Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Josh,I have no problem agreeeing on any definition of any word. But that word must be relevant, and not just-made-up and casually used without a full understanding on what it is..
The problem with the Kalam is that it is a physics question debated by non-physicists. That is why I gave you a hard time on the definition of "nothing", to prove you did not have the chops to seriously debate this physics issue. And over in the land of physics, it is not even an issue because was proven irrelevant and a distraction by the scientific community.
The premise that the universe began to exist is very difficult to achieve. In fact, if anyone could prove what the conditions were before the big bang began it's expansion, a Nobel is guaranteed.
The well trained rational mind easily discards the Kalam as an irrelevant distraction.
#27 - How frigging dense are you?
@Josh
"It's impossible for all beings to be dependent and yet still exist -- its a contradiction."
I am a being, yet I require trucks to haul merchandise and food to me or else I die.
I am dependent and I also exist.
That's simply an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, we don't know how life originated, you are inserting your prime mover into a gap in our knowledge, there is a reason argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies have been labelled "god of the gaps fallacies."
You also still haven't said why you have come to an atheist forum, and directed these questions specifically to atheists, if as you claim it has nothing to do with evidencing a deity?
@ Sheldon
Youre right. We do not know how life originated. However, I still cannot get over the fact that (seemingly) all beings that begin to exist are dependent upon a prior existing being. It just seems that is how existence works. If things do pop into existence, why don't we see it happen more often? This does not conclude that every being that begins to exist has a cause but why should I believe anything else when it has never been proven (as far as I know)? Why should I believe in Newton's Laws of Motion when there is still a possibility that an object can stop without any outside force? Why should I believe in gravity? In all honesty, you do bring up a valid point, but I struggle to believe in something not obviously corresponding to reality.
To answer your other question, I've truly come to this forum to learn different points of view and learn about atheism. I have strong opinions that I believe are true but you all bring up some valid points that I need to research more.
@Josh
"Why should I believe in Newton's Laws of Motion when there is still a possibility that an object can stop without any outside force?"
IMO we are using the word "believe" quite differently. I prefer to use "high confidence based on high probabilities".
Newton's three laws have been tested literally billions of times, and without any exception, proven.
I am not stating with 100% certainty that those laws are perfect. But until then, I will rely on proven and effective laws that have stood the test of time.
Now the trick question .. do you have any proposition for improving on those laws? Can you improve on Newton's work?
On a side note, do you know his greatest contribution? It was that the laws of physics on this earth were the same as the laws of physics in the heavens. An apple on this earth acted in exactly the same manner as the Moon in the sky, both following the exact same laws of gravity.
@ David Killens
"I am not stating with 100% certainty that those laws are perfect. But until then, I will rely on proven and effective laws that have stood the test of time."
This is exactly what I am saying about the dependency of existence. I have "high confidence" in the assertion that every being that begins to exist is dependent on some prior existing thing because it is "based on high probabilities." This assertion has been tested billions of times because of the billions of things that have begun to exist in our world. While not 100% proven, we have good reason to believe the universe is dependent because nature itself has tested that theory over and over again.
@Josh
I don't even understand what this "dependency of existence" is because (with the exception of computer programming) that term means zilch. It is phrase invented by apologetics. Therefore it has zero reliability because it doesn't even meet the standards of any reference.
I can test gravity and arrive at probabilities on it's reliability. I can test my cell phone, my car starting, all can be tested for reliability and offer a probability on working. You can't test "dependency of existence".
"Things" just didn't begin to exist in this world, every atom and erg of energy can be traced back the "big bang" and the singularity. You want to know where air comes from? You want to know where the gold on a woman's ring comes from? I can explain it all, and provide a proof that leads back to the singularity.
None of it, absolutely none, just "began to exist".
The sole unknown is the cause of the singularity commonly known as the Big Bang. And any sane and honest physicist will tell you "we do not know yet, but we are working on it".
But you just want to wrap big words around the same question and insert "god did it" without any proof but word salad.
@ David Killens
You are poisoning the well by saying the idea is "invented" by apologists therefore it is not reliable. Just because it is philosophical in nature has nothing to do whether its true or not.
You can easily test the dependency of existence. If something began to exist, it is dependent. If something did not begin to exist, it is not dependent. As far as I know, this is applicable to everything in our universe.
I also couldn't agree with you more when you say nothing "just began to exist." Something had to actualize its existence, correct?
@Josh
"You are poisoning the well by saying the idea is "invented" by apologists therefore it is not reliable."
I am not poisoning the well, I am just pointing out (be referencing Google) that this term is not even used by anyone. Therefore it was invented.
"I also couldn't agree with you more when you say nothing "just began to exist." Something had to actualize its existence, correct?"
It is quantum mechanics that predict things pop in and out of existence. It is also quantum mechanics that explain why they do so. You discovered that quantum mechanics explain that things pop in and out of existence, but you completely ignored quantum mechanics' explanation on why, and just inserted "god".
@Josh
"If things do pop into existence, why don't we see it happen more often?"
What pops into existence?
Do you understand that quantum physics is just a mathematical tool that allows physicists to deal with the classical world? Quantum physics deals more with the abstract than actual events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ039cZPRNY
If you are going to bring up examples from quantum mechanics, I suggest you learn more about it. Because you are a person who has learned a few snips and tidbits, but do not comprehend what it all really means.
Josh " I struggle to believe in something not obviously corresponding to reality."
What part of objective reality evidences supernatural magic, or deities?
My question was, are you saying the big bang had a cause? If so could you accurately define this cause in a way that offers some explanatory powers, and demo strate sufficient (any) objective evidence for it?
Forgive me Josh but this is my third time of asking...and still no answer....
Sheldon "We don't know how life originated, so this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, a god of the gaps polemic..."
Hence my pointing out that your polemic is based on an appeal to ignorance fallacy. This makes it irrational - by - definition.
Let's list some facts we do know...
1) Life exists.
2) Natural phenomena exist.
3) Every single objectively evidenced cause we have discovered is a natural phenomena.
4) Not once has objective evidence been demonstrated for any of the multitude of archaic claims for a supernatural cause. In fact we don't even know if this is possible, as the claims don't even carry any explanatory powers at all.
Have you ever heard of Occam's razor? Occam was a monk, who posited that the more unknown things we add to an assertion the less likely it is to be valid. You are adding an entirely unknown to known facts, and claiming the known facts are less likely to have a achieved the result we now see, than the addition of that unknown, unevidenced appeal to supernatural magic from a bronze age deity, all of which as well as being unevidenced offers no explanatory powers whatsoever. Which is why I simply can't believe it.
It's easier to just number your use of logical fallacies now, they are all appeal to ignorance fallacies, except the last which is an argument from incredulity fallacy.
Please note, I am not, nor have I, asked you to believe anything, I am pointing that the physical universe exists, and that natural phenomena exist as objective facts, now if you are going to add claims for unevidenced supernatural causes, then you'll need something tangible in the way of objective evidence, as presenting arguments based on known logical fallacies is by definition irrational, and you're claiming to be using logical polemic.
Remember nothing can be asserted as rational if it contains known logical fallacies.
We don't know how life originated, or if the big bang had or even needed a cause. How does that remotely infer anything supernatural or any deity? Without using appeal to ignorance fallacies of course.
@Sheldon: It's only about twenty five times he has been told that now. I say we take up a collection and have it tattooed on his ass where he is sure to see it when he pops out for air,.
I could not point out the flaws in Kalam any better than what has already been posted, but I will make one comment (that might have already been addressed), but the conclusion of Kalam is not even "therefore a god exists", it is "therefore the universe had a cause"..
So, even if the argument is valid and sound (it is not), it does not prove what most theists appealing to this argument, think it does. If it was valid and sound, the most it gets one, is "therefore the universe had a cause". There's a lot of heavy lifting to be done, once "the universe had a cause" is established. But Kalam does not even get us there.
At most, as far as I can tell, if it was valid and sound, it is merely a premise that would be fed into another (as yet unnamed) syllogism.
The unnamed syllogism, would have Kalam as premise 1, then other premise(s) would follow, then "therefore a god exists", would be the conclusion.
Theists can't even get past flawed arguments, like Kalam, though.
The problem with Josh's Kalam argument is that it follows William Lane Craig's playbook, letter for letter, literally. And for anyone aware on Craig's tactics, it begins by attempting to establish the Kalam, which is just a prelude to "so, there is it, god".
Of course I challenge Josh on his intent and motivations. Since he is following Craig's playbook word for word, it is inevitable the "god" word will eventually pop up.
I have some serious issues with this OP as a whole.
Can the OP please demonstrate objectively and scientifically, why a universe cannot be eternal?
He/she appears to be coming from a purely second hand, meta-physically interpretation of cosmology.
The claim people like WLC make, regarding 'the big bang', relies upon the BGV theorem, which is based on classical mechanics.
We now know better and therefore, new and more accurate models account for quantum mechanics.
And off the back of that, there are plenty of valid models!
I would suggest the OP looks into Nikodem J. Poplawski's "Cosmology with torsion" or perhaps more recent work by Shabani and Ziaie.
There is nothing note worthy in what is being proposed here, other than the usual out dated and misinformed arguments.
@ Watchmaker
There have been many posts where I explain why the contradiction of infinite regress cannot be demonstrated objectively and scientifically. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Sure, Well firstly I would say that causality isn't as straight forward as stated by most people.
At a our level, distinguishing cause and effect is typically easy enough, the cause comes first.
I drop a weight from a known height and it shall fall to the ground.
However, on a fundamental level in physics, it is possible for action 'A' and reaction 'B' to be simultaneous.
Furthermore, you have the problem that not everything appears to have a cause either.
As I mentioned on another thread, when the photon is in a super position of horizontal and vertical polarization and is directed towards filter that only allows vertical light to pass through, is the photon going to pass through or be reflected?
Given that there are no hidden variables, the outcome is completely random.
Thus, causality is not as cut and dry as many (mostly apologists) would have you believe.
And just to tack on, every single instance of cause and effect within the universe is governed by the laws of physics and has a completely naturalistic rationale behind it, independent of any super-natural shenanigans.
So it leaves theistic claims clutching an ever decreasing handful of straws.
Exactly like your deity you mean?
You seem to have have check mated your own argument there....
@TheBlindWatchmaker
"Can the OP please demonstrate objectively and scientifically, why a universe cannot be eternal?"
Exactly. Many respected physicists have not rejected the concept that the entire cosmos is/was eternal.
@David Killens
Indeed, In fact I would actually argue that most would agree that whilst we don't and may never know, it would at least seem that the universe appears to be eternal.
@TheBlindWatchmaker: RE: "Can the OP please demonstrate objectively and scientifically, why a universe cannot be eternal?"
No he can not. "But it's a contradiction"? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ......
:P
It's a crying shame that a theists meta-physics does not follow actual physics, as it should.
@ It's funny how "Wooo Wooo squared" gets you any damn thing you like.
@ everyone
I have looked through many of the links you have suggested and have been researching how the universe came from nothing but still have a few questions. More specifically, I'm a little confused by Lawrence Krauss' explanation of it. It seems he is providing theories of how things came into existence from an already existing set of pre-existing entities. These pre-existing things include quantum field theory, a "bubbling" vacuum of virtual particles, and physics. Tell me if i'm wrong but he doesn't seem to give any explanation of how these things can pre-exist in the form that they did. Why and in what way did the laws of physics exist before the creation of the universe? You can't test the laws of physics before the universe was created so why is he using them to explain it? Little confused here any help is appreciated. Thoughts?
Josh
The purpose of the argument is to give a least a hand-waving suggestion that a universe from nothing, does not violate the currently known laws of physics (specifically the conservation laws).
It was not crafted to answer the kinds of questions you seem to be interested in.
RE: Krauss is suggesting "There is no such thing as empty space." What we thought once to be empty space is now full of activity. He is not talking about anything OUTSIDE THE KNOWN UNIVERSE. WE HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL WHAT IS OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE. WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE "LAWS OF PHYSICS" PRIOR TO THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE.
"Pre-existent" is a complete non-sequitur. We know nothing beyond Planck Time. Researchers are still looking and when they find something new, we will all know about it. THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND EVEN TIME ITSELF BREAK DOWN A PLANCK TIME. APPARENTLY WE NEED NEW METHODS OF INQUIRY TO CONTINUE THE EXPLORATION.
re; Why and in what way did the laws of physics exist before the creation of the universe? GOOD QUESTION - NO ONE KNOWS. (HOW DO YOU KNOW THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED? YOU ARE MAKING AN INANE ASSERTION. YOU DO NOT GET TO CLAIM CREATION. )
You can't test the laws of physics before the universe was created so why is he using them to explain it? HE'S NOT. HE IS EXPLAINING THAT WHAT WE ONCE THOUGHT OF AS EMPTY SPACE IS NOT EMPTY ANY MORE. HE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE KNOWN UNIVERSE. EMPTY SPACE IS SOMETHING!
Lawrence M. Krauss || A Universe from Nothing || Radcliffe Institute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwzbU0bGOdc
"The important question is not WHY IS THERE SOMETHING INSTEAD OF NOTHING, but rather, How did the universe evolve and how can we find out." CLEARLY HE IS STATING THAT "HE DOES NOT KNOW." 102.33
@David Killens: WTF WAS THAT???? COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE FOR THIS THREAD!!! GOOD JOB!
Pages