent. Only a cause that has an intent can demonstrate the attributes labeled above. Only an intentful cause can create information that is not found within itself. IE all causes except intentful ones have temporal information within them if they act temporally, physical information within them if they act physically, etc. Only intentful causes exhibit the kind of causation we observe given the CA.
Conclusion
So we can see that given the premises that the universe must itself have a cause and that this cause must be aphysical and atemporal since it cannot be part of its own creation, that it must be omnipotent in order to create that creation and that it must be intentful in order to explain the finiteness of the universe and its dimensionality.
Given the premises, which are supported, no other conclusion can be accepted.
Now for a miscellaneous definition:
Logical necessity: I don’t mean this term to imply philosophic necessity in that I argue that no other belief is possible, but rather rational necessity in which I hold that no other conclusion is rational.
5) I. D. Novikov and Ya. B. Zel’dovich (1973) Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities Annu. Rev. Astro. Astrophys. 11 387-412
S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose (1970) The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 314. 1519. 529-548.
6) Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin (2003) Inflationary Spacetimes are Incomplete in Past Directions Physical Review Letters 90. 15 http://arxiv.org/pdf/grqc/0110012.pdf
1. If you are stating that the world had to be created because something cannot come from nothing then you must explain where God came from, if you are like most theists your reply will probably be "God doesn't need a creator, he's eternal." Then why can't the universe be eternal? Why did it need to be created?
You have correctly identified my objection. God, as a timeless entity (IE He exists outside of the temporal dimension that is part of our universe) does not have a beginning, and therefore does not need a cause.
The universe cannot be eternal (ie premise two) because that would require not only that we dismiss our current understanding of physics (that the universe began about 13B years ago), but that we accept that temporally successive infinite series are logically possible, causing us to reject set theory, the basis for most modern mathematics.
2. Even if something did create the cosmos, it wouldn't necessarily need to be a God, it is more likely that a rock created the universe, not very likely but more so than God because we know that rocks exist, we can see them, touch them, etc. But God we have no evidence for.
A rock could not coherently create the universe. Please see the above argument. The cause of the universe must be aphysical (lack a physical presence) because it exists outside of the physical dimensions of this universe. Arguing that a rock created the universe is essentially arguing the universe created itself, which is impossible given a temporally finite universe since it is impossible for a fully sufficient cause to exist absent its effect.
3. Even if it was a God, Goddess, Gods, etc. that created the universe, how likely is it that your God of your faith is the correct one? Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Thor, Shiva, etc. have about the same probability, it may even be none of these Gods, but a God we don't even know of
The Cosmological Argument does not propose to answer this particular question. Sufficed to say, that it shows a deity, not which one. Other philosophic arguments can be used to remove some of these (the moral argument posits a maximally good being, which would eliminate Zeus or Thor or Shiva by definition), and historical arguments can be used to remove others.
How do you know that there is more than one universe? To say that God exists out of nature is to basically say he doesn't exist, nature encompasses everything. To say God exists outside of nature is a copout. Watch the Hitchens debate with Craig, he basically debunks all of these arguments. How do you know a rock didn't create the universe? To say that the world is too complex to have not been created therefore it was created by a complex intelligence (God) is an oxymoron, basically saying: "this is too complicated to have been created, therefore it was created by something more complex".
How do you know that there is more than one universe?
I didn't say there was more than one universe. I said that the cause of the universe beginning must, by definition, be external to the universe. A temporally finite object cannot be internally self sufficient by definition.
To say that God exists out of nature is to basically say he doesn't exist, nature encompasses everything.
I didn't say He exists outside "nature" (an undefined term), I said the cause must be external to the universe. There is nothing internally inconsistent in arguing that something can exist outside of this universe.
How do you know a rock didn't create the universe?
Because a rock, being a physical object must exist within the context of the physical dimensions of this universe. As such, it cannot be independent of this universe and as such cannot serve as the cause.
To say that the world is too complex to have not been created
Strawman fallacy. I did not argue at any point that the universe's complexity is an argument for design. I argued that the specific values of the physical constants precludes the universe where matter forms having arisen purely by chance. It is outside the realm of statistical possibility.
Btw the biblical God is not a moral being, he in fact has commited more atrocities than the devil. Read the bible, its the ultimate source for atheism.
That conception is a frequent comment for those who have, at best, skimmed the Bible. This usually relies on a flawed understanding of the actions contained and of the nature of morality.
What flawed understanding? You christians will always seem to only take the few good things out of the bible as literal and all other bad things are simply: symbolical, taken out of context, misinterpreted, etc.
Explain these to me then:
People of Judah shout and God helps them kill 500,000 people
God slaughters 70 men for looking into the ark
God has the earth swallow people
God drowns almost everyone on earth
God orders and joins in on the genocide of all of Canaan
God threatens people with having to eat their children’s flesh
Sons of Levi are blessed for randomly slaughtering cow worshippers
God kills all the Egyptian babies for Pharaoh’s stubbornness
God kills the meat eaters
God allows people to sacrifice their babies to him to teach them a lesson
God kills a man for not impregnating his sister-in-law
God comes out of the sky to kill David’s enemies
God allows babies to be dashed and pregnant women to be ripped open
God threatens to have wild animals carry away the Israelite’s children
God tells people to kill their loved ones if they worship other gods
Bible says beat your child with a rod
Bible says beating and wounding people is good for them
God promises to punish children for their parent’s sin
God terrifies and causes tumors
Jesus doesn’t allow a disciple to bury his dead father
God rewards Jacob for deceiving his dying father
Supposedly the people of Judah shouted and God helped them kill 1/2 million Israelites.
(2 Chr 13:15 NRSV) Then the people of Judah raised the battle shout. And when the people of Judah shouted, God defeated Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah.
(2 Chr 13:16-18 NRSV) The Israelites fled before Judah, and God gave them into their hands. Abijah and his army defeated them with great slaughter; five hundred thousand picked men of Israel fell slain.
Thus the Israelites were subdued at that time, and the people of Judah prevailed because they relied on the LORD, the God of their ancestors.
God slaughters 70 men for simply looking into the Ark.
(1 Sam 6:19 RSV) And he (God) slew some of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they looked into the ark
of the LORD; he slew
seventy men of them, and the people mourned because the Lord had made a great slaughter among the people.
Korah questions Moses’ leadership and God makes the earth open up and swallow his people: men, women, and children.
(Num 16:20-21 NRSV) Then the LORD spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying: Separate yourselves from this congregation, so that I may consume them in a moment. They fell on their faces, and said, "O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one person sin and you become angry with the whole congregation?"
(Num 16:27 NRSV) (…)and Dathan and Abiram came out and stood at the entrance of their tents, together with their wives , their children , and their little ones .
(Num 16:32-33 NRSV) The earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, along with their households–everyone who belonged to Korah and all their goods. So they with all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol; the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.
(Then God burned some other followers)
(Num 16:35 NRSV) And fire came out from the LORD and consumed the two hundred fifty men offering the incense.
(Then the whole congregation were upset about what God had done)
(Num 16:41 NRSV) On the next day, however, the whole congregation of the Israelites rebelled against Moses and against Aaron, saying, "You have killed the people of the LORD."
(God is further angered)
(Num 16:45 NRSV) "Get away from this congregation, so that I may consume them in a moment." And they fell on their faces.
(God strikes them with a plague. Moses finally intervenes to prevent the entire congregation from being killed) .
(Num 16:49 NRSV) Those who died by the plague were fourteen thousand seven hundred, besides those who died in the affair of Korah
God drowns all the men, women, and children on the earth during the flood story:
(Gen 7:21 NRSV) And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings
Here are some examples of the battles of Joshua for the possession of Canaanite cities and genocide of inhabitants as commanded by God
(All verses from book of Joshua NRSV)
(City of Jericho)(6:21) Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys.
(City of Ai)(8:22)Israel struck them down until no one was left who survived or escaped.
(8:29) And he hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening; and at sunset Joshua commanded, and they took his body down from the tree, threw it down at the entrance of the gate of the city …
(The Amorites) (10:10) …(the Israelites) inflicted a great slaughter on them at Gibeon …, and struck them down as far as Azekah and Makkedah.
( God throws boulders down from heaven onto fleeing Amorites )
(10:11) As they fled before Israel, while they were going down the slope of Beth-horon, the LORD threw down huge stones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died; there were more who died because of the hailstones than the Israelites killed with the sword.
(There wasn’t enough time in the day to complete the slaughter so God makes the Sun stop moving in the sky )
(10:12-13) …Joshua spoke to the LORD; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon."
And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.
(God’s mission accomplished with the Amorites) (10:20) When Joshua and the Israelites had finished inflicting a very great slaughter on them, until they were wiped out, …
More battles of Joshua for the possession of cities and genocide of Canaanite inhabitants as commanded by God
(All verses from book of Joshua NRSV)
(City of Libnah)(10:30) The LORD gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel; and he struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left o one remaining in it;
(City of Lachish)(10:32-33) … and struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah. Then King Horam of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua struck him and his people, leaving him no survivors.
(City of Eglon)(10:35) and they took it that day, and struck it with the edge of the sword; and every person in it he utterly destroyed that day, as he had done to Lachish.
(City of Hebron)(10:37) and struck it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns, and every person in it; he left no one remaining, just as he had done to Eglon, and utterly destroyed it with every person in it.
(City of Debir)(10:39-40) and he took it with its king and all its towns; they struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left no one remaining;
So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.
So really the thrust of your entire argument is that bad things have happened in the Bible (presumably measured by the fact that you, personally, find them distasteful) and that is meant to imply that those actions are therefore immoral.
I find this an incoherent moral position to hold. You are attempting to apply a subjective moral view (your personal tastes) on others. That in itself is incoherent.
Now, if you are attempting to judge the actions by an objective moral view, you have utterly failed to lay out the code of that viewpoint or its source of legitimacy.
So which is it? Are you comparing these actions to some objective moral code? If so, which one? How are they in violation of it? What weight does that moral code have to the claim of objectivity?
1. "So really the thrust of your entire argument is that bad things have happened in the bible (presumably measured by the fact that you personally find them distasteful) and that is meant to imply that those actions are therefore immoral"
I am pointing outnthat your definition of a moral God is only subjective, your God has commited many thing which by todays societies standard would be considered atrocities, this puts a flaw i. Your argument that the biblical God is morally just, putting the existance of all other deities at a disadvantage.
2. Moral codes are completley subjective, my moral code stems from my conscience and empathy for others, it is a trait most creatures share, you help out others because in the end I know that if I was in their shoes that is how I would like to be treated, morality in humans existed long before the bible was written, and because of the atrocities I listed to you before, it clearly demonstrates that it has not prevented immorality as well.
I am pointing outnthat your definition of a moral God is only subjective,
To quote G.K. Chesterton, "fallacies do not cease being fallacies because they become fashions." The fact that other societies at other times have held different opinions is not evidence that objective moral values and duties do not exist. There were societies that believed the world was on the back of a turtle. It does not mean that cosmology is subjective.
2. Moral codes are completley subjective,
If this is a true statement, under what authority can you argue that the shooter at Newtown committed an immoral act? After all it was immoral to you and me, but those values are subjective, meaning it might have been moral to him right?
because of the atrocities I listed to you before, it clearly demonstrates that it has not prevented immorality as well.
Does that mean that in the US our law against murder isn't valid either? I mean people still murder after all.
First, a house-keeping note: your references #2, #3, and #7 all contain the ellipses rather than the full path (a result of copying and pasting from here.) I'll presume you were the poster over there and that you and Caconym are no longer debating the topic for whatever reason, but urge readers to review.
The actual references would be: #2, #3, #7 - however #2 no longer exists in that location. Here is a web archive version, and here is a version translated into English for those interested.
I will borrow William Lane Craig’s definition
Since you borrowed his whole argument, I would hope you are using his definitions.
One other small note - only one source is post 1973; there have been a number of advancements in this area since then.
Entropy between cycles would build up
The early cyclic models developed in the 20s and 30s had no concept of what we now refer to as dark energy. The current cyclic models do not have an issue with entropy buildup (refref)
non intentful causes cannot act outside of a dimension they exist in
This seems wholly made up. Forces in one dimension can have no effect on other dimensions, yet there's an exclusion to that rule for intentionality?? based on what exactly??
Neither Craig nor you have produced anything that rules out the Hawking no-boundary proposal. Craig's arguments against it are namely that he doesn't like the idea of imaginary time and that it is currently metaphysical speculation (hello pot, this is kettle - you're black!). He also begins to make a probabilistic argument forgetting that a supernatural being with the ability to create universes/multiverses is more complex and therefore less probable. Overall you/he present nothing that is logically or physically exclusionary nor more probable.
You are indeed correct, thank you for cleaning up the sources. I should have realized that would happen when I first posted it.
Since you borrowed his whole argument, I would hope you are using his definitions.
I actually do not entirely adopt Craig's conclusions. He concludes a "mind" while I argue "intent-fulness." Similar, but not exactly the same argument.
One other small note - only one source is post 1973; there have been a number of advancements in this area since then.
I don't think that this is an accurate statement. I offered seven sources. Source 1, the philosophic dictionary is a currently and periodically updated source. Source 2, is pre-1976, however it is referencing very basic quantum mechanical principals that haven't changed since that publication. The existence of a quantum wave function is hardly outdated. Source 3 was last updated in 2000, and advances sine then haven't invalidated the standard model as explained. Heck, the viewing of the Higgs-Boson last year was further confirmatory evidence of this model. Source 4 covers minowski spacetime, another extremely basic concept to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The link itself was updated in 2013 and reflects current tensor analysis. Source 5 is indeed from 1973 and reflects a theorem first accepted at that time (and still in acceptance now) concerning the basic laws of entropy. It also has a paper by Hawking/Penrose, from 1970 and is discussing an earlier Big Bang theory since rejected, so it being old is moot to the support for the premise. Source 6 is a paper published in 2003 and represents a current cosmological theorem about inflationary spacetimes. Finally, source 7 represents a transcript from 2011, and refers to a philosophic definition, so its age would also seem irrelevant even if it were old.
As a summary, I have 5 sources that date from post-1973 and two sources pre-1973, both of which refer to fundamental concepts not challenged anywhere in your response.
As such, I think this objection fails concerning my support.
The early cyclic models developed in the 20s and 30s had no concept of what we now refer to as dark energy. The current cyclic models do not have an issue with entropy buildup
The two papers you reference by Steinhardt and Turok fall into the category of Ekpyrotic cyclic models. These models propose a cyclical expansion within a larger brane universe where the build up of entropy is within the larger brane, not the individual sub-universes (Section three on page 15 of "Cosmic Evolution in a Cyclic Universe" and Comparing cyclic and inflationary model section on page 12 of "A Cyclic Model of the Universe"). The problem with this is, that in order for the larger brane universe to accomplish this "relief valve" function it must be on average expanding. It thus falls prey to the BGV theorem (referenced above) and cannot be past eternal. Steinhardt makes this argument on his website in the FAQ section (or did until 2007, use the way back machine to see the argument he made).
This seems wholly made up. Forces in one dimension can have no effect on other dimensions, yet there's an exclusion to that rule for intentionality?? based on what exactly??
Neither Craig nor you have produced anything that rules out the Hawking no-boundary proposal. Craig's arguments against it are namely that he doesn't like the idea of imaginary time and that it is currently metaphysical speculation (hello pot, this is kettle - you're black!).
You misunderstand Craig's position here. He is simply pointing out the same thing Hawking points out on his website. Imaginary time is useful fiction for accomplishing the math. It is a necessary introduction into Einstein's equations to avoid the absurdities arise out of an infinitely dense universe. What Hawking doesn't do in the formal paper (but which is done in his proposed papers and by other physicists) is to convert those imaginary time sets back into a real time set to convert back to a model capable of describing reality. When done, that conversion does, in fact, involve a beginning. To quote Hawking himself on the subject: "Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities . . . . When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities"
Even if not undertaken, the Hawking model doesn't really object to the second premise. Hawking's insight is a way around having a beginning "point" at best. But something doesn't not need to have a finite beginning point in order to have a beginning. A hyperbolic curve does not have a beginning point, but it does have an asymptote beyond which it does not exist. IE as we move across the axis the curve does not exist and then does exist. Hence it falls within the definition of beginning offered in the original argument.
1. Then explain how cause of the cause, why did you stop there?
2. There is no scientific proof of alternate dimensions, only speculation.
3. If God interferes in our life, we should have some evidence of his presence, lets ay you and i were in an empty room (this will represent nature). Lets say you went to sleep and while you were sleeping I shot myself in the head. You wake up to see that im dead and there is a hole in my head, a hole in the wall, and a smoking gun that shows evidence of having recently been fired. The bullet no longer "exists" since it is outside of "nature", but clear evidence listed before is available to indicate that the bullet did exist at some point.
4. The concept of omnipresence is itself a hypothesis, there is no back up for this
5. Time is not a property, it is a measure by the occurrence of events.
6. Judging by some of your arguments im assuming your a christian, there are many historical and scientific errors, the great flood is disproved, creation contradicted by evolution, sun is somehow created after light, the earth is round (not flat as suggested in the bible), diseases are not caused by demonic possesion, etc
1. Then explain how cause of the cause, why did you stop there?
I'm not 100% sure what you mean here. Do you mean what caused the cause? If so I think you misunderstood premise 1. It is not that all things need a cause. It is that all things that begin to exist need a cause. Hence an atemporal or eternal object would not need a cause since it never begins to exist.
2. There is no scientific proof of alternate dimensions, only speculation.
Agreed, no one is talking about an alternative dimension. We are recognizing the concept that the universe itself is finite and as such there is a logical possibility of outside the universe. This is the same idea Stephen Hawking references or any String Theorist maintains.
3. If God interferes in our life, we should have some evidence of his presence, lets ay you and i were in an empty room (this will represent nature).
1) I haven't made this argument at any point in my debate.
2) I don't see why we should see evidence, humans are not sufficiently aware enough to fully understand what is going on in the universe. A young child might not be aware of a parent if that parent places something before them when their eyes are closed. There is no reason to assume that humans are fully aware of all changes and their mechanisms present in the universe.
4. The concept of omnipresence is itself a hypothesis, there is no back up for this
Also haven't made this argument at any point.
5. Time is not a property, it is a measure by the occurrence of events.
This is incorrect, time is a bound dimension of the universe. It is virtually identical to the three spatial dimensions we are more familiar with. Special Relativity dismissed the idea of time as an illusion nearly 50 years ago. Modern physics operates in Minowski Space, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_metric which contains four dimensional properties, three physical, one temporal.
6. Judging by some of your arguments im assuming your a christian, there are many historical and scientific errors, the great flood is disproved, creation contradicted by evolution, sun is somehow created after light, the earth is round (not flat as suggested in the bible), diseases are not caused by demonic possesion, etc
1) Again, not my argument anywhere here.
2) Most of these rely on strawman arguments. For example, light did exist before our star the sun existed, it is, in fact, about 9 billion years older than our star. The bible does not suggest the world was flat, that is a blatant misreading of the text. There is historical precedence for a large flood (the breaking of a large ice dam at the end of the last ice age wiped out most of the human population in that region at the end of the last ice age), etc, etc.
Im not going to repeat what I have argued with theists like you before over and over. Btw, how is this any different from you taking points from wlc, (who is about as credible of a source as a kindergartner)
I have linked you to things that debunk the whole argument you put forward. How can I debate you when you are making up your own scientific rules and terminologies.
Which rule or terminology was "made up?" Please be specific.
You linked me to a youtube video, hardly a conclusive debunking. This was a debate site the last time I checked, I thought people would debate, not just exchange youtube links.
Answer: this argument is an example of "proof by logic", where philosophers attempt to "demonstrate" God with a logical syllogism alone, devoid of any confirming evidence. Even if the premises were proven true (which it has not been done) there would still be the following problems:
1. any pre-existing entity/entities that caused the universe do not have to be personal with a mind and will
2. Any cause of the universe does not have to be the God of the bible. No reason is given why biblical mythology should be taken any more seriously than any other bronze age mythology.
Counterargument: Let S1= state of affairs in which the universe did not exist, and S2= State of affairs in which the universe did exist.
The theist is trying to claim that the Universe began to exist, that is, there was a state in which there was God, "and then" there was a state in which there was the Universe. In other words, they want to say S1 "and then" S2. In order to do that, they must show that S1 and S2 are distinct. The possibilities are:
1. The Universe never began to exist
2. The Universe never existed
3. S1 and S2 follow each other in time
4. Some agent in S1 is the atemporal cause of S2
If we can eliminate all four examples, then there is no way to distinguish between the two states. If that is the case, then there is no "beginning" - no state at which the Universe began to exist, thus undermining the conclusion.
If we try to prove by contradiction that the Universe never began to exist, the contradiction becomes evident. By assuming the Universe began to exist, it rules out (1). The Universe exists, so that rules out (2). (3) is disproven by the fact that time is a property of the Universe, and therefore can't be applied outside of the Universe. (4) can't be true because Craig defines "atemporal causation" as follows:
"To borrow an illustration from Kant, a heavy ball’s resting on a cushion is the cause of a depression in the cushion, even if the ball has been resting on the cushion from eternity past."
However, this cannot be used to distinguish between S1 and S2 because it requires cause and effect to be simultaneous. S1 and S2 cannot be simultaneous, as the Universe would exist at the same instant that it doesn't exist - a contradiction. By assuming that the Universe began to exist, we have ruled out all explanations for how it could have begun to exist. Thus, we cannot distinguish at the moment between S1 and S2 - undermining their conclusion.
Counterexample:
There's nothing in the laws of physics which demands that the law of cause and effect be more than generalizations for interacting with the world above the quantum level.
Within quantum mechanics there seems to be real counter examples to the first premise of the argument. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." For example, when Carbon-14 decays to Carbon-12 the radioactive decay is a perfectly random causeless event and thus though the Carbon-12 began to exist it wasn't caused to exist. Likewise, when matter and antimatter (particle-antiparticle formations) such as electron-positron creation, they can be said to have started to exist but not to have been caused to exist. While radioactive decay of particle-antiparticle formation can be predicted and serves a function, such as stabilizing the atom and equaling out the energies from two-photon interactions, there is no reason why such a thing should happen at those specific space and time coordinates. The underlying probabilities can be calculated and are extremely accurate, but alien from the classical sense of cause and effect.
Further, similar quantum considerations could have direct analogies to the Big Bang which might be causeless as well. Resolving other issues like the atemporal causality seen above as quantum phenomenon does force us to consider simultaneous instances of X and ~X, for example where X is "Schrodinger's cat is dead". Ignoring this speculative cosmology, the counter example suffices to disprove the premise (things can begin to exist without being caused) and thus demonstrate that the argument is unsound.
Circulatory:
In Dan Barker's article Cosmological Kalamity, he writes:
"The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty, but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.” As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to begging the question."
In other words, the set of items that do not begin to exist must be pluralized - otherwise it is just another word for God.
Equivocation:
Your argument also equivocates on the first premise when it refers to everything that "begins to exist". Presumably this premise is referring to everything around us on this planet--everything in your house, everything on the streets, everything we see in the cosmos. However all of these things did not "begin to exist" in the same sense theists are claiming the universe "began to exist" (creation ex nihilo). According to the laws of thermodynamics, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and everything we are familiar with is a actually reconfiguration of preexisting matter than has been around for billions of years. The atoms that comprise people, places, and planets do not "come into existence" in the same sense Kalam is claiming the universe came into existence (matter appearing from a previous state of non-being/non-existence). Rather they have always existed in some form, and the objects we see around us are merely the latest rearrangements of those atoms. So in speaking of the universe requiring a "cause" for it's existence, Kalam is not referring to it as you would an automobile, which is being "caused" by a group of laborers rearranging physical matter into the form of a car, or mountains being "caused" by the shifting of tectonic plates (also made of atoms which have been around since the big bang), but of something being caused by creation ex nihilo, which is not at all the type of creation we are familiar with in every other circumstance. Kalam therefore is using a word game and the fallacy of equivocation on the phrase "begins to exist" to try and draw a parallel between wildly different things.
In summary: Kalam proponents believe God made the universe exist ex nihilo. But everything around us only "begins to exist" in a trivial sense, as rearrangements of preexisting, uncreated stuff. Since the universe is literally the only example of something truly "beginning to exist" from a previous state of nothingness, this means there is a sample set of one in this category, leaving no inductive support for the premise that "whatever begins to exist (ex nihilo) has a cause".
Once the argument is reformulated to take into account the hidden premises, it looks like this:
1. Every rearrangement of pre-existing matter has a cause. (supported by every observation, ever.)
2. The universe began to exist from absolute nonexistence, NOT from a rearrangement of pre-existing matter.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
In other words:
1. Every X has a cause.
2. The universe Y.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
As you can see, once the equivocation is made plain, the argument is invalid.
Additionally, while the term "universe" is commonly understood to mean "the sum of everything that exists," Kalam represents an attempt to establish the existence of something outside the universe. This is conceivable only in the case of a non-standard definition (which presumably involves some kind of distinction between a physical universe and some other realm external to it). In this case, the first premise becomes even more tenuous; how can one assert that everything that begins to exist has a cause when one believes in the existence of a realm outside of our universe with properties unlike anything we can discover through mere observation? A commonsense version of causality is not applicable here...meaning we now have a problem defining "cause" in this context!
There is a further type of equivocation on the phrase "begins to exist". Premise 1 refers to things that begin to exist within time. In other words, there was a time when a thing did not exist, followed by a time when it existed. This is not the case with the universe, since time is part of the universe. The universe is a finite age (13.8 billion years), and because time did not come into existence until after the inflation began, there is literally NO TIME at which the universe did not exist. It has existed at every point in time. Rephrasing the argument to accurately include this information, we get something like this:
Let X = "a thing which began to exist a finite time ago after a point when it did not exist"
Let Y = "a thing which has existed for a finite time, but which exists at every point in time"
1. Everything that is X has a cause for it's existence.
2. The Universe is Y.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause for it's existence.
Once again, equivocation is at play. Premise 1 and 2 are comparing apples and oranges. The universe has existed at every moment in time and did not begin to exist in the same way that every object in P1 began to exist, so the argument is invalid.
Special Pleading:
The kalam argument seems to have been worded specifically to address the refutation of the cosmological argument, as it made the qualification that only things that begin have causes. The kalam arguer will simply state that God didn't begin, and so no regress occurs and no Creator of God is necessary.
However, this is a form of special pleading on the part of the theist. As Richard Dawkins put it, the cosmological argument makes "the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress." Whether we qualify the first premise to exclude non-beginning things (as the kalam argument does) or not (as the cosmological does), the essential question is why it is more logically defensible to claim that for the rule that everything must have a cause, an exception is made for God but not for the natural universe as a whole? Why does god not begin? It appears to be a wholly arbitrary choice.
If God not having a beginning is not a problem for Craig and other defenders of this argument, why is it a problem for the natural universe? To answer this, we must look at a further problem. This problem concerns the definition of god used in both arguments. A theologian might reply this counter argument and insist that the decision is not arbitrary, and that god must be allowed to have these attributes that the kalam argument seems to imply. He may say that the argument is an attempt to show the need for there to be a God that has the attributes that we cannot find in the universe. He might say that because we know that everything in the universe needs a cause and that the idea of infinite time is nonsense, there must be this being with these unique attributes. That is, there must be this being that does not begin, has no creator, and is thus able to create the universe. But this is just a bald assertion. The lack of human imagination when it comes to solving mysteries at the boundaries of current knowledge is not a good reason to invoke a hypothetical entity with mysterious powers that enable it to be immune from paradoxes.
The God hypothesis is not only unnecessary, it is not parsimonious. In order to explain something apparently designed and which cannot create itself, a being is conjured into existence which would require even more unlikely explanation.
The kalam argument attempts to circumvent the problem of infinite regress but steps right into the problem of special pleading so is no better off.
Only One Cause?:
In the construction of a house, there may be twenty people involved. There may be a large amount and wide variety of materials. There must be an appropriate location, and a diverse set of conditions that allowed the entire process to take place.
Yet, the first premise would have us believe that all of this comprises just one "cause." This fails even on the most basic intuitive level, and even when it involves an object with which we are intimately familiar. Discussing something as foreign to our intuitions as the beginning of time would seem to compound the problem further.
However, even if we grant that each "thing" in the universe has exactly one cause, and that postulating an uncaused cause is sufficient to explain the origin of all things, it still would not follow that there could be only one uncaused cause. There could be several such influences working in concert, as polytheists would have us believe. There could be millions of uncaused causes that began separately but whose creations have since intermingled to form the universe we have now. In short, it isn't clear why anyone should suggest "a cause" rather than an unknown number of them - unless, of course, one's goal is to support an ideology that claims a singular creator for other reasons.
Fallacy of Consumption:
In the first premise, Craig declares "everything that begins requires a cause," and goes on to place the universe at the same logical level as its contents.
In an article titled Cosmological Kalamity, Dan Barker writes:
The first premise refers to every "thing," and the second premise treats the "universe as if it were a member of the set of "things." But since a set should not be considered a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges.
Describing the way physical objects within the universe behave relies on induction and physical laws, neither of which apply in the absence of a spacetime universe. Everything we are familiar with is an object within a set (the universe). It is a fallacy of composition to assert that the properties of things we are familiar with (objects within the set) are also properties of the set as a whole (the universe). Example: "Each part of an airplane has the property of being unable to fly. Therefore the airplane has the property of being unable to fly." The conclusion doesn't follow because the only way to determine whether the airplane has the property of being able to fly or not would be to get outside the plane (set) and then make observations. Unfortunately we are stuck inside the universe, so any conclusions we can draw about individual components of the universe (within the set) do not necessarily apply to the set as a whole.
False Dichotomy:
The Cosmological argument does not prove that the cause was a supernatural cause, rather than a natural one. More nature (and natural processes) plausibly exist beyond our current ability to perceive.
So What:
Although some other variation of the Kalām argument or Cosmological argument may be internally consistent even if all the terms given are agreed upon by all parties concerned, the argument actually makes no effort to demonstrate anything tangible in nature regarding the manifestation of a God. An example analogous to the Kalām argument would be a geometry proof on some type of polygon. Even though the entire table of proofs is totally internally consistent, it does not demonstrate that the actual polygon exists in nature. An exhaustive effort to prove all the angles of a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees says nothing about whether or not triangles exist.
Even if you accept Kalām, it does not distinguish between a timeless multiverse, a timeless deity, or any other timeless process that might give rise to a universe.
Answer: this argument is an example of "proof by logic", where philosophers attempt to "demonstrate" God with a logical syllogism alone, devoid of any confirming evidence.
This was the first hint that you had simply plagiarized your response rather than actually read my post. You'll note that I did offer external confirming evidence including current cosmological consensus on the age of the universe. References to the Standard Model of Cosmology, which relies on confirmatory evidence. And current understanding of set theory and mathematics.
So, it is clear that your "response" is at best, a strawman.
1. any pre-existing entity/entities that caused the universe do not have to be personal with a mind and will
This is shown in my initial reply to you: "3) Intentfulness. This conclusion arises from the observed temporal finiteness of the universe. We know that the cause cannot be a mechanistic cause (IE if the cause exists the effect exists) because we can describe a state of affairs where the cause exists, but the effect does not. This is really a long winded method of saying “the universe began.”
Likewise, we can say that the cause is not a probabilistic cause either. Probabilistic causes require a dimension to act along. IE along a temporal dimension (chance over time) or a physical one (chance over distance). However, all probabilistic causes must act along the dimensions that they elicit effects within. IE, a quantum wave function acts along a temporal and physical dimension to create an effect in both (a particle’s location). You cannot have a quantum wave function (or any other probability function) that only discusses time, but produces a physical effect.
Given now that we’ve ruled out those two methods of causation we are only left with intent. Only a cause that has an intent can demonstrate the attributes labeled above. Only an intentful cause can create information that is not found within itself. IE all causes except intentful ones have temporal information within them if they act temporally, physical information within them if they act physically, etc. Only intentful causes exhibit the kind of causation we observe given the CA."
2. Any cause of the universe does not have to be the God of the bible. No reason is given why biblical mythology should be taken any more seriously than any other bronze age mythology.
I already discussed this in my last response to you. The Cosmological Argument indeed, does not indicate the God of the Bible. Rather, we use other arguments to further reveal the aspects of the first cause to determine if we can eliminate other possibilities (this was also done in my last post to you).
In other words, they want to say S1 "and then" S2....3. S1 and S2 follow each other in time
This position is incorrect both in philosophical understanding and in accord with modern physics.
The author has here assumed that the only type of sequencing order possible is a temporal one. That is incorrect, IE a false dichotomy fallacy.
Rather, there are other order sequence types used quite frequently in both physics and philosophy. The relevant one here is logical or causal sequence ordering. We can order a sequence without reference to temporal relationships quite easily. This is a common action within String Theory, the formation and distinction of strings into sub-atomic particles that arises during the initial expansion of the universe occurs absent a temporal reference frame. This action, rather, occurs in one of the "folded" dimensions predicated within String theory that is not part of Minowski space (defined in my last post). So here we can see a physical science arguing for a causal relationship that does not occur in a temporally bound setting.
In philosophy this is known as the question of Immanence.
1.1 Immanence
Question: Are the causal relata immanent, or transcendent? That is, are they concrete and located in spacetime, or abstract and non-spatiotemporal?
This question is connected to the question of category. If the relata are transcendent, then they are facts. If they are immanent, then they are events, or one of the other candidates such as features, tropes, or situations.
In practice, one finds three main arguments on the question of immanence. First, there is the argument from pushing, which maintains that the relata must be immanent so as to push things around. Second, there is the argument from absences, which maintains that the relata must be transcendent so that absences can figure in causal relations. Third, there is the so-called ‘slingshot’ argument, which maintains that the causal relata must be immanent events because (as per an argument from Frege) there is but one transcendent fact: the True.
Pushing: The main argument for immanence is that only immanent entities can interact. This argument is nicely summarized by one of its opponents, Bennett: “Some people have objected that facts are not the sort of item that can cause anything. A fact is a true proposition (they say); it is not something in the world but is rather something about the world, which makes it categorically wrong for the role of a puller and shover and twister and bender.” (1988, p. 22; see also Hausman 1998) According to the pushing argument, only concrete spatiotemporal entities can be causes and effects.
There are two main responses to the pushing argument, the first of which is to find substitute immanent entities. These substitute immanents serve as pushers, and relate to the causal facts, while still being distinct from them. Bennett, in the immediate continuation of the above quote, recruits objects for just such a purpose: “That rests on the mistaken assumption that causal statements must report relations between shovers and forcers. I grant that facts cannot behave like elbows in the ribs, but we know what items do play that role — namely, elbows. In our world the pushing and shoving and forcing are done by things — elementary particles and aggregates of them — and not by any relata of the causal relation.” (1988, p. 22) Mellor (1995) offers a similar response, suggesting facta (the immanent truth-makers for facts) as the immanent basis for fact causation.
The second response to the pushing argument is to charge that it rests on a naive (pre-Humean) conception of causation as requiring some sort of metaphysical push or ‘oomph’. If the causal relation is a mere matter of regularity, why can't the regularities hold between facts?
Absences: The main argument for transcendence is that absences can be involved in causal relations. Absences are said to be transcendent entities. They are nothings, non-occurrences, and hence are not in the world. Thus Mellor says, “For the ‘C’ and ‘E’ in a true causal ‘E because C’ need not assert the existence of particulars. They may deny it… They are negative existential statements, made true by the non-existence of such particulars,…” (1995, p. 132) Here Mellor is arguing that, in the case where rock-climbing Don does not die because he does not fall, Don's non-falling and non-dying are causally related, without there being any events or other immanent entities to relate.
There are two main responses to the absence argument, the first of which is to deny that absences can be causal. In this vein, Armstrong claims: “Omissions and so forth are not part of the real driving force in nature. Every causal situation develops as it does as a result of the presence of positive factors alone.” (1999, p. 177; see also Beebee 2004a) The theorist who denies absence causation may add some conciliatory codicil to the effect that absences stand in cause-like relations. Thus Dowe (2000, 2001) develops an account of ersatz causation (causation) to explain away our intuitions that absences can be genuinely causal.
The second response to the absence argument is to deny that absences are transcendent. One way to do this would be to accept the existence of negative properties, and think of absences as events in which an object instantiates a negative property. Thus Don's instantiating non-falling at t0 might be counted an immanent event, and a cause of the further immanent event of his instantiating non-dying at t1. A second way to deny that absences are transcendent would be to take absence claims as merely a way to describe occurrences, as Hart and Honore recommend: “The corrective here is to realize that negative statements like ‘he did not pull the signal’ are ways of describing the world, just as affirmative statements are, but they describe it by contrast not by comparison as affirmative statements do.” (1985, p. 38) Thus Don's not falling at t0 may be identified with his clinging to the rock at t0, and Don's not dying at t1 may be identified with his surviving at t1, which events are indeed causally related.
Slingshot: Davidson's argument for immanence is the slingshot, which is an argument (from Frege) that there is only one fact, the True. Briefly stated, the argument runs as follows. First, let f1 and f2 be any true facts. Then f1 is logically equivalent to the fact that {x: x=x & f1} = {x: x=x}. Moreover, {x: x=x & f1} is extensionally equivalent to {x: x=x & f2}, and so by substitution f1 is logically equivalent to the fact that {x: x=x & f2} = {x: x=x}. But that is logically equivalent to f2, and so f1 and f2 (our arbitrarily chosen true facts) are logically equivalent. If all facts were indeed logically equivalent, they would, of course, be unsuited for being causal relata. (Davidson 1980b)
The main defense against the slingshot is to block some of its substitution principles (see Mackie 1974, Menzies 1989, and Mellor 1995). One might reject the logical equivalence of f1 with the fact that {x: x=x & f1} = {x: x=x}. Or one might deny that substituting the extensional equivalents {x: x=x & f1} and {x: x=x & f2} inside the context ‘…the fact that…’ preserves logical equivalence.
A more conciliatory version of this defense is to maintain that there is at least one coherent conception of facts shielded from the slingshot (Bennett 1988). That is, one might distinguish between facts1, defined so that the substitutions of the slingshot are valid, and facts2, defined so that at least some of these substitutions are invalid. Then facts conceived of as facts2 may still serve as the relata.
Within quantum mechanics there seems to be real counter examples to the first premise of the argument. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." For example, when Carbon-14 decays to Carbon-12 the radioactive decay is a perfectly random causeless event and thus though the Carbon-12 began to exist it wasn't caused to exist.
This is a fundamentally untrue claim. The first hint that it isn't being put forth by someone familiar with the process is the claim that Carbon 14 decays to Carbon 12. It doesn't. It decays to Nitrogen 14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Î-decay
Further, it completely misunderstands the causes inherent in beta decay. The function is governed at this level by the decay function of a nucleus. This quantum mechanical law is the cause of the decay itself.
What you are doing here (and in your next example) is confusing the fact that we cannot fully predict exactly when it will decay with the idea that there is no cause. There certainly is a cause in quantum mechanics.
Likewise, when matter and antimatter (particle-antiparticle formations) such as electron-positron creation, they can be said to have started to exist but not to have been caused to exist.
This is the more common objection to this point, but has no more objectionary power than the last example. In fact, I already rebutted it earlier:
"In the past, some have sought to object to this premise by forwarding different aspects of Quantum Mechanics. These fail however because the causal mechanism still exists, it is the quantum wave function [2]. The confusion often arises because we confuse a probabilistic cause for no cause at all. If there was a random number generator that killed a cat on odd numbers, we wouldn't say that the cat's death was uncaused."
You'll note that this point already defeats "your" objection of Schroedinger's cat. The random number generator that governs the life/death state of the cat upon observation is still the cause of the cat's death. That it exists in both states prior to observation is irrelevant to that reality.
Dan Barker's article Cosmological Kalamity...reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE).
Mr. Baker's objection is easily overcome. First, let us define the possibilities a bit more:
1) Thing that began to exist.
2.a) Thing that didn't begin to exist and which do not exist. (which is called an abstract objects)
2.b) Things that didn't begin to exist, but which have always existed. (eternal object)
Hence we can see that the category of "things that do not being to exist" is plural, including both things that are eternal and things that do not exist.
Equivocation:
Your argument also equivocates on the first premise when it refers to everything that "begins to exist". Presumably this premise is referring to everything around us on this planet--everything in your house, everything on the streets, everything we see in the cosmos. However all of these things did not "begin to exist" in the same sense theists are claiming the universe "began to exist" (creation ex nihilo). According to the laws of thermodynamics, matter can neither be created nor destroyed,
The laws of thermodynamics apply within closed systems, like the universe. Meaning that within the universe matter cannot be created or destroyed. They do not apply to open systems necessary for the creation of a universe.
Further the laws of thermodynamics do not begin to function in our universe until the final expansionary phase of the universe during the big bang. Without going into mind numbing detail, as we approach the singularity going back in time, we find that the strong and weak nuclear forces combine to be one force. At that same point the laws of thermodynamics break down. Keep going back and you'll discover that the the electromagnetic force and the Strong/weak force combine. At that point the laws of relativity also break down.
Hence the objection based upon thermodynamics does not apply during the instant of creation. That is true for both the Cosmological Argument, M-Theory, Hawking's Theory and all other attempts to unify Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.
The idea that the universe cannot be created ex-nihilo, while popular with internet atheists is rejected by cosmologists and physicists. All modern theories concerning the origin of the universe, from the multi-verse, M-Theory, Hawking-Hartle, String Theory, etc all consider the origin of matter as ex-nihilo.
Additionally, while the term "universe" is commonly understood to mean "the sum of everything that exists," Kalam represents an attempt to establish the existence of something outside the universe.
This misunderstanding arises from the fact that the Cosmological Argument uses the precise definition of universe rather than the popular notion. In physics and cosmology the universe is not defined as "all things that exist" (which would be a begging the question fallacy for my opponent here), but rather as all matter and energy contained within the boundary of minowski space defined after the big bang.
If this were a legitimate objection, it would cause us to have to reject such physicists as Hawking, Hartle, all String theorists, all cosmologists, etc. I think you wouldn't get much traction with using this objection toward the multiverse theory on a physics forum. Feel free to try and see how well it goes.
There is a further type of equivocation on the phrase "begins to exist". Premise 1 refers to things that begin to exist within time.
Not at all, this objection is rebutted above. It arises from the author's unfamiliarity with causal order systems in both physics and philosophy.
The kalam argument seems to have been worded specifically to address the refutation of the cosmological argument, as it made the qualification that only things that begin have causes.
Given that this version of the Cosmological Argument was written before the refutation he references this seems unlikely.
I think the fact that the author doesn't know that betrays a profound lack of understanding of the argument, which is evident throughout this response.
However, this is a form of special pleading on the part of the theist. As Richard Dawkins put it, the cosmological argument makes "the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress." Whether we qualify the first premise to exclude non-beginning things (as the kalam argument does) or not (as the cosmological does), the essential question is why it is more logically defensible to claim that for the rule that everything must have a cause, an exception is made for God but not for the natural universe as a whole?
This is what happens when Biologists such as Dawkins attempt to argue philosophy for which they have no training.
Circumstance 1: A contingent, temporally finite universe that transitions from a state of ~x (non-existence) to x (existence).
Circumstance 2: A necessary, atemporal being that makes not state transition.
Clearly these are two distinct circumstances and as such it is perfectly valid to apply different rules.
Dawkin's objection can be defeated quite easily with this example.
Lets say I saw a volcanic eruption. That is a state change and requires a causal explanation.
Now lets say I saw a mountain, unchanged during the same period. Would that non-change require a cause?
Of course not, it is a patently silly objection (to steal Dawkin's phrase). If states do no change (as is true for an eternal object) then that change does not need a causal explanation.
In a wider context we can see that he implications of that objection (if accepted) would again serve to shutter String theory, M Theory, Multiverse scenarios, cyclical scenarios and the Hawking-Hartle model. All of these scenarios require a larger universe as well, which would just get us back to regression and the same cosmological question.
If God not having a beginning is not a problem for Craig and other defenders of this argument, why is it a problem for the natural universe?
Besides the objection that actual, temporally subsequent sets cannot be infinite (set theorem), that is the conclusion of all modern cosmologists.
Feel free to reject all of modern cosmology (sine there are currently no physicists that argue the universe is past eternal), but don't accuse us of being anti-science.
P.S. You'll note that I already rebutted this argument in my initial position.
He might say that because we know that everything in the universe needs a cause and that the idea of infinite time is nonsense,
Strawman fallacy. No one has argued that God exists in infinite time (though apparently you do when you argue that the universe does not "begin to exist", showing your position to be internally incoherent). We are arguing that all objects outside of minowski space are atemporal, since they exist outside of the temporal dimension that is part of this universe. This is literally the exact same argument used by Stephen Hawking in the Hawking-Hartle model of expansionary space-time.
In the construction of a house, there may be twenty people involved.
Divisional fallacy. The argument contained within the CA does not state that there is only one entity. Rather that the first cause has certain attributes. That that cause may be subdivided into many elements is irrelevant to it being the first cause.
However, it is more likely than not that the first cause is a singular entity given Occams Razor (which you invoked a few sentences before, but now seem to forget). Given that simpler explanations tend to be true when compared to more complex explanations, we could reasonably prefer a unitary cause to a group of actions composed within a single cause. The latter is not definitionally necessary given the argument and is therefore less likely.
Fallacy of Consumption:
There is no such thing as a fallacy of consumption. The author means a compositional fallacy. It is hard to take the author of this wiki seriously with such obvious mistakes that Dr. Google could solve in a few seconds.
The first premise refers to every "thing," and the second premise treats the "universe as if it were a member of the set of "things." But since a set should not be considered a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges.
Mr. Baker is committing an equivocation fallacy here. He is equivocating the definition of universe to definition of "thing." There is no reason to believe that those are identical sets.
For example, if M-Theory is correct, then the set [universe] contains all energy and matter present in minowski spacetime. However, the set [things] contains the set [universe] as well as the set [multi-verse] which contains all other "budding" universes as described within that theory.
The objection that Mr. Baker should raise is that he believes that the set [things] is defined as containing only the set [universe] (which still isn't a compositional fallacy). He would need to support that claim, which he doesn't, and thereby destroy most of modern cosmology which considers the possibility that there are dimensions absent from minowski space-time.
Unfortunately we are stuck inside the universe, so any conclusions we can draw about individual components of the universe (within the set) do not necessarily apply to the set as a whole.
The hidden assumption is that the laws of logic and order are not transcendent (in philosophic terms). That would only be true if the nature of those laws arose as part of the laws of this universe. Since that isn't true (it is irrelevant what universe you are in when you say that there cannot be a married bachelor), this is not a compositional fallacy.
False Dichotomy:
The Cosmological argument does not prove that the cause was a supernatural cause, rather than a natural one. More nature (and natural processes) plausibly exist beyond our current ability to perceive.
Not a false dichotomy fallacy. That fallacy is claiming there are only two options (supernatural and natural) when there are actually more than two.
He is arguing that the argument is not logically sound rather.
That objection fails because I do, in fact, show that the cause must be "supernatural" (defined as, external to this universe) in my opening position:
2) Aphysical and atemporal. Both of these terms mean that the item in question lacks physical and temporal characteristics. Given that both time and space are properties of this universe and that an effect cannot be its own cause (a logical paradox), we see that the cause defined in our conclusion cannot exhibit properties of its own effect. Given that it must be transcendent of this universe (ie it cannot be bound to this universe otherwise it couldn’t exist to elicit the effect) it cannot be limited by the dimensions of this universe.*
IE, the opponent here is claiming (by arguing that the cause could be within our universe) that the universe caused itself, which is internally paradoxical.
Specifically that calling something by a name that you find ridiculous to highlight a position rather than directly addressing the problem noted.
Given that the FSM is really just a sophist renaming of a deity, it has exactly the same evidence supplied as has been supplied here for a deity. You may not find that evidence personally convincing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that changing the word from "deity" to "fsm" makes it less credible.
I have provided you with argumentation to support the claim and your response was to substitute a new name for the conclusion and cry "see it's stupid!" That is a classic appeal to ridicule fallacy.
To illustrate this we can remove the loaded concepts of deities and see that our back and forth goes like this:
Me:
All bananas are fruit.
This object is a banana.
Therefore this object is fruit.
You:
That is like saying that "this object is a flying tricycle! Where flying tricycle is described as "the developed ovary of a seed plant with its contents and accessory parts, as the pea pod, nut, tomato, or pineapple."
That is dumb, of course it isn't a flying tricycle.
Rather than attacking the premises (this is a banana or bananas are fruit) you have substituted a different term for the same definition in the conclusion and cried ridiculous.
Ok, well can you clarify why it couldn't be a FSM? If not all your doing is making a case of special pleading.
The bannana argument you just came up with isn't a good comparison, I know that bannanas exist, Ive seen one, eaten one, held one, smelled one, etc. (as well as many others across the world). God on the other hand I have not seen, smelled, touched, etc.
Basically your argument is like this: "I believe that Lepracauns exist but its impossible for Leprachauns to be purple, thats simply a ridicule fallacy to ridicule my belief in Leprachauns." Fair enough, but first you'd have to prove to me that Leprachauns exist before you can give me a clarification as to why they couldnt be purple, otherwise the "purple leprechaun" hypothesis is still as valid as the existance of Lepracauns themselves.
Ok, well can you clarify why it couldn't be a FSM?
Because the FSM is simply a renaming of the conclusion and declaring victory. For example, lets say you argued that "the NBA only uses basketballs in their games."
And I countered with, "No they use a magic orb. Where I define that magic orb as a round, inflated ball, approximately 30 inches in diameter."
I would be simply renaming a widely accepted definition in an appeal to ridicule it.
With the FSM, you've simply taken the conclusion of the Cosmological Argument, accepted the characteristics of the cause and then renamed it to something silly to imply that there is a problem with the logic. That has replaced an actual criticism of the premises or the structure directly, that is why it is a fallacy.
My argument has been that there are certain characteristics that are logically necessary from the argument presented. The support you appear to be looking for was given by me earlier in this thread, but if you can't find it let me know I would be happy to re-hash it for you.
Ok, well can you clarify why it couldn't be a FSM?
I think this missed my point. I'm arguing that by simply defining the outcome as FSM, you haven't made a legitimate criticism of the argument.
I could well argue that 1+1=Jellybean if I define Jellybean as: a cardinal integer coming after one. Now normally we all call that two, just as we normally would call an aphysical, atemporal, omnipotent, intentful cause a deity, but you've labelled it as FSM.
The bannana argument you just came up with isn't a good comparison, I know that bannanas exist, Ive seen one, eaten one, held one, smelled one, etc. (as well as many others across the world). God on the other hand I have not seen, smelled, touched, etc.
That isn't really a relevant argument to question something's ontological significance. I have never personally seen a black hole or held one or smelled it, etc. That does not mean that the logical deduction of its existence given modern physics is less compelling.
The argument for its existence (just as the argument for a first cause) is established based upon its internal premises and soundness, not upon our ability to compare it to our personal experience.
1) this is all a case of special pleading, once again, even if I granted to you that the Universe had to be created, why does it have to be a being?
2) not true, astronomers and other scientists have studied, measured, and witnessed black holes. Every time you look into the night sky you can see one.
There is no tangible, observable, or testable evidence for the existence of God.
You are the one making the assertion, the burden of proof is on you, I would be happy to believe your claim but all you've done is use overused basic theological arguments that have been de bunked multiple times.
1) this is all a case of special pleading, once again, even if I granted to you that the Universe had to be created, why does it have to be a being?
Two things, first, the point you reference is not special pleading fallacy. If you were correct it would be a Non Sequitor or Does not Follow fallacy.
Two, I've pointed out why it must be a being in another thread, but to restate:
The Cosmological Argument:
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: The universe therefore as a cause.
Premise 1
This is generally considered a relatively fundamental law of causation [1]. Changes in state (going from not existing to existing) require causation. We should consider that any effect that lacks a cause becomes, by definition "necessary." And self sufficient effects cannot, by definition "begin."
In the past, some have sought to object to this premise by forwarding different aspects of Quantum Mechanics. These fail however because the causal mechanism still exists, it is the quantum wave function [2]. The confusion often arises because we confuse a probabilistic cause for no cause at all. If there was a random number generator that killed a cat on odd numbers, we wouldn't say that the cat's death was uncaused.
Premise 2
This premise also is generally scientifically accepted. Inflationary cosmology dictates that the universe began from a near singularity[3]. I think it is important here to point out that time is a physical dimension of our universe, just like the other dimensions[4]. Just as they expanded from a singularity, so did the temporal dimension of our universe. This necessitates a beginning of the universe when the temporal dimension was a singularity as well.
Objections to this premise are usually in the form of alternative hypotheses about our current universe. Historically, the steady state universe was used. That is to say, it was argued until recently that the universe is eternal, that it had always been. This is problematic for several reasons. Primary amongst them is the evidence indicating the universe is expanding. It is for this reason that virtually no cosmologist holds to steady state theory today. The historic objection also still holds. If the universe was eternal, we would expect that all the stars and galaxies to have burned out by now. If there is an infinite past, an infinite amount of time would already have occurred, which is far greater than the possible time limit on all the fission of all the matter in the universe.
The first modification of this theory to deal with the expansion of the universe came with the cyclic model. In which the universe expands, collapses and expands again. This theory however fails because it also cannot recede into the infinite past. Entropy between cycles would build up causing later cycles to be high entropy states and prohibit matter and star formation[5]. Again, if the universe were infinitely old, this would have already occurred and we could not observe star formation now.
Finally, the most modern objection arises from an appeal to a multiverse or multiple universes. This objection also fails for two reasons. One, since it produces a temporal effect, the multiverse itself would need a temporal component (non intentful causes cannot act outside of a dimension they exist in), making it open to the same appeals to an infinite past that we have above. Two, a multi-verse hypothesis would need to be reconciled to the Borde-Vilinken-Guth Theorem [6] which prohibits low entropy, expanding universes (ie the kind we live in) from any multiverse. To date, no reconciliation has been put forward, with Stephen Hawking noting that this is the single greatest objection to his views.
Characteristics
It naturally follows from the premises that the universe therefore had a cause.
But we can go a little bit further than that. Given the established premises and conclusions and some other observed facts, we can reason out a few of the properties of this cause.
1) Omnipotence. This word is often used in a differing manner than how theists intend it. It does not mean, for example, the ability to do anything such as creating a round square. Rather, when used here it refers to the ability to actualize states of affairs. I will borrow William Lane Craig’s definition here:
Rather we should think of omnipotence in terms of the ability to actualize states of affairs. A state of affairs is just a way something might be – for example, the state of affairs of there being chairs in this room, or the state of affairs of our being in the lower story of the church building, or there being a piano here. Those are all states of affairs that actually obtain. Omnipotence should be understood in terms of the ability to actualize states of affairs. To be omnipotent means the ability to bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for any one in that situation to bring about.
[7]
This ability is a natural conclusion to the CA as I have presented it. In order for a cause to be sufficient to cause the universe, it must be able to actualize states of affairs related to all the specifics of our universe. It must be able to affect physical laws, physical constants, and dimensionless constants. This ability fits the definition proposed above as omnipotent.
2) Aphysical and atemporal. Both of these terms mean that the item in question lacks physical and temporal characteristics. Given that both time and space are properties of this universe and that an effect cannot be its own cause (a logical paradox), we see that the cause defined in our conclusion cannot exhibit properties of its own effect. Given that it must be transcendent of this universe (ie it cannot be bound to this universe otherwise it couldn’t exist to elicit the effect) it cannot be limited by the dimensions of this universe.
3) Intentfulness. This conclusion arises from the observed temporal finiteness of the universe. We know that the cause cannot be a mechanistic cause (IE if the cause exists the effect exists) because we can describe a state of affairs where the cause exists, but the effect does not. This is really a long winded method of saying “the universe began.”
Likewise, we can say that the cause is not a probabilistic cause either. Probabilistic causes require a dimension to act along. IE along a temporal dimension (chance over time) or a physical one (chance over distance). However, all probabilistic causes must act along the dimensions that they elicit effects within. IE, a quantum wave function acts along a temporal and physical dimension to create an effect in both (a particle’s location). You cannot have a quantum wave function (or any other probability function) that only discusses time, but produces a physical effect.
Given now that we’ve ruled out those two methods of causation we are only left with intent. Only a cause that has an intent can demonstrate the attributes labeled above. Only an intentful cause can create information that is not found within itself. IE all causes except intentful ones have temporal information within them if they act temporally, physical information within them if they act physically, etc. Only intentful causes exhibit the kind of causation we observe given the CA.
Conclusion
So we can see that given the premises that the universe must itself have a cause and that this cause must be aphysical and atemporal since it cannot be part of its own creation, that it must be omnipotent in order to create that creation and that it must be intentful in order to explain the finiteness of the universe and its dimensionality.
Given the premises, which are supported, no other conclusion can be accepted.
Now for a miscellaneous definition:
Logical necessity: I don’t mean this term to imply philosophic necessity in that I argue that no other belief is possible, but rather rational necessity in which I hold that no other conclusion is rational.
5) I. D. Novikov and Ya. B. Zel’dovich (1973) Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities Annu. Rev. Astro. Astrophys. 11 387-412
S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose (1970) The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 314. 1519. 529-548.
6) Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin (2003) Inflationary Spacetimes are Incomplete in Past Directions Physical Review Letters 90. 15 http://arxiv.org/pdf/grqc/0110012.pdf
2) not true, astronomers and other scientists have studied, measured, and witnessed black holes. Every time you look into the night sky you can see one.
Actually you can't. You cannot "see" something that does not allow light to escape right?
What you see are indirect effects. Gravitational influence on nearby objects, accretion disks, etc. Those aren't the black hole, they are evidence we use to deduce the presence of a black hole.
Likewise, the Cosmological Argument uses observed evidence (expansionary state of the universe, mathematical law, etc) and deduces an observation concerning a cause.
That's a pretty bold statement, where's your evidence? Are you a mind reader? How can you possibly know what hundreds of thousands of people are thinking?
Indeed i do. I just don't believe man made bull shit! I don't need a book to tell me how to do my own thing. I don't think it/she/him has anything to do with the world. Nor do i think he/she/it meant to create this world, just a mere accident.
The term god impacts an understanding of something that has involvement. It also exemplifies a big understanding on "him." I don't know what it could be; energy, physical form, mythological, etc. Hearing the term god makes you assume an automatic physical being. Either way it's irrelevant, i just acknowledge "something."
Absolutely. From an evidential standpoint the Cosmological Argument, the Moral Argument, the Fine-Tuning argument all provide sufficient warrant for a belief in God.
2. Fine tuning has been disproved over and over again, look up fine tuning arguments on science based websites
3. Moral argument: even if our entire moral system was dependent on the existance of God (which it isnt), that still wouldn't affect the likelihood of his existence, that just means the concept of God is a placebo.
I defend the Cosmological Argument put forward by William Lane Craig.
Premise 1) All things that begin to exist have a cause.
Premise 2) The universe began to exist.
Conclusion) Therefore the universe had a cause.
2. Fine tuning has been disproved over and over again, look up fine tuning arguments on science based websites
You are referring here to evolutionary fine tuning arguments (ie that we are fine tuned for our environment).
That is not the argument I am referring to. Rather, I'm referring to the Cosmological Fine Tuning Argument.
Premise 1) The values of the constants of the universes are due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
Premise 2) They are not due to physical necessity or chance.
Conclusion) Therefore it is due to design.
3. Moral argument: even if our entire moral system was dependent on the existance of God (which it isnt), that still wouldn't affect the likelihood of his existence, that just means the concept of God is a placebo.
You are confusing cause an effect here. I'm not arguing in the moral argument that objective moral values and duties cause God to exist, I am arguing that they are evidence that He exists. Just as tides are evidence of the moon's gravitational influence, not causes of it.
For reference, this argument is:
Premise 1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
That is a strawman fallacy. I am not putting forward any of Thomas Aquinas' arguments here. You'll note that Thomas Aquinas put forward different premises than I have.
Clearly you haven't read any Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas' cosmological argument is based upon the impossibility of an essentially ordered infinite regress. Mine is based upon the observed nature of the universe and the impossibility of a sequentially temporal infinite regress. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#2
I would recommend some reading before wading into this.
The Cosmological Argument is both (a) based on a bare assertion fallacy and (b) makes a ludicrous and unfounded logical jump from "the universe has a cause" to "that cause is god" and more specifically "the Abrahamic God"- a jump that has no actual logical support.
The "fine tuning" nonsense is similarly based on a bare assertion fallacy- it simply states that the physical constants in our universe weren't out of necessity or chance but does not support those claims.
As for the moral argument, I can't honestly believe anyone actually buys that.
The Cosmological Argument is both (a) based on a bare assertion fallacy
You clearly didn't read my responses above. I am not committing a "bare assertion" fallacy above because I have offered justification for each of the premises and the logical structure of the argument. Because you disagree with the premise doesn't mean it isn't supported.
Which premise, specifically, do you disagree with?
(b) makes a ludicrous and unfounded logical jump from "the universe has a cause" to "that cause is god" and more specifically "the Abrahamic God"- a jump that has no actual logical support.
And you'll notice that my argument does not conclude "God of the Bible." I do not (and I don't think any theist seriously argues this) claim that the Cosmological argument necessitates a Christian theology. Rather, it holds the necessity of a cause with certain attributes (atemporal, aphysical, omnipotent, intentfulness). A cause with such attributes is commonly labelled as a God.
The "fine tuning" nonsense is similarly based on a bare assertion fallacy- it simply states that the physical constants in our universe weren't out of necessity or chance but does not support those claims.
I think this reveals that you are not familiar with the arguments themselves. Support for these premises are offered in most examples. Necessity is usually supported via the Standard Model, or other Physics based argument (since virtually no modern physicists hold that he physical values of the constants were necessarily the values they were). Chance is usually rejected in line with basic statistical argumentation. The odds of a matter forming universe being conservatively estimated at 1 in 10^500, accepting the null hypothesis of chance is a pretty strong belief statement.
As for the moral argument, I can't honestly believe anyone actually buys that.
Which premise of the moral argument do you contest?
In my opinion, with all due respect, I believe that the theory of evolution is all crap.
By definition, when a living organism undergoes the process of evolution, it is permanently developing and diversifying itself from its earlier forms of life.
So, a few quick and easy examples of this is as followed;
•As the dinosaurs DIED out, today's chickens continue to carry along its genetic code.
•As the woolly mammoth DIED out, today's elephants continue to carry its genetic code.
•As the ambuloetus DIED out, today's whales continue to carry its genetic code.
Whats similar in all this 'evolution' processes? The mammal/amphibian that is being evolved from is EXTINCT; GONE.
If we, as homosapiens, evolved from apes, than WHY are apes still walking the planet today? Were some of us to stupid to evolve?
All science is is a best guess. And, believe it or not, scientists and their little theories are being proved wrong every single day.
Besides, I'm a catholic. So of course I believe in the Big Man Upstairs.
Even if you dont want to say that there is a 'God', there is no point in denying that there is a much more powerful 'spirit' or 'ruler', or whatever you fancy calling it, going on somewhere beyond our known world.
The only thing thats different between you and me is that I give that speculation a name.
Your profile says your still in high school, so I will refrain from blasting you quite as hard as I would otherwise.
Most evolution deniers on this site are trying to create some delineation between micro-evolution and macro-evolution so they can claim micro-evolution exists not macro. You seem to be claiming the opposite (dinosaurs to chickens.) We can observe micro-evolution on short time scales in lab environments. (The existence of drug-resistant bacteria doesn't mean that all other bacteria has died out.)
One of the most frequent methods evolution takes place is through divergence. A group of frogs or monkeys or elephants, etc are wide spread. Then over time differences in their environments favor certain features. Like African elephants and Asian elephants today - the existence of one doesn't mean the other died out. The same with alligators and crocodiles and tons of other species.
Besides, I'm a catholic.
That doesn't mean you should turn your brain off. Additionally, the Catholic church allows for evolution, they just believe that it is guided by God: ref
1.) regardless of whether or not im in highschool does not mean that my knowledge on the theory of evolution is any more less reliable than yours.
2.) by telling me that 'the Catholic Church allows for evolution, they just believe that it is guided by God' clearly shows me that you are uneducated in the area of Christianity and its' beliefs. And if you are looking for proof on this FACT, than here it is:
According to Gen 1:21, the bible states, 'So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.' Therefore, your asinine comment on God supporting evolution is completely false.
and 3.) my entire point on evolution was that its not authentic or trustworthy. i will admit that my examples may of been a bit confusing or, in a way, may of been erroneous but I'm not
talking about elephants to elephants; I'm, overall, talking about [apes] to [humans]. What you are stating about African
elephants to Asian elephants, as well as crocodiles to alligators, are not examples of evolution; they are examples of distinctly related species. This, ultimately, results in those similar characteristics seen amongst them with the obvious addition of their separate overall apdaption to their, as individuals, specific environment. Regardless, overall, there has never been any solid evidence of that 'fish to man' and 'ape to man' fossil that supposedly exists, and, until it shows up, evolution will all but be scientists best guess, as I've stated before. Whether or not my 'opinion' or whatever it is you'd like to call it, is deemed correct, the facts are the facts; science can't support the evolution of man as well as you think they can.
telling me that 'the Catholic Church allows for evolution, they just believe that it is guided by God' clearly shows me that you are uneducated in the area of Christianity
Not sure if you didn't see the reference I provided, or just chose not to read it
You will see that Catholics have been major contributors to the development of the theory of evolution; that the church developed a neutral opinion by the 1950's and that this was said by Pope John Paul II in 1996:
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good
See my other debate for discussion on why reproduction only after like kinds is untennable.
your asinine comment on God supporting evolution is completely false
Tell that to the Pope (but also remember that he is infallible)
not examples of evolution; they are examples of distinctly related species
How do you imagine that 'distinctly related species' come about?
This, ultimately, results in those similar characteristics seen amongst them with the obvious addition of their separate overall apdaption to their, as individuals, specific environment.
You just perfectly described the evolution that you do not believe in.
there has never been any solid evidence of that 'fish to man' and 'ape to man' fossil that supposedly exists
The record will never be fully complete since not every dead thing fossilizes, but 'like kind' propagation allows for zero transitional fossils, and yet there are, of course, many - ref, ref, ref
What differences between ape and man do you think were impossible via the same process that created 'distinctly related species' as you used it above?
And a quick sidenote here, when I said 'Besides, I'm
Catholic', I surely did not mean that in the way that you were trying so hard to ridicule me for; I was referring BACK to the question originally asked: if I belived that there is a God or not. Not to be annoying but you read that out of contex.
Fourteen centuries ago, God sent down the Qur'an to mankind as a book of guidance. He called upon people to be guided to the truth by adhering to this book. From the day of its revelation to the day of judgement, this last divine book will remain the sole guide for humanity.
The matchless style of the Qur'an and the superior wisdom in it are definite evidence that it is the word of God. In addition, the Qur'an has many miraculous attributes proving that it is a revelation from God. One of these attributes is the fact that a number of scientific truths that we have only been able to uncover by the technology of the 20th century were stated in the Qur'an 1,400 years ago.
Of course the Qur'an is not a book of science. However, many scientific facts that are expressed in an extremely concise and profound manner in its verses have only been discovered with the technology of the 20th century. These facts could not have been known at the time of the Qur'an's revelation, and this is still more proof that the Qur'an is the word of God.
In order to understand the scientific miracle of the Qur'an, we must first take a look at the level of science at the time when this holy book was revealed.
In the 7th century, when the Qur'an was revealed, Arab society had many superstitious and groundless beliefs where scientific issues were concerned. Lacking the technology to examine the universe and nature, these early Arabs believed in legends inherited from past generations. They supposed, for example, that mountains supported the sky above. They believed that the earth was flat and that there were high mountains at its both ends. It was thought that these mountains were pillars that kept the vault of heaven high above.
However all these superstitious beliefs of Arab society were eliminated with the Qur'an. In Sura Sad, verse 2, it was said: "God is He who raised up the heavens without any support..."(The Qur'an, 13:2). This verse invalidated the belief that the sky remains above because of the mountains. In many other subjects, important facts were revealed at a time when no one could have known them. The Qur'an, which was revealed at a time when people knew very little about astronomy, physics, or biology, contains key facts on a variety of subjects such as the creation of the universe, the creation of the human being, the structure of the atmosphere, and the delicate balances that make life on earth possible.
There is God, the supreme ruler above all. He is the one waking us up everyday. He is the creator behind mysterious science mechanism that humns have. And he is the one who gave you the life that you live into your hearst' content.
"Have not the unbelievers ever considered that the skies and the earth were once one mass, then We split them asunder? And We have created every living thing from water. Will they still not believe?" Surah 21 Al Anbiyaa, Aya 30
Yes, I believe that there is a God. Obviously, one reason being I am Catholic and two being that, by believing in God, I, somehow, feel a, almost, security in my life. It feels nice.
I answered the question.... I don't see where it asked for anything other than my opinion. Are you seeing things that aren't there? Oh wait... look who I'm talking to.
we can only disprove god to the same extent you can disprove all of the gods you don't believe in, and Santa Claus, and one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eaters...
"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."
Look... I think you're delusional but I think you're being sincere. My beliefs will not change... this is why I don't normally debate religion. I think it's best to not continue this discussion.
The only reason you want to stop this discussion is because you don't like it, you don't like to say that there is no god, because you know there is a God!! Just one las favor, please watch the yubtube video "Evolution VS God"
The only reason you want to stop this discussion is because you don't like it
That's true... I find it boring because I've heard it all a million times and you just want to quote Bible verses as fact... I don't believe the Bible to be fact therefore there is no point in continuing this discussion.
you don't like to say that there is no god
Not true... it doesn't bother me in the slightest to say there is no god.
Yes im Agnostic when it comes to the concept of a creator, how ever I am Atheist when it comes to any religous god or gods, I feel no one truely knows who, what, where God is if any at all. So I guess im what you call an Agonstic-Atheist.
Why Not? Do you really believe that you were created by a big explosion, or that you evolved from a monkey!!!! Did you know that the earth is set just right, that if it even moved an inch from where God put it, we would all burn or freeze. Do you think that happened from chance?!?!?! Believing that everything just happened by chance seems a great deal harder to believe then that God created everything.
Do you have any idea just how many galaxies exist in the universe? Just how many we know of? And how many stars and planets are in them? Billions! Can you comprehend numbers that large? Why would God create Billions and billions or worlds to only place life on one pathetic little rock like Earth?
You just confirmed to me that you can't comprehend the number billion. You're young... I can tell. As you get older, your opinions will most likely change.
Lying, as in "knowingly giving a false statement".
How am I lying?
I did not say you are lying, I suggested a possible reason why you may not be as young as we think you are. It's not very clever to tell someone to guess your age when you have a profile filed out with your supposed age.
I believe that it is possible that a God exists... what I don't buy into are the world's religions. They're ridiculous. How much of the Bible have you actually read? I quoted a verse for you, but you didn't respond. There are a ton more like it. God comes off a little bit like a cruel dictator throughout Old Testament.
The Hole Bible? Hmm... I never read that one. I seriously doubt you read the entire Bible, because if you did, you would have noticed God's cruelty.
The autistic weren't allowed in Heaven, rebellious children were to be stoned to death, women weren't allowed to speak in church, if a man's private parts are crushed or destroyed... he cannot enter Heaven, one of illegitimate birth cannot enter heaven, a woman who loses her virginity before marriage is to be stoned to death, if a man dies... his brother shall marry his wife and if the brother disagrees he shall be punished...
There are a lot more. Does none of that seem cruel to you?
Do you really believe that you were created by a big explosion,
Do you really believe in talking snakes?
or that you evolved from a monkey!!!!
Or that you were created from a man's rib cage who was created from dirt.
Did you know that the earth is set just right, that if it even moved an inch from where God put it, we would all burn or freeze.
Yeah the Goldilocks Zone (Circumstellar habitable zone). Except that there is no substantial evidence to suggest our planet is in the Habitable Zone due to any sort of deity.
Do you think that happened from chance?!?!?!
I was going to say "no", but then I thought: Actually it depends on what you define as "chance". If you mean, do I think it could actually happen without a sentient being intentionally making it happen, then my answer is "yes", it can happen. And technically, it is a bit by chance, but at the same time it's also cause and effect. Due to the fact that we are in the Habitable Zone, we are here. Once we are no longer in the Habitable Zone, we probably won't be here anymore. It's like saying light plants can only blossom and thrive because of plant fairies, when actually it's simply the process of photosynthesis.
Believing that everything just happened by chance seems a great deal harder to believe then that God created everything.
Well just because the truth is harder to believe does not automatically validate/invalidate it. Nor does the truth being easier to believe automatically validate/invalidate it either.
The Idea of a controlling creator God (or Gods) is clearly to me such a man made concept that we made up millennia ago to explain what science could not back then, it is a belief born of Ignorance and feeds off it.
You mean the invisible thug in the sky .... No but I must be wrong because Christians say something that can't be seen , heard , ( unless in your head , that's called madness) or touched exits and they insist , it's all in a book written by a rabble of Bronze Age bearded goatherds what's not to believe ?
Dermot, you say that because you can't see, hear, or touch God that that means there is no God, can you see, hear or touch your brain? No? Well okay, you have no brain.
Madeline hi , oh dear you just called me brainless that's very unlike you my friend .Well Madeline your actually quiet wrong you can see your brain a friend of mine a surgeon has the machinery to show people there own brain, and even if your statement was true if I was brainless I'm still walking , talking , typing without a brain ?
If I accept what you say that a God you can't see, hear, touch exists then .... Pink dragons , mermaids , and vampires exist using the same reasoning you have just used .
Yes that would be true other then the fact that we have no proof that Pink dragons, mermaids, exc. exists, there is proof that God exists. And honestly we don't need proof to know that God is real, we all know God is really, even if you dont want to admit it.
No i do not. And no im not just repressing and rejecting him out of hatred. i literally DONT think one exists. There now that thats out of the way:
I dont believe he exists because we have never been presented with a scenario in which god was necessary nor has any biblical supernatural claim ever been verified. Science is well on its way to explaining just about everything we need to know about our origin, and certainly enough to put the rediculous hypothesis of creationism to rest.
Evolution has become an undenyable fact and the origin of the universe has become understood enough to push god from the mountains, out of the clouds, past the stars, and out of the universe. With every great discovery hes gotten placed into smaller and smaller, making him such and unlikely possiblity hes not even a ligitimate consideration anymore.
A god just isnt necessary in this reality which has demonstrated itself constantly to be a place created and governed by entirely natural processes over grand timescales.
Really? Got any evidence that I have multiple accounts? Oops, forgot I was talking to someone who is ignorant enough to make an arbitrary assumption. No, I have but one account on createdebate and this is it.
"Got any evidence?"
Evidence presupposes truth, truth presupposes God. How do we know this? Because of the impossibility of the contrary, without revelation from God there is no explanation or means to know what is true. The very fact that you appeal to evidence proves that God exists.
Nope. As far as I am concerned, I am going to have fun in my life, succeed where I can, get laid where I can, and die happy with my life. I don't need to bother myself with beliefs in deities.
The possibility of the existence of God is minimal the strongest evidence against God is this simple concept Christians happen to believe about it, omnipotence.