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.
You said, "claiming that you couldn't see any real proofs doesn't prove that there isn't (sic) any."
Does claiming that you can see real proofs prove there are?
I didn't just claim that there are proofs, I stated them. So I defended my claim.
Just Imagine that you are debating someone on evolution and on each evidence you present he just replies "i don't see this is true. and it doesn't follow that you're claiming there are proofs that there are any" does it seem a valid objection to you without at least stating the reasons why your evidences are not true?
I'm struggling to understand the mechanisms you used, beyond saying so, that the proofs you stated are reliable enough to stand on their own...without further scrutiny. Logic, btw, is simply not enough. Doubt is a tool. It encourages additional investigation. Words, which it appear to be all you've offered, are simply not enough for me (I will speak for no one else) to consider the balance tipped in your favor.
Peripatetic
I reread your premise 2. Why do you use so many words to say that a necessary being created the universe? I guess you like to make things complex, instead of simple? You have only made claims the universe is contingent, and the universe was created. Still waiting for the actual evidence that a necessary being/god is real.
edit
Why reviewing anything at all when you can just say it's word salad and has not been peer reviewed by scientists? why addressing the argument instead of just using your Ignorance as a way of refutation?. you should learn something from Nyarlathotep, xenoview and Randomhero.
First I want to thank you so much because you're the only one that is addressing the argument. you're the only one I can have a discussion with. so I appreciate it, and may thor bless you too.
I don't think it really matters. the main point is that I call anything that is possible to exist and not to exist a contingent being whether it's already existent or have never existed. so I would call both the phoenix and giraffes contingent beings. so I think this a linguistic dispute not rational one.
it's like a balance. a balance has two sides. neither of them can tip by the virtue of its own. it's possible that the balance tips in favor of one side over the other. its essence does not necessitate the tipping, it's neutral with respect to the two possibilities. so we would need an external cause (a mass for example) to preponderate one side over the other. I think it's too obvious. I hope it's clear now.
So? Is it because it's used with logical propositions then it cannot be used with any other things? I do not see the implication.
Contingency is a general concept. a student may Fail or pass an exam, that indicates contingency, it means that Passing or failing would be contingent/possible. You can apply that concept to anything.
Hi, Peripatetic. About the 'being' issue, I give the reason to Dumb Ox above, to why I consider this important...
I have to review (and think carefully) your second argument about the explanation of the first premise, and answer you later.
So basically Jehovah (or Allah if you're Muslim) is the ONLY necessary being/thing that exists? If that's the case there's problem here.
Since NOTHING in our universe or reality is necessary, we've never "seen" necessary. We would have no idea what necessary "looks" like, or what its properties are, etc. It'd be like like trying to describe life that, instead of being carbon based, is xenon based. We have very little idea of how to conceptualize it.
The same would go for a "necessary" being or thing.
That is exactly the point. Premise after premise about necessary beings is posted, and there is no way to tell if they are true; we just have to accept the author's word by fiat. So adding them adds nothing to the argument. Might as well just start with the premise "the universe was created by a supernatural creature" and keep it simple, since that is what the amalgamation of premises will probably claim anyway (when we get them all, which will probably never happen).
Nyarlathotep
I agree with you about keeping it simple and to the point. Why doesn't he just say that a god created the universe. KISS(keep it simple stupid) comes to mind when I think about all the word salad from the OP.
No, it's like trying to prove some complex mathematics.
Dumb Ox
So you are saying it has to be complex like mathematics? The OP was a complex word salad, when it could have simple said that a god created the universe. Using KISS to state your OP is being honest, using a complex OP is shady at best and not very honest.
It's called deductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is based on the concordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true...
His premises regarding the nature of the universe are not considered true by the vast majority of physicists so that's not accurate pal.
And he's offered no empirical evidence to the contrary.
Isn't only an uncontroversial premise considered true in logic?
I assume you mean by 'his premises' the one that states that the universe is contingent. and since Contingency and Necessity doesn't even fall under the subjects that science addresses, so I'm just gonna add your statement to the Randomhero's-list-of-bullshit-that-indicates-his-infinite-Ignorance Folder on my Desktop.
And you sir have gained your first gold star in how to be a retard! Well done!
Premise 2, 3 and 4 (to a lesser degree!) relate... fuck me you don't even remember your own premises!
thanks for your support, I appreciate that. I really work hard to get the infinite number of these gold stars that you've gained. Or maybe you don't have any to prove that you are a retard, you would just have to open you're mouth and blabbing about anything to prove it.
2- has nothing to do with science as i stated.
3- is a conclusion not a premise you moron.
4- You're saying that the actual infinite regress of causes Is Proved by the vast majority of scientists, Prove it you Ignorant liar.
Just the simple fact that you don't think your second premise has anything to do with science just shows how much of a spastic you are.
Just give me the name of the scientific books that address the notion of Contingency and Necessity. these are main concepts in a branch of Philosophy called metaphysics You Ignorant.
premise 2 states that the universe is contingent and you prove it thusly,
-claiming all parts of the universe have cause is untrue and disproved by virtual particles and false vacuum.
-you make the clock analogy which is a dreadful as we KNOW the cause of it and the agent, no branch of physics can accurately claim to know the origins of the original state.
-there is no proof that the universe or any of its properties are ceasing, in fact the contrary is true in that it is accelerating
- jupitar takes 11.8 years to orbit not 12, please be accurate
some of these are scientific in nature and require scientific proof, considering the knowledge EVERYONE has of space is founded upon the empiricism and the scientific method I believe it is essential to make the points valid.
in a logical argument your points can be rejected if they are controversial and considering they go against everything we know in physics I will reject them.
also again, if the universe is contingent and has a necessary agent then that agents properties must be necessary,
that gives a contradiction because it it has anything to do with humans then the universe hhas to be created making it necessary.
however if the agent is contingent then the whole claim is massively wrong on a grand scale.
also please and this is to all, stop saying the universe is not infinite because the truth is no one knows, even in physics we cannot say this! what we can say is that the universe is understood to be approx. 156–554 billion light years but it may well be infinite, no one can accurately determine one or the other from a factual point of view but could only claim via conjecture.
I will add another thread soon discussing the likely hoods of finite and infinite universe.
I think claiming that virtual particles 'DISPROVE' causality is reckless. going from "virtual particles seem to pop in&out of existence with no cause" to "therefore it DISPROVES causality" are not justified neither scientifically nor logically. the conclusion would only be true through an implicit premise that states that "whatever seems to be uncaused is indeed uncaused" Or "whatever is unobserved must be non-existent" so these premises must be proven in order for your conclusion to be valid. and there is no way to prove it without philosophy. Otherwise you would have to Point out What EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that exactly concludes that whatever seems to be uncaused must be uncaused?. Or you can just name a paper that disproves causality. so It seems to me that the conclusion that quantum disproves causality is actually supported by 'an argument from Ignorance' not by A SCIENTIFIC PROOF. so I think the physicists who hold that interpretation are actually projecting their Philosophical view on reality Rather extracting it from reality.
It also seems to me that this conclusion begs the question. the conclusion that there cannot be any deeper level of caused events cannot be true unless we presupposed that there is no such a level. Otherwise it would be appealing to Ignorance. If x failed to assign a cause to an event, it doesn't entail that there isn't one. and here's a quote that sums up all that's been said "The absence of something in a representation of nature is not the same thing as a representation of its absence from nature."
I don't think I understood what you're saying here. but my point regarding the clock analogy. that it's impossible to say that the clock is a necessary being which has always been existed, but its parts hasn't. this is a contradiction.
I know but I wanted to make it simple, especially the main point of this argument is not about the exact numbers but rather about the disparity between them.
I suppose that If one said the universe is just beautiful. You would assume that this is a scientific claim since it mentions the sacred word 'the universe' which indicates SCIENCE. so, he cannot make such a claim without EMPIRICAL PROOF. that is absurd. You guys really underestimate Logical laws. you really think that IF x entails contradiction then we cannot say x is false unless SCIENCE proved it. I've never seen such absurdity in my life. SCIENCE itself is based upon these laws IF x entails impossibility then x is certainly FALSE whether SCIENCE has something to say or not.
You cannot claim that science Proves logical impossibilities. So, If x claims that y entails logical impossibility and therefore cannot be the case, then Your refutation must be circulating over the claim that x entails logical impossibility NOT objecting with 'this is not proved by science'
It's either you think that science can prove logical Impossibilities or not. If it's the former then this would be a refutation for science itself. and if it's the latter, which is science cannot prove logical impossibilities, then as i said, what should be discussed is the logical impossibility.
So, what I'm actually arguing is that Since X entails logical impossibilities then X cannot be Proven by science. to object to that claim. You must Prove that it's not true that X entails logical impossibility and therefore science can prove it. that's is the only way you can disprove my claim. but just saying "this is for science to prove" is just silly Since the word "this" could be referring to what is Impossible in itself and what is Possible in itself. so, before making such a statement we must know to which category "this" belongs. this matter must be settled before anything. to make it more clear, Predication/Assertion Is a branch of Conceptualization OR in other words, Conceptualization must precede Predication. So in order for You to Assert that "X is for science to Prove" we must have a clear concept of what X is. X could be impossible in itself and could be Possible, the former would prevent it from being a subject for science to Prove and the latter wouldn't. So, You must Prove that X Is not Impossible before asserting that "X is a scientific subject".
and this can't be done by Ignoring my arguments against X and not addressing/refuting them Or pointing out the fallacies in them.
I hope this is clear for you and for everyone else who make this Objection a lot. and I may start a thread regarding Epistemology, because what I actually has been seeing here is that there are some people who didn't abandoned their religion but they actually replaced it with SCIENCE.
that's to me is just saying "IF you made a point that is against my view then it's indeed controversial, and all controversial points are FALSE therefore Your point must be false" and that's to me is just PURE BULLSHIT.
Claiming that X contradicts Physics/science doesn't mean that X contradicts science unless if we presupposed that Your claim is true. and there isn't any reason to say it's true. so I'll just dismiss it.
I think you want to say that If the agent is necessary then his properties are necessary.
No, It doesn't make it necessary [in itself] since it's causally dependent for its existence On something else, which makes it contingent. A necessary being by definition cannot be caused to exist.
First, It's not appropriate in a debate to tell someone say that and don't say this, because why not just also saying don't say an argument in the first place and we just end the whole thing?
Secondly, it's the same matter about whether X entails logical impossibilities or not. I only say what you don't want me to say because i prove that it entails logical Impossibility. and you can't Prove Otherwise so it's Your Problem not mine.
I would like to stay clear of logical argument as I want you to actually PROVE your claims which you have yet to do,
However it is nice how you completely miss-represented my position within your first paragraph, demonstrating a distinct lack of ability in getting basic things correct. If I was to partake in basic philosophical argument would this not be a straw man fallacy?
What I said was (and you even quoted it, making it even more ridiculous) "claiming all parts of the universe have cause is untrue and disproved by virtual particles and false vacuum." and so far according to the physics that we test, know this claim is accurate.
Because at best you can say sceptically, "We cannot tell if they have a cause or are just in a constant state" although the most recent testing leans towards the latter.
But lets see what physics actually tells us from the scientific method that has been used, Empty space is actually a state where virtual particles pop in and out of existence in a time scale that is incredibly short!
We can measure their effects indirectly, These particles that are jumping in and out of existance actually affect the properties of atoms and nuclei and actually are responsible for most of the mass inside your body, It is quite impressive.
One of the most profound discoveries made is that most of the energy of the universe actually resides in empty space.
If you take space, get rid of all the particles and all the radiation it still actually carries energy, and that notion that in fact empty space, once you bring gravity into the equation, what seems impossible is in actuality possible.
Gravity allows positive energy and negative energy, and out of nothing you can create positive energy particles, and as long as a gravitational attraction produces enough negative energy, the sum of their energy can be zero.
There also strong arguments also as well for false vacuums as well as radioactive decay(it can be statistically determined but still no absolute agreed on 'cause'), some I talk to within neurological fields that I have spoken to believe it is possible that consciousness may have no cause and is in fact just a state with no causality. It is interesting and something I would consider when further information becomes available.
The real problem though may be more our simplistic conception of causation, rather than any mysterious aspect of the universe. Most people base their idea of what a cause/effect is, on a very narrow and primitive band of experience. I would suggest that the quantum and cosmic worlds are just now opening our eyes to how limited our view is.
We can also make the claim that the universe is quite possibly infinite, it fits most models that have been produced (and I intend to write another unrelated article on this) but this can easily be looked up and understood. However, as ever, we caution! we do not know anything for certain! that is the beauty of science, it has humility (ok, perhaps not all the practitioners but still) it is happy to say, we don't know yet! but at the same time through the scientific method we can determine what is likely and what is unlikely!
To simply assert without and true facts is quite simply ignorant and arrogant of the highest order.
We can also make the claim that dark matter and dark energy have known cause as of yet and still it makes up over 90% of the universe.
To simply bypass Science/Physics when making assumptions regarding the cosmos is truly terrible, after all science is what answers questions, specifically the 'how' questions! Looking specifically at the breakthrough physics has made alone:
heliocentrism, inertia, hookes law, laws of motion, conservation of matter, inverse square law, wave theory of light, atomic theory, kinetic theory, electromagnetic interactions and induction later by faraday, earths magnetic field, conservation of energy, faraday rotation, laws of thermodynamics, entropy, xrays, radioactivity,special relativity, general relativity, schrodinger equation, big bang, expension of universe and right up to as recent at higgs boson a few years ago and gravitational waves two years ago.
I would argue that physics has the high ground and making assumptions contradictory to it is most likely futile.
You put the clock argument forward but as I said we know the cause and agent, perhaps a thought experiment. can you provide a necessary agent if all humanity did not exist i.e. a mind was required to extrapolate what it has experienced.
I couldn't care if you consider it 'bullshit' (and please don't be petulant and instead proceed to converse like an adult! I have extended you the same courtesy) that is an actual fact. your premises are not true in relation to the 'proofs' you gave and can therefore be rejected. However if you reworked your argument it may be valid in some way and I would happily admit it if it could be done!
I would also note that your actual claim within the subject claims proof of a god. now although I don't agree you have even presented valid premises, you still haven't proved your claim. if I was to accept your premises for argument sake, at best you could say:
the universe must have cause that is necessary! no more, no less!
one could argue that everything with cause we can observe and is within our reality, so it is more reasonable to assert that what is necessary is likely to also be within our reality. it is far more plausible to consider this then an agent outside of reality.
this is similar to the nothingness argument, what is nothing? we have no way to even conceptualize this just like an agent outside of reality that can 'cause' things within reality but with no trace of evidence.
apologies, I miss-spoke. yes, if we concede that there is an necessary agent then his properties must be necessary, and if it want to interact in anyway with the universe then the universe MUST happen, making it also necessary.
false, I ask not to make a false claim on the size of the cosmos because it simply makes one look foolish! it is impossible to determine the size of the universe and that is why physicists will only commit to what is observable and testable and as we cannot see an end to the cosmos and it appears to be on a flat plane with no end it is fair to postulate that it is quite possibly infinite,
and I would note that most recent studies appear to lean towards this train of thinking.
You can argue anything you like with logic but it doesn't make it fact, as per the French king having hair or being bald argument.
One can make a logically valid argument but the fact is that France has no king, So stick to the 'why' questions unless you can add true proven facts. it is also the beauty of the universe, it doesn't care what people think.
Peripatetic
So you are using philosophy and metaphysics to prove a necessary being? Why didn't you state you are using metaphysics? So you hide from real science? Science is based off of testable evidence and peer review. This explains why you have not been able to convince anyone that your necessary being/god is real. Metaphysics is not real science. Metaphysics is from the land of make-believe and not from reality. Name calling, I thought you were above that childish behavior?
He has not proven a necessary being/god yet. He has not proven that a necessary being/god created or caused the universe. You have not provided any proof your god exist.
Hello, I am new so please go gentle.
'Is the universe contingent?' is an interesting philosophical question but unfortunately it has been damaged by apologists
who have developed sophisticated ways of responding to the infinite regression response when a deity is the conclusion.
However all the replies appear to me to be cases of special pleading, confirmation bias and/or multiplying entities without necessity.
It is assumed that the big bang was the 'cause' in the case of the physicist, but that is not the case.
Most say it is simply a point of rapid expansion of a previous state, there are also many theories including multiverse theory, infinite universe and so on.
These cannot be empirically disproved and are therefore open to investigation.
I find this is why I have for a long time disbelieved in a god and religion, because it is absurd and requires one to stop thinking rationally, critically and to stop investigating, then to accept a claim that is completely unproven.
we could always use occams razor to ask what is the more probable, a universe that we can observe, test and investigate had an internal cause that is not known yet or will never be known. or that a super natural entity that is unproven and unfalsifiable along with not being in our reality created all.
apologies for my English, this is not my first language.
Hi, Lucy, and welcome! Nice to meet another female primate. Good first post.
Welcome Lucy!
Welcome.
How has it been damaged by apologetics? What exactly are the responses which make special pleading? and what do you mean by multiplying entities without necessity?
Why does it require you to stop thinking rationally, critically [as if it's a true fact that atheists think rationally, from what i see here that's a doubtful claim] and stop investigating? we know that a mother gives birth to a child. does that made human beings to stop investigating it in details? I think embryology would say NO. The questions that 'god' answers is that Why there is something while it could be the case that there isn't. and if we out to prove that there is an answer for that question, then I don't see the need to keep investigating for answers that we are supposed to have them, it's absurd. it appears to me that You're treating 'Investigating' as if it's an end not a Mean to an end.
Again, the answer of that questions does not stop any one from Investigating.
Occam's razor is about assumptions not about conclusions. it doesn't work for conclusions. for example, a Simple thing like a pen why do you accept the conclusion that it has to have a cause which is more complicated than the pen itself? why accepting a cause that has a brain, complicated neural cells ...etc when we can just say that the cause is simply internal to the pen but we don't know yet? I think, according to you line of reasoning, Occam's razor would tip in the favor of the second conclusion.
I think your objection here circulates over ''I don't see X causing y, so X doesn't exist.''
Even If I, for the sake of argument, accept this as an objection, it would still not be enough for refuting the argument, since it's not certain anytime in any case that the simple explanation is always the best one let alone the right one.
Secondly, What is the definition of 'simple' and 'complicated'? On what criteria can we judge on a certain explanation that it's probable/simple OR improbable/complicated?
Thank you,
Apologetics have damaged it by constantly making premises which at best may be true as far as you can go, but are incomplete.
The premise may not be wrong but they have not covered all of the relevant fact necessary to argue the conclusion.
However, I think most atheists/sceptics and so on would take it further by saying that the premises are actually wrong in that the evidence against is stronger and more accurate. For example in physics, empirical analysis is the method used and any arguments regarding this field should have some arguments using this method.
The first cause argument is an argument from consequence in that It is said that the universe has all properties to support life, therefore it was designed specifically to support life and therefore had a designer.
it asks for one to not critically think in that it says that 'this is the answer' when it is completely unfounded without actual evidence. the beauty of science is that is always learning and if something is false we throw it out and follow the evidence.
to make a bold assertion with no evidence and expect people to buy it is not good for humankind, we should be critical.
even if we could for argument sake say any of your premises were true, it doesn't make sense to lead to a deity or intelligence, it is more likely that a natural explanation could solve the puzzle.
I mention Occams razor mostly at the assumptions made by apologists with kalam/contingent arguments because they are all assertions, with no verified proofs.
if we take two similar claims such as 'humans are caused' one could assert a contingent regress then finish by saying the universe is infinite (which is valid in physics) and another could claim the universe is contingent, then you have to claim a causal agent and explain/justify the agent, prove if it too has a cause or not and so on. then the second claim is now more complex and the first one is the better/simple choice.
sorry If my replies are not great, and haven't covered all questions but time is short.
could you please point out these premises because I've been suffering here from talking in general?
Maybe they are not relevant at all.
First, there is no a specific argument called the first cause, all arguments for god concludes that there must be a first cause which is god.
Secondly, what you are saying here is not my argument, so I'll just dismiss it.
No, it doesn't. Prove the implication. And again, You're saying "since Knowledge confine Investigating, then we must sacrifice knowledge so that we can investigate"
As we say, Truth words that was used to seek delusion. that's so true except for one thing that is I didn't make bold assertions with no evidence.
well. the argument is all about saying that it does make sense to say a deity Or at least necessary being that caused the universe not just a natural contingent thing.
we do not assume that god exists we deduce it.
I just don't get how it feels to go on a thread that says 'A Proof for god's existence' and just ignore all what it has been stated and just claim that there is no proof. I think you gonna face some Issues of an intellectual property right with xenoview since this is, exclusively, his one and only unique objection.
No Problem, You can cover them later.
premises that make assertions regarding the nature/condition (and so on) about the universe.
these tend to be followed with no 'hard' evidence and they never appear consider the current theories and observation with physics such as the numerous multiverse theories which have proponents such as Stephen hawkings, Lawrence krauss, neil degrasse Tyson, sean carroll, michio kaku, brian greene, david deutsch and alexander vilenkin, or discoveries such as virtual particles which appear to blink in and out of existence.
well if we are to decide on what is and isn't relevant without touching on that in prelude to our premises/arguments, then why bother? it renders and argument moot. if the argument is controversial then the premises may instantly be rejected without consideration.
and considering the strength of the scientific method within physics I would suggest it is desperately in need to be considered and addressed.
I know there are many first cause arguments such as kalam and contingency (yours appears to be mostly contingent), I was offering a generalist view.
no, we gain knowledge BY investigating, if we just accept what we first think then we do not progress. this is why physics has certainly pushed philosophers in the main to accept the B theory of time as oppose to the A theory as it comports quite well to general relativity. another reason why you should include physics and the scientific method in your thinking.
yes you did, you made assertions with no coorberating facts that are scientifically proven once you went into the points regarding the universe, and all of physics does not agree with your claims.
well we can say regarding if the deity is necessary for the universe, is this deity itself a necessary being? the claim is a 'yes', then we can assume that all its properties to are necessary, but if this is true then if a god wants us to live or a relationship with us it would mean the universe itself is necessary as it has to happen! this leads to a contradiction.
however if he has no necessary properties then he just did it, in relation to the universe and can be argued then that this universe is random which leads one to think that all contingent things can terminate at an arbitory point.
I say this because we can look causes in three ways, 1 - it is infinite and requires no explanation, 2 - they terminate at arbitory points which doesn't make sense, or 3 - they terminate at a necessary point.
and we can say the 3rd option is no better then the 2nd because as you said in another post, a three sided triangle is a necessary thing like the number one is, but neither are responsible for a contingent universe.
so as I said, you can only consider a deity as necessary but if his properties are necessary then so is the universe, if the properties of a god are contingent so is the universe and goes to option 2.
I hope that made sense.
you haven't deduced god exists because your claims regarding the universe are unsupported in its relative fields so you are assuming.
and finally as I have said, philosophy when it steps into science adheres or is driven by the discoveries of those fields like the A and B theories of time, to make your claims without proving scientifically appears to be the problem most people have with your post from what I see.
Pages