• S
    6k
    This is highly amusing. Nothing comes from nothing! Oh, and by the way, there's this creator-thing which comes from nothing.
  • Rank Amateur
    275
    What the “who created the creator” implies contingent things regresses infinitely. There is no beginning. It is like taking half steps to nowhere.

    Possible. But at least equally possible is a necessary being.
  • Marcus de Brun
    429


    To demand an 'origin' of a creator is to compel that creator to have originated at a moment in time.. the origin. The same applies to matter, to give it a point of origin is equally to confine it to our experience of time.

    Special Relativity insists that time is not fixed but is entirely relative. A shoe entering a black hole is not confined to the human experience of time, why should a putative creator-thing be denied the same potential (to be outside of human time) that Science affords to a shoe in a black hole? In the interests of fairness: What is good for a shoe must be good for a creator-thing?

    I don't think it is unreasonable to argue that nothing comes from nothing: is there an example of a contradiction?

    My point is, that when one demands an origin of creation, one applies an all too human temporal 'fix' to creation, whilst Special Relativity insists that temporal reality is not in fixed but relative.

    Matter may well be eternal? we know from the law of conservation of mass that (as far as we know) it is neither created nor destroyed, but merely changes from one form to another.

    M
  • Wayfarer
    6.5k
    Oh, and by the way, there's this creator-thing which comes from nothing.Sapientia

    No theologian ever thought of that. All those centuries, and to think! their reasoning could be defeated by simple schoolchild logic. Oh the futility.
  • Hanover
    3.9k
    All you say is non-responsive to my statement that it is as logically impossible for matter to exist without a prior cause as it is for a creator to exist without a prior cause. If creators can possess the magical qualities of spontaneous or eternal existence, so can rocks.
  • Rank Amateur
    275
    is it possible that the nature of a necessary being could be different than the nature of a rock?
  • andrewk
    1.5k
    is it possible that the nature of a necessary being could be different than the nature of a rock?Rank Amateur
    Not if rocks are necessary beings.
  • Uber
    147
    I already mentioned this before, but nobody really addressed the fundamental problem with the CA, apart from Rank saying it was a "reasonable" observation.

    The CA:

    1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

    2) The Universe began to exist.

    Conclusion: The Universe has a cause.

    The heart of the problem is causality. To avoid equivocation, the CA needs to rely on a ridiculous interpretation of causality that violates everything we know about the world.

    How do things "begin to exist" in the Universe? By the transfer and exchange of energy between different systems. Causation in the Universe itself is ex materia, meaning some collection of materials and energy can interact and change form into some other collection of materials and energy. You could attempt to argue that they begin to exist through ex materia or ex nihilo causes, but then you would be admitting that some things in the Universe come from actually nowhere, nothing. Toss all of thermodynamics and the conservation laws of physics out the window. Good luck with that claim!

    Now, how does the Universe as a whole "begin to exist"? If you're in the theist camp, it has to be ex nihilo creation. If you allow for ex materia causation of the entire Universe, then God has no special role. So the second premise needs ex nihilo causation. But that sense of causality contradicts the sense of causality used by the first premise. Thus, the CA cannot do both of the following things: 1) provide a consistent definition of causality that comports with modern science and 2) successfully reach its intended conclusion (ie. a supernatural being made all of reality).

    The problem of time also relates to this point because causality in the Universe is temporal (ie. events happen in spacetime). But since God is supposed to have somehow brought time itself into being, the causal process of the entire Universe must have been atemporal. Again, you can't square these circles.

    Causation is the fundamental problem with the CA, and this problem is absolutely insurmountable without fatal concessions to the whole intent of the argument. In effect, the conclusion of the argument boils down to this: all of causation has a cause, but oh by the way that special cause is different from the rest of causation. Why is it different? Who knows, it just is.

    If this sounds ridiculous, it's because it is!
  • Hanover
    3.9k
    It could be anything you want, which means it could also be that rocks could have eternal existence, which means rocks could exist without having been caused, which means that a creator is not necaessary for there to be rocks any more than it is necessary for there to be a prior creator for there to be a current creator.
  • Marcus de Brun
    429


    1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

    There is no evidence to confirm this assertion and much evidence to contradict it, vis the notable absence of an observable cause for the Universe itself.

    How you position the 'order' of the impossibilities of 'things' and 'beginning' does not pose a valid philosophical question nor does it solve an existing one. It merely reiterates three specific dogmatism's that have already been sufficiently undermined by Philosophy to a greater or lesser extent.

    1) There are things outside the mind (undermined/disproved by Berkeley)
    2) Time exists (Undermined/disproved by Einstein)
    3) Effects are caused (undermined/disproved by Hume)

    To say that there are 'things' in and of themselves that exist outside of thought, is an assumption, and to say that there is a process 'time', (merely because we think these things outside our thought appear to undergo temporal change) is to apply a form to the Cosmos that is in keeping with private subjectively believed apriori that are exposed within the question.

    The Cosmos is not bound to these apriori they are yours, and if you wish to hold them with the enthusiasm of an evangelist, then you are no different to a religious zealot.

    All of this assumption creates a Universe that apparently must and yet in truth cannot compel it self into the notion : everything that begins to exist has a cause.

    Therefore the three enormous presumptions contained in this premise (things, temporality & causality) have already been fundamentally undermined if not disproved.

    If the question is to move beyond the boring argument between theists who wish to have a God-thing and atheists who wish to destroy the theists God thing, then we must leave this argument in the kindergarten of religious dogmatics and move into the more interesting realm of Actual Philosophy. In this realm the question is correctly put as follows.

    What is the rationally derived form of the Cosmos?

    We must then seek for an idea or sequence of ideas that reconciles the three assumptions inherent within the initial 'childish' question.

    Determinism which has already been deductively proven by Schopenhauer and which of itself is reasonable and empirically valid, is clearly the starting point for an answer. It asserts in essence that the future is already in existence as it is determined. We must ask, can this assertion be proven and is it empirically validated The answer to this of course is a resounding yes. Hence we must move on, and ask what is the determined form of the Cosmos?

    If our future is already in existence as determinism suggests, then the notion that we are moving through time, that we somehow move from the present into the future, is entirely illusory. If our future exists already, we cannot move into it because it already contains us. We are already there. Therefore the notion of temporality and the passage of time must be dispensed with in respect of a Cosmic construct that is devoid of uncertainty and religiosity.

    I will not deny that there is an apparent temporal nature to my experience of thought, however to apply this vague temporal nature (that is my own experience) to the gross form of the Cosmos is an homocentric delusion that simultaneously denies the empirically validated 'truth' and 'experience'.

    It is time for Philosophy to get off its knees and begin to walk.

    M
  • S
    6k
    No theologian ever thought of that. All those centuries, and to think! their reasoning could be defeated by simple schoolchild logic. Oh the futility.Wayfarer

    My comments related to the claims of Marcus de Brun, which can easily be shown to be contradictory. If this same refutation also applies to the claims of theologians over the centuries, then all the worse for them! But you're the one who made the link, not me.
  • S
    6k
    I don't think it is unreasonable to argue that nothing comes from nothing: is there an example of a contradiction?Marcus de Brun

    Yes, an example of a contradiction would be a creator-thing which comes from nothing.
  • ssu
    555
    I'm an agnostic.

    Logic or faith are ways for us to answer questions about reality. Objective science cannot tell us what is morally right or wrong, it just states what is. Faith and religion give that answer to these kinds of questions quite well. Has worked for ages. Otherwise for any kind of question that can be answered objectively, logic and science are the way to go.

    I think that atheism tends to give a far too simplistic World view. When explaining God away, it then has to seek some "humanism" or something as the answer to moral (or subjective). Besides, atheists can be as annoying as some crazy rapture-believing fundamentalists, if they have the desire to tell people just why they are atheists or worse, if they have a "mission" to be against the perils of religion.

    Who knows? is a great answer.
  • Hanover
    3.9k
    Determinism which has already been deductively proven by Schopenhauer and which of itself is reasonable and empirically valid, is clearly the starting point for an answer. It asserts in essence that the future is already in existence as it is determined.Marcus de Brun

    Your acceptance of determinism as truth cannot be attributed to the persausive force of deductive logic, but only to the causative effects of determinism, meaning your entire enterprise of presenting these arguments is just you mindlessly reciting arguments that you should have no expectation to bear any relation to reality. You're just telling me what you must and you're believing what you must and I'm now typing what I must. You cannot allow for reasonable evaluation and independent judgment and assessment of your arguments (by you or me) in a determined world.
  • S
    6k
    Determinism which has already been deductively proven by Schopenhauer and which of itself is reasonable and empirically valid, is clearly the starting point for an answer.Marcus de Brun

    That's going to raise a few eyebrows, I predict.
  • Rank Amateur
    275
    if I understand your point, you are saying, there is no necessary being, because things come into existence in some exchange of matter and energy. CA is just asking what is the next regression, what caused the material and energy. As for the relatively of time, again with my limited understanding, it points to singularly, which supports CA

    All that aside, my objection to your point, if I understand it correctly, is simply- science can not defeat CA, until it does. And it has not done that. In effect your point elevates science to religion. Science can not defeat CA now, but you have faith it will.
  • Rank Amateur
    275
    within some realm of reasonableness we know as a matter of scientific fact what a rock is. We can trace the contingency of rocks back, they are as a matter of fact, contingent

    If you want to challenge the existence of rocks on some level of is reality real, are we in the matrix, etc etc. I have no real interest.
  • Uber
    147
    Rank:

    I never said anything about necessary beings, nor is that an implied position of my analysis, which is focused on the CA itself and not on any other philosophical argument. What I've stressed all along is that the two premises of the CA cannot describe causality in a way that's consistent with what we actually know about the world.

    Modern science is not necessary to defeat the CA, although it can certainly help. The theist proponents of the CA have defeated themselves by cherry-picking from modern science as they see fit. On the one hand, they use the Big Bang to argue that the Universe, by which they mean something like "all of reality" without explicitly stating it, had a beginning. On the other hand, they define or understand causality in ways that are incompatible with all scientific theories, including the Big Bang itself (and also thermodynamics, relativity, etc). They adopt "Neo-Lorentzian" ideas on relativity that no serious physicist would endorse. They're trying to have it both ways to force their preferred conclusion.
  • Rank Amateur
    275
    the entire basis of CA is there is a necessary being - thought that was obvious
  • Marcus de Brun
    429


    Your acceptance of determinism as truth cannot be attributed to the persausive force of deductive logic, but only to the causative effects of determinism, meaning your entire enterprise of presenting these arguments is just you mindlessly reciting arguments that you should have no expectation to bear any relation to reality.

    There is much in this assertion, and there is much lacking in this assertion. I suggest that you consider starting a new discussion thread, where we might explore the concept of Determinism more thoroughly. You appear to be suggesting that Determinism is mind-less. I don't think a Determined Universe is predicated upon an entirely mindless participation in same. There may well be aspects of consciousness that are truly free, however this is not the topic of this thread.


    You're just telling me what you must and you're believing what you must

    It is a bit presumptuous of you to inform me what I am believing? You may or may not be correct but how have you gained such an insight into my mind and its contents? Please provide some evidence for this assertion.

    and I'm now typing what I must.

    Indeed in a determined Universe you are typing what you must. However that which you are typing is only the faintest reflection of that which you might be thinking. It may not in fact be any reflection of your thought at all. For example whilst you are typing you may be thinking...... 'I will put this egotistical self righteous asshole in his place!' Or you may be thinking that 'I must put the garbage out' etc., That, may be your thinking whilst you are typing (I am not suggesting it is your thinking) and yet, that which you have written is of a different portent entirely.

    You cannot allow for reasonable evaluation and independent judgment and assessment of your arguments (by you or me) in a determined world.

    You appear to be asserting that all aspects of the thinking processes inherent to 'judgement and assessment' are un-free. This assertion suggests that you have a rather fixed or determined notion of Determinism. I suggest you consider these assertions more thoroughly, and then start a thread where we might discuss same.

    For the moment at least they are quite off topic.

    M
  • Marcus de Brun
    429


    That's going to raise a few eyebrows, I predict.

    Possibly, but I doubt it. Philosophy is currently in a coma, all that remains is for the machine to be switched off.

    M
  • Uber
    147
    I don't see that as the basis of the CA at all. What conclusion of the CA says "The Universe has a cause from a necessary being"? That's an implication of the argument which is inserted at the end to justify theological propaganda. My interest in the argument comes way before we get to the point of necessary beings and flying angels.

    If the cosmological argument was stated as follows, I would be in agreement, more or less.

    1) Everything that begins to exist in reality has a material cause.

    2) The observable universe is a small part of reality that began to exist.

    3) Therefore, the observable universe had a material cause.

    Point being: you can easily have a CA that shows the Universe had materialistic causes.
  • Marcus de Brun
    429


    Why not get the cosmology half-right before the argument bit?

    The various presuppositions associated with the cosmology place the argument upon a determined and predictable trajectory.

    M
  • Uber
    147
    I definitely agree that the argument can be manipulated to justify pretty much any preconception of reality. That's what I was demonstrating in the previous post.
  • Wayfarer
    6.5k
    1) Everything that begins to exist in reality has a material cause.Uber

    What about numbers?
  • Uber
    147
    What about them?
  • Wayfarer
    6.5k
    Do they exist? Do they have a material cause? Are they real?
  • Rank Amateur
    275
    the idea of a necessary being is Aquinas 3 rd proof, it is a CA. Didn't think I needed to be that explicit in that concept.
  • andrewk
    1.5k
    We can trace the contingency of rocks back, they are as a matter of fact, contingentRank Amateur
    What evidence do you have for the claim that rocks are contingent? It seems to me that, if the words 'necessary being' mean anything at all, then rocks must be necessary beings.The fact that we can trace the history of a rock does nothing to tell us whether or not that rock 'could' have not existed.

    More generally, I find it hard to imagine anything more necessary than the universe.
  • Uber
    147
    But I was not analyzing the 'proofs' of Aquinas, was I? I was specifically talking about the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.