Now we launch off into every creationist's favorite "trump card": The Kalam Cosmological Argument, or the "Prime Mover/First Cause" argument. Or as you British folks call it: "Bollocks"
"Everything that began to exist has a cause....If it were not true, then things would pop in and out for no reason."
This only applies to matter and energy....not space-time itself. As far as we know, space-time can pop into existence for no reason whenever it wants.
"Please, explain that."
Since we have no way of knowing (nor would we) that space-time could not have popped into existence as it pleased, as far as we know, it did. If space-time ceased to exist and then resumed existing just as it was, we'd have no way of knowing what just happened. It would be indistinguishable to us.
"So you agree that it popped into existence? Me too."
As far as we know it did...but we need more information to say definitively one way or another.
"It still needs a cause."
And there are an infinite number of possible causes...none of which we have any evidence for.
"The universe began to exist at the big bang. Before that, there was nothing. "
I should have nailed him with "Before is a function of time, which didn't exist until the Big Bang." Hindsight.
No, before that there was a small, dense singularity of space-time...that hardly constitutes "nothing" in english or any other language. Calling it "nothing" doesn't make it "nothing" any more than calling your dog a cat makes it one. Perhaps you should research the Big Bang Theory a little more....and word usage.
"Premise 3 naturally follows. Of course, this just smacks of supernatural intervention"
Not necessarily. You have no way of knowing that the universe could not have begun to expand because of an unintelligent, impersonal force. You have no way of knowing that a particle of some sort existing outside of space-time could not have been the "first-cause". After all, if you get to special plead and say that your god exists outside of space time, then I get to special plead and say my particle does.
Even if this did "just smack of supernatural intervention" you would have no way of knowing that the first cause was "a" god and not "multiple" gods. And if everything has to have a cause, what caused them?
"There has to be something far back that has no cause and is self-existent (the un-caused cause)."
And there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that this cause is "a" god and not "twenty" gods, or 10,000, or a flying spaghetti monster or an impersonal unintelligent force, or a particle that exists outside of space-time, I have no idea how the universe began and neither do you. The difference between the two of us is that I admit that while you fill in the blank with your favorite god and call it "knowing."
"There is no reason to think God began to exist so there is no reason to think he has a cause."
You have no reason to believe that your god is the original uncaused cause. He could just as easily have been caused himself. by the uncaused cause.
"You raised the point that we don't know if it was only one God but that does not disprove a word of what I've said."
Nor was it intended to. It was intended to show that you have just as much evidence for one god as you have for 20 billion. If your god can exist, then so can every god. When you can tell me why you don't believe in the other 19,999,999,999 ones, i'll tell you why I don't believe in yours.
"According to Occam's Razor, we shouldn't multiply entities beyond necessity. One God is enough so there is no need to infer more."
About 700 million Hindus would disagree with you. Are they all just idiots?
"97.5% of the world believes in the supernatural. Are they all idiots?"
You missed the point. 97.5% may believe in the supernatural, but they don't all share your interpretation of it and they have as much evidence for their claims as you do for yours. Now to you, one god makes sense. To a lot of others, one god is illogical as the universe is too big and too diverse to have been the product of just one deity. My point is: when evidenciary support is equal (as it is in this case), how can one claim be any more or less valid than another?.
He avoids the questions with the skill and grace of a 14 year-old boy trying to score on his first date and goes back to trying to "prove" that the universe had a beginning (something I didn't argue) and quotes John Barrow and Frank Tipler's, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle from 1986.
"The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover,--and this deserves underscoring--the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.""
You failed to mention that Barrow and Tipler emphasized your point 25 years ago. This hardly represents the current thinking on the standard Big Bang model. In the year 2000, your guy Barrow had this to say:
"The interesting thing about the singularity that is predicted by [the Hawking-Penrose] theorems is that there is no explanation as to why it occurs. It marks the edge of the Universe in time. There is no before; no reason why the histories begin; no cause of the universe. It is a description of a true creation out of nothing....However, it is important to realise that they are mathematical theorems not cosmological theories. The conclusions follow by logical deduction from the assumptions. What are those assumptions and should we believe them? Unfortunately, the two central assumptions are now not regarded as likely to hold good.....Thus the old conclusions of the singularity theorems are no longer regarded by cosmologists as likely to be of relevance to our Universe."
"I don't understand what you tried to produce from your quotation of Barrow and Tipler."
Obviously you didn't read the quote. If you had, you not only would have seen that only Barrow was quoted, you would have seen that what Barrow was saying was that the claim that the universe came from "literally nothing" depended on the existence of an initial singularity...the "literal nothing" in question. If there's no initial singularity, then the idea that the universe came from "literally nothing" begins to unravel.
"But there was an initial singularity. You have not proven that there wasn't."
And I don't have to. I'm not the one who has to "prove" anything. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. That would be you.
"So, you wish me to prove the big bang? Or as you put it, that there was an initial singularity?"
No. I am not questioning the Big Bang. Nor did I ask you to provide evidence for it...which apparently means the same thing as "proof" to you. There's plenty of evidence for the Big Bang (and other interpretations, but we won't get into that). The original Hawking and Penrose theorems that predicted a singularity neglected quantum mechanics...something Hawking himself later realized. Another problem is that the model is based on Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. That's a problem because the theory breaks down when your are talking about shrinking space down to sub-atomic size. Translation: Nobody really knows what came before the Big Bang.
"So far as I know, that singularity is undisputed."
So far as I showed, it's not. Perhaps you should re-read where I showed you.
"You have certain objections to the standard big bang model."
Actually it's cosmologists who have certain objections to the standard big bang model, as I pointed out in response to your insistence that they did not.
"You say it did not take quantum mechanics into account and that Einstein's theory of general relativity somehow doesn't work"
I didn't say that, Stephen Hawking did. So did John Barrow. Two guys that you yourself have quoted as authoritative on the subject. If you get to appeal to authority, so do I.
"Can you explain those two?"
Go find Hawking and Barrow and ask them to. Better yet, go read Hawking and Barrow for yourself. My point was not to show off my "vast" knowledge of cosmology, but to call "B.S." on what you were saying. (B.S. = "Bad Solliloquy")
"the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem shows that any universe that has been expanding like ours has had to have a beginning at some point regardless of what the early stage of the universe was."
None of which I deny. What I deny is that we have any real knowledge of what that early stage was. What we do have is all based on theories that start to break down as we approach that early stage. You are talking about not only the compression of matter and energy but time and space itself. We just don't know enough about how time and space behave in all scenarios.
"Also, a universe that has been existing for an infinite amount of time would have reached equilibrium. The energy in the universe will have spread itself evenly and the universe would have reached its heat death. Since the universe has not reached equilibrium, it hasn't been existing for eternity. It had a beginning."
Then what happens? Does it collapse back in on itself to the point that it reaches equilibrium in the other direction and then begins to expand again? Some have postulated this. It's called the "Big Bang/Big Crunch" theory.
"the cause of the Big bang was timeless (it created time),"
I don't know that "created" and "started" are synonymous. I can start an engine without creating it.
"conscious (it made decisions to create and fine-tune),"
you have no way of knowing this. This is purely speculative. You are basing this on the idea that the universe "looks" designed from your perspective. Sort of like how early man thought that the sun went around the earth.
"extremely intelligent and knowledgeable,"
see previous
He clings to Kalam like a petulant child.
"1. Everything that began to exist has a cause"
And you have no way of knowing what that cause is or whether or not it was the first such cause. You also have no way of knowing if this rule even applies to space-time.
"2. The universe began to exist"
See previous.
"3. The universe has a cause."
Ibid.
He tries repeating himself. Maybe I didn't read it correctly the first time. Or maybe he's from some sort of world where repeating something increses the validity of it. So I try a different approach...thank you, infidels.org
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist.
The universe has a cause."
So we have a state in which the Universe did not exist (we'll call it X). And then, there was a state in which the Universe did exist (we'll call that Y). So for your three premises to be true, you now have to show that X and Y are distinct...there can be no overlap. For this to be true, there are four possibilities:
1. The Universe never began to exist.
2. The Universe never existed.
3. X and Y follow each other in time
4. Something in X is the atemporal "cause" of Y.
If we can eliminate all four examples, then there is no way to distinguish between the two states. In that case, there is no "beginning"...no state at which the universe "began" to exist.
If we assume the Universe "began" to exist, it rules out 1. The Universe exists, so that rules out 2. The third possibility is disproven by the fact that time is a property of the Universe, and therefore can't be applied outside of the Universe. Which means that Four is problematic because, there would have to be a point at which the universe existed and did not exist simultaneously. And that's impossible.
"How does the option that something in X is the atemporal cause of Y require the universe to have existed and not existed simultaneously? 'Atemporal' means to be independent of time. If the cause is outside of time, it does not need time or any other part of the universe to exist so there is no reason to propose that the universe existed."
Whoa, Did he really just say that there is no reason to propose that the universe existed??
If an eternal cause exists in a state where the universe does not exist, at some point it will have to cross that threshold between the state of existence of the universe (Y) and non-existence (X). Remember, these two states have to be separate and distinct for our logic to work. That threshold lies between existence and non-existence...between X and Y. That threshold has to exist at a point where X and Y become one and the same. Which is impossible. Remember, you can't have "First there was the cause and then the Universe" as that is a function of time which doesn't exist prior to the universe.
<<"That threshold has to exist at a point where X and Y become one and the same.">>
"That's where you lost me. You'll need to explain that a bit."
Let's say you have a room called X and a room called Y. The two rooms are separated by a wall. Now in our wall, we put a space where a door will go.
In that space, the rooms are indistinguishable from each other because in that space, the wall does not exist. Think about it this way: If you stand in the doorway between two rooms, you cannot distinguish which room you are in. You are just as much in one room as you are in the other. You exist in both, simultaneously.
Now if we change our labels from X to "A state where the universe does not exist" and from Y to "a state where the universe does exist", then in order for your atemporal agent which exists in "the place where the universe does not exist" to effect "the place where the universe exists," the atemporal agent has to be able to transcend what separates the two. If we visualize the thing which separates the two as a wall, then the atemporal agent has to be able to exist in a doorway in that wall (a doorway that he later refers to as "Q"). It has to be able to exist in between the non-existence of the universe and the existence of the universe. Problem is, if that "doorway" exists, then that means there is a point at which our separate "rooms" become indistinguishable. And we established at the beginning (to which you had no objections) that the two "rooms" must be distinct and have no overlap.
What i'm saying is that in order for Premise 4: [Something in X is the atemporal "cause" of Y] to be correct, then a point has to exist where X and Y become indistinguishable. Just as Room X and Room Y become indistinguishable when you stand in the doorway between them. If X and Y are indistinguishable at any point, then the state at which the universe exists becomes indistinguishable from the state at which the universe does not exist. This is impossible.
Now if you want to claim that your atemporal agent is a supernatural entity and has the ability to do the impossible, I may not believe you, but I will not dispute you either....unless you continue to insist on the scientific validity of an atemporal agent which exists outside of time and space, and has the ability to transcend what separates the place where time and space do not exist from the place where time and space do exist.
[Could the atemporal agent not start the universe] "Simply by walking over to room Z?"
By using a doorway to get there....unless they teleported.
"To prove this, you use the analogy of a doorway."
The analogy was intended as an illustration, not a proof. I don't use analogies in the classroom to "prove" the Industrial Revolution, I use them as an illustration of what's going on.
"An analogy is not a proof"
See previous.
"so you have not actually proven that at Q exists or that at Q, X and Z must overlap. You have simply stated that you think they overlap."
If Q does not exist, how can an atemporal agent existing in Room X effect the state of affairs in room Z when we have established from the start that there can be no overlap between X and Z? It is impossible. Which means your atemporal agent must have magical powers. Which, from what I understand about god(s)...that's kinda their claim to fame....I've just kinda confirmed that for your god to exist (as you have described it) and to have poofed the universe into existence (as you insist it did), it has to have magical powers....So, really I don't know why you are arguing with me on this point.
"Your Q is referring to something before Z and after X. For there to be anything (Q) between X and Z or between A and B, implies the existence of time."
No, it doesn't. Not before or after, between. It implies the existence of an indistincton between the universe existing and the universe not existing.
If two rooms exist and as seperate entities and an agent in one wants to effect what happens in the other, they must create an indistinction between the two rooms. That indistinction is called a doorway. Since nothing can exist "before" the universe, then the non-existence of the universe has to exist as a separate reality from the existence of the universe. It has to exist outside of space and time. Since you are arguing that something existing in that separate reality affected this one, there has to be a crossover point between the two realities. Since this is impossible from our perspective, if your god exists, it has supernatural powers to do the impossible. (I keep repeating and showing that your god has to be supernatural to do what you have claimed it did....why exactly are you disputing me? Do you hope to propose a god that lacks supernatural powers? aren't supernatural abilities sort of a necessity on a god's resume'?)
Undaunted, and unaffected by reality, he soldiers on....
"1. Everything that began to exist has a cause" Translation: "La-la-la-la-laaa! I can't hear you, I can't hear you!!!"
This is called begging the question. You have provided no other evidence for this claim other than the claim itself.
"It is ludicrous to believe otherwise because unicorns should also pop into existence out of nothing with no cause and no reason and then instantly pop out of existence."
And this is what we call an argument from ignorance. Just because you cannot understand how something like the universe could pop into existence with no cause and no reason doesn't mean that it didn't. Just as I cannot say for certain that your god does not exist somewhere outside of time space matter and existence as we know it, you cannot say for certain that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." "Everything" implies "everything"..the universe included.
"So, the universe did come into existence out of nothing and with no cause, after-all."
I don't recall saying that it did, just that as far as we know, it could have.
"Your response: The universe began to exist, but it was not caused. It just happened."
See previous.
"The universe attained the monumentally improbable values that are necessary for existence by pure chance "
"improbable" and "impossible" mean two different things.
"since we both agree that there were no influencing factors" We do both agree, but not how he thinks....after all, his god could be such an "influencing factor"
that we know of
"and you are certain it could not have been a designer"
I don't recall saying that either. I do recall saying that if a designer exists, it doesn't appear to exist and apparently doesn't want to appear to exist.
"Can explain to me how it is logical for something to come from nothing?"
Isn't that exactly what you are postulating? That a supernatural entity poofed a universe into existence out of nothing?
"The quantum vacuum is not nothing in the sense we are discussing (the complete absence of anything) since it is has time, space and physical laws and even if it is nothing, the process is still caused - by the scientist."
Ah. So you're the one who gets to decide what constitutes "nothing." Easy to win when you make all the rules in such a way that you always can.
"I don't get to define nothing. common sense does. Nothing is the absence of something."
So you get to define both "nothing" and "common sense." Nice.
Now he starts to get pissy.
"Let's see. We have a world full of extremely complex beings. Either they were designed (since every complex thing we know was designed) or they were products of chance. Your reply? They were products of chance because there is no evidence of a designer."
Ah, the old false dichotomy play. You seem to have forgotten a third possibility: that this world full of complex beings was the product of millions of years of evolutionary mechanisms in action....some of which operate by chance, some of which are highly deterministic. The real question then becomes did your designer use this myriad of seemingly interconnected natural processes, or did he snap his fingers, wave a magic wand and say "A-la Peanut Butter Sandwiches!!!"
"The universe we live in is so incredibly complex. The values necessary for life to exist are in so narrow a range that it seems something directed them into that range. Your response? It happened by chance because there is no evidence of a designer"
Read this part again: "it seems something directed them." You are basically saying "it looks designed therefore it was." All i'm suggesting is that looks are sometimes deceiving and that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view.
"the universe came uncaused out of nothing," What's wrong
with suggesting that the origin of the universe is simply an unknowable
mystery?
"When we can clearly see that the universe required a cause and that
this cause has all the characteristics of God, calling it an 'unknowable
mystery' smacks of... well... stupidity and a desire to deny the existence of
God."
And not just any god, but your particular god. Again, because you say so.
"Did you know that concept of God was already present and fully formed in earliest recorded history of civilization complete with well-developed theologies, rituals, ethical systems, and even institutions?"
Yes, I did know that. Did you know that these "well-developed theologies, rituals, ethical systems, and even institutions" were based on the concept of polytheism? Not to be a grammar nazi, but technically your sentence should read: "Did you know that concept of gods were already present..."
"IT does seem that if God made us we would naturally look for Him but perhaps you have some evidence for the claim that humanity invented God?"
I would present it, but you did a much better job of it when you told me that the concept of god(s) were present and fully formed in the earliest recorded history of civilization. People needed an explanation for the world they observed. Since they had a limited understanding of it, they chalked it up to powerful beings that lived in or worked through or controlled the forces of nature. Considering that mankind existed long before civilization(s) did, this makes perfect sense.
"Now, please do me a favor and back that up with facts." Which part:
that man existed prior to civilization (Man:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071017145252.htm
Civilization: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/oldciv.html)
Many apologies, this link is dead, but I did back up what I said..... or that man attributed the stuff that happened in the world to powerful beings that lived in or worked through the forces of nature? I mean, you can just look at your own religion. Floods, plagues, droughts, storms, all sorts of stuff has been attributed to that particular god. Just about every other religion that exists or has existed did the same as yours. I can show you other examples of how people of other faiths have come to similar conclusions but it'll take up a lot of space.
"It seems to me that all the evidence for a designer can be written off simply by stubbornly repeating there is no evidence of a designer and appealing to chance." Yeah, the guy who repeated Kalam the way a frat boy repeats "bro" in the hope of making it right is calling me "stubborn"... just let that sink in before moving on.
You haven't presented evidence for a designer. You have presented suppositions. You have presented the idea that "it looks designed, therefore it is." You have presented special pleading for a designer who exists outside of the universe...in other words, a designer who exists outside of that which exists....for the sole reason that the universe had to have a cause because you say so.
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Apparently in creationist world, repeating something makes it right. It's almost as if he's saying to himself: "Maybe if I say it one more time, it'll be right this time!! "
This is called "begging the question." You offer no evidence for this claim other than the claim itself.
"As for the universe looking designed, how did you determine the fact that it merely looks designed but is in fact, not?"
I know that a lot of things that once were thought to be the product of some supernatural designer turned out to be natural processes at work. People used to believe that the milky way was designed to hold up the night sky. People used to believe that illnesses were caused by evil spirits. People believed that frost was painted on windows by a magical fairy. People once believed that the sun moved across the sky and the heavens revolved around the earth because they appear to. It's been our experience that natural explanations tend to exist for what were once believed to be supernatural phenomena. And it has also been our experience that we should never conclude to know all there is to know about any subject because those conclusions can become erroneous in the face of new information.
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause: This is more plausibly
true than its contradictory because it has been observed in our
experience while the opposite has not."
In what experience have we observed the genesis of a universe?
"Tell me again, what counts as evidence of God? Give me an example, please."
Simple. Make 2 and 2 equal 5.
"Is that your way of saying nothing will convince you?"
Not at all. You propose the existence of a supernatural entity. A supernatural entity is not bound by the laws of nature (hence the name "super"natural) or the universe as we know it Such an entity would be able to do what the laws of nature and the universe say are impossible. (Not the improbable, the impossible. An improbability happens when there is a >0 in (x) chance of it happening. An impossibility happens when there is a 0 in (x) chance of it happening.) Your bible backs this logic up when it says "with god all things are possible." Show me 2 and 2 making 5....and you have made your case.
Let me say again: if you believe a god exists, and you admit this as a belief...then there's nothing dishonest about that and you and I have no quarrel. But if you posit the scientific validity of something that the very definition of "scientific validity" says is not possible, then it sweats dishonesty.
"So, you would only believe in God if he made 2 and 2 equal five."
Not specifically that, but you get the idea.
"Supposing He doesn't want to? What then?"
Then your god is either lazy or doesn't care as much about my eternal soul as you seem to think he does..
"He definitely doesn't exist to wait on you."
How is backing up your bluster with action "waiting on" me? I didn't ask the guy to bring me a billion dollars, a pepperoni pizza and a honda accord, just that he show me he can do what his followers claim he can. If this guy can do the impossible, what's the problem in showing me? Why not show everybody? Put the opposition completely out of business. Show up in mid-town Darfur and start handing out the miracles.
"The Christian belief is that God has provided whatever is necessary for a sincere seeker to find Him"
Why the elaborate game of hide and seek?
"but that point is moot since you're obviously not searching."
quite the contrary. I want to be convinced. The problem is, people do a lousy job of convincing me.
