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.
I think there could very well be a misuse of the word "impersonal" here.
You have one article that says one thing, and then another article will say the opposite. This is philosophical stuff here. I want you to go beyond what other people have done and have some thoughts of your own.
In science, there is a common saying that stops people from getting all excited over each and every discovery :)
Causality does not equal causation!
Assuming that everything has a reason is one of the biggest fallacies of any theory...
This argument does not assume that the Universe has a reason for its existence, but rather that it has a *cause* of its existence. The Universe having a cause does not denote it having a purpose.
I like to believe most things happen for a reason or cause and effect but some people like to assign deeper meaning to things.
Agreeeee!!!!
SoG, am curious, where did you get your education? What was (is) your major area of study?
I am a senior in high school.
Where are you going to college when you graduate?
Iowa State University
Please talk about scientific theorems after you understand their underpinnings. You are not qualified to bandy about names and destroy reputations.
Well, I heard that Kalam Cosmologist Argument was also presented by Ahmed Tzortis (A guy from Islamic Education and Research academy UK).. but what is truth it's not even allowed in their religion to present things or way by logical reasoning and thinking. I've read that Imam Shaf"ee and Imam Malik of Sunni Muslims (Islamists) strictly prohibited to think about the orders of Islam by logical reasoning and Critical thinking. hahah how foolish they are ?
Easy to refute. Instead of applying the argument to the Universe, apply it to God. In addition, if the universe includes everything that exists, why does it not include God? Because....................God does not exist.
Secondary: if everything has a cause, there is no free will.
In fact, premise 1 and 2 do not apply at a subatomic level. All we can say for sure is that what exists (forms of energy) changes, and that at the atomic level and above we can see causes for the changes. Since that is our experience, we see causes for "everything." Thus we postulate a prime "Cause" and call her God. Then we try prayers, offerings (bribes) and promises to cause "God" to do what we want. Perfectly logical, isn't it?
God did not *begin* to exist, so this argument is not applicable to God.
Secondly, God is not apart of the Universe because He transcends it and sustains it in existence.
Both premises apply at the subatomic levels. And what brought energy into existence, as it did not exist prior to the Big Bang?
Who says that energy did not exist before the Big Bang? That would be utterly impossible. I'm really at a loss as to how that's not profoundly obvious to you?
God did not *begin* to exist, so this argument is not applicable to God.
Secondly, God is not apart of the Universe because He transcends it and sustains it in existence.
Both premises apply at the subatomic levels. And what brought energy into existence, as it did not exist prior to the Big Bang?
Of course energy existed prior to the Big Bang. Einstein's good for *something* still - he's got some pretty sound arguments concerning the conservation of energy.
The kid's a school senior who got confused by what his dad spoke about "transcendence" and what limited physics his teacher talked about the Big Bang.
An argumentum ad hominem does nothing to support your case, in fact, it makes your case weaker, being that it is a logical fallacy.
By the way, I graduated from high school a year ago in May. You're making yourself look foolish.
1. "God did not *begin* to exist, so this argument is not applicable to God." In other words, we must accept your conclusion at the beginning of your argument instead of at the end. So the cosmological argument is not a logical argument, but a plea for faith.
One might just as easily say,"The universe did not begin to exist; it is eternal, ever changing in form. Therefore, the prime cause, God, does not exist."
In both cases the conclusion precedes the argument, a deep logical fallacy. However, adherents to Occam's Razor will recognize the postulation of God as an unnecessary complication.
2. "God is not a part of the Universe because He (She? They?) transcends it and sustains..." Same problem. Additionally, the terms "Universe, universal," etc... by definition include all that exists. To then posit something else that exists outside all that exits is itself a contradiction in terms, as it re-defines "universe," or it redefines "exist." It is impossible to carry on a reasonable debate if one side may simply redefine the terms used in the debate at will.
You state that we must accept the conclusion of the Kalam argument at the beginning because God did not begin to exist? That is a non-sequitur.
The Kalam argument is not applicable to God because God did not *begin* to exist; the Kalam argument refers to only that which *begins* to exist. So, not even at the first premise is the Kalam applicable to God.
Secondly, you claim that one could assert that the Universe is eternal. This is false, there simply is no evidence for a past-eternal Universe; in fact, the evidence suggests the opposite.
So, in order for your analogy to work, you must justify your assertion of a past-eternal Universe.
Thirdly, the Universe is a term, in theology, philosophy, metaphysics, and physics, which entails all of physical reality. God is not physical reality, He is a spiritual being who exists wholly apart from all of physical reality, and temporally sustains it in existence.
Re-read your second paragraph SoG. It appears evidence and justification requirements are okay for you to use but not okay for someone who disagrees with you to use.
Now this kid is talking authoritatively about what a great father figure God is.....spiritual being, temporally sustains..yadda, yadda, yadda! Incidentally, whatever stopped God from being dimunitively female ("He is a spiritual being")?
So who do YOU think this "personal" god is?
Your argument is an exercise in profound stupidity.
It's like saying :
1. "Everything begins with no color".
2. "The Universe began to have color".
3. Viola! Eureka! "Therefore the Universe was colorless! "
The rest of the argument is logical fallacies compounded several times over, with a great deal of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo thrown in, such as an erroneous juxtaposition of the Penrose-Hawking theorem and the Borde-Villenkin-Guth theorem. What Mr. Hawking stated was that the universe began in a singularity, and the Borde-Villenkin-guth theorem states that it should have a beginning!
What on earth led you to conclude that Hawking had said it has a "Cause"?!
Whyever should the Universe require a "Cause"? This entire business of cause and effect is old school philosophy, it doesn't have any justification. Please don't confuse science, philosophy, and logic.
1. Why should "Everything begin with a cause?"
2. Why do you believe "The Universe BEGAN to exist?" That's presupposing a helluva lot of assumptions! Time was warped going back to the first few microseconds (we can only talk of proper time in the sense that laymen talk of it only later), and to talk of a beginning is itself fallacious.
Finally, Science does not believe in "logic". It is empirical in nature. If you demonstrated a Unicorn or a repeatable miracle to a scientist, he/she would be thrilled to accept it! Whether or not it is logical is not important- as the whole of quantum theory seems grossly illogical, but it works!
Philosophers tend to make arguments around logical deductions and are convinced of the truth, just as you are about the ultimate "Cause"! Science wins out in the end for a good reason over plain 'ole logic!
"1. "Everything begins with no color".
2. "The Universe began to have color".
3. Viola! Eureka! "Therefore the Universe was colorless!"
Actually, there is nothing wrong with this argument. It is a sound argument. However, it is not valid because premise (1) is not true.
"The rest of the argument is logical fallacies compounded several times over, with a great deal of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo thrown in, such as an erroneous juxtaposition of the Penrose-Hawking theorem and the Borde-Villenkin-Guth theorem. What Mr. Hawking stated was that the universe began in a singularity, and the Borde-Villenkin-guth theorem states that it should have a beginning!"
Rather than asserting this, were you planning on procuring any evidence of such? Perhaps a list of the fallacies that are supposedly committed as well as where and how.
"What on earth led you to conclude that Hawking had said it has a "Cause"?!"
I did not say that Hawking or his theorem states that the Universe has a cause. His theorem states that all the mass (including matter and energy, both of which are fundamental constituents of mass) and spacetime of the Universe has a beginning in the initial cosmological singularity.
"Whyever should the Universe require a "Cause"? This entire business of cause and effect is old school philosophy, it doesn't have any justification. Please don't confuse science, philosophy, and logic."
Firstly, the Universe must have a cause because it began to exist, and beginning to exist is a sufficient condition requiring a causal explanation. As far as your claims regarding causality, they're moot points with no evidential basis.
"1. Why should "Everything begin with a cause?""
The argument does not state that everything begins with a cause. Per premise (1) "Whatever begins to exist has a cuase".
"Why do you believe "The Universe BEGAN to exist?" That's presupposing a helluva lot of assumptions! Time was warped going back to the first few microseconds (we can only talk of proper time in the sense that laymen talk of it only later), and to talk of a beginning is itself fallacious."
There is no presupposition in saying that the Universe began to exist. Walk into any university, look into any book on cosmology/astronomy and it will tell you that our Universe began to exist 13.8 billion years ago in the Big Bang. Time itself begins with the Big Bang as well, because time cannot be extended beyond the BVG boundary (Big Bang). We know that space began to exist at the Big Bang, and if time is directly connected to space, then time began at the Big Bang.
"The big bang is not like an explosion of matter in otherwise empty space; rather, space itself began with the big bang and carried matter with it as it expanded. Physicists think that even time began with the big bang."
SOURCE: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/
"Finally, Science does not believe in "logic"."
I don't think you know that "logic" and "mathematics" are the same thing.
as usual appealing to the cartoon version of science to make an argument. The big bang theory is nothing more than evolution laws for an expanding isotropic homogeneous gas. No one knows if the universe is eternal or not. So your second postulate might be false. Additionally there is good reason to think the first one is false. So much for the Kalam.
"All the evidence we have says that the Universe has a beginning".
--Cosmologist Dr. Alexander Vilenkin
What was that you were saying about the second premise? The Big Bang theory tells us that all of the spacetime (including its contents) were compressed into a singularity which--for reasons unknown--began to expand. The implications of the Big Bang theory are that space and time physically came into existent at the Big Bang; now, it is the cosmologists saying this, not me.
"The big bang is not like an explosion of matter in otherwise empty space; rather, space itself began with the big bang and carried matter with it as it expanded. Physicists think that even time began with the big bang."
SOURCE: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/
So much for your "so much for the Kalam". You, thusly, have not demonstrated any invalidities with the second premise.
Secondarily, I would like you to present your evidence for your assertion that "there is good reason t othink that the first one [premise] is false". Until such time... what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
"The Big Bang theory tells us that all of the spacetime (including its contents) were compressed into a singularity which"
Not at all, you are confusing the big bang theory, with a possible event called the big bang. They are very different things. I already explained to you that the big bang theory starts with an initial condition of a homogeneous isotropic expanding gas. So no, the big bang theory contains no singularities. The singularity is only inferred if you reverse the time evolution and run it from the initial conditions continuing past discontinuities, which is mathematically reckless. It would be like if I told you the area of a circle was A(r) = pi*r^2; then you used that function to calculate that a circle of -5 radius has an area of 25*pi. Your result is reckless because there is no such thing as a negative radius, therefore no such thing as a circle with a negative radius; so the function is not valid for r=-5. You have pushed it past the breaking point, so any results you get are just conjecture...
As far as the first postulate goes, I already give you an example: the light with the filter. We have light that begins to exist on one side of the filter (say on a pass through), that you won't be able to find a cause for. Remember, you will need a cause that allowed it to pass today, but not yesterday: a cause that when presented with an identical situation, has 2 different possible outcomes that are chosen randomly. Unless of course you are willing to concede that randomness is a cause...
"The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe[1]"
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity
"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago."
SOURCE: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/#sthash.H3I1fJIo.dpuf
"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down."
SOURCE: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
Your claim that the Big Bang theory does not involve a singularity is false. The Universe starts from a singularity (initial cosmological singularity), and any cosmology or astronomy book will attest to this. The rest of what you have written is, thusly, moot. You've also got to remember, I'mnot the one saying this, the cosmologists are. You're not only disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with them.
"We have light that begins to exist on one side of the filter (say on a pass through), that you won't be able to find a cause for."
You're conflating "causelessness" (which does not exist) with "indeterministic causation"; indeterministic causation involves a cause, but we are unable to determine (hence the term "indeterministic") precisely when the effect will be produced from that cause.
Pages