|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 31, 2022 2:42:31 GMT
"Universe" isn't plural, by the way. Unfalsifiable statement. Prove it!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 31, 2022 2:56:21 GMT
"Universe" isn't plural, by the way. Unfalsifiable statement. Prove it! You're the word man. Look it up. There can't be more than everything.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 31, 2022 3:15:55 GMT
Unfalsifiable statement. Prove it! You're the word man. Look it up. There can't be more than everything. Who decided that the universe meant everything? Oh, you mean “universe” in the theological sense (which nobody except theists give a shit about). Of course! That explains the circularity and ignorance of this statement. Forgive me, I thought you actually meant universe in the cosmological sense.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 31, 2022 3:22:12 GMT
You're the word man. Look it up. There can't be more than everything. Who decided that the universe meant everything? Oh, you mean “universe” in the theological sense (which nobody except theists give a shit about). Of course! That explains the circularity and ignorance of this statement. Forgive me, I thought you actually meant universe in the cosmological sense. Especially in the cosmological sense. Seriously, man. Look it up. It literally means "everything that exists anywhere; the totality of existing things." I suppose next you'll be talking about the end of infinity.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 1, 2022 17:27:16 GMT
You're the word man. Look it up. There can't be more than everything. Who decided that the universe meant everything? Oh, you mean “universe” in the theological sense (which nobody except theists give a shit about). Of course! That explains the circularity and ignorance of this statement. Forgive me, I thought you actually meant universe in the cosmological sense. To be fair buddy he is right, the universe is the totality of matter, I suppose you could argue that there are multiple universes as in the Dr Strange idea, although I think they are speculative at best. Ironically the only people that posit something outside of the universe are the theists.
EDIT
ok I read back further and in context you are describing the creation f any number of theoretical universes, so the syntax of plurality works. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 1, 2022 23:28:04 GMT
Who decided that the universe meant everything? Oh, you mean “universe” in the theological sense (which nobody except theists give a shit about). Of course! That explains the circularity and ignorance of this statement. Forgive me, I thought you actually meant universe in the cosmological sense. Especially in the cosmological sense. Seriously, man. Look it up. It literally means "everything that exists anywhere; the totality of existing things." I suppose next you'll be talking about the end of infinity. I don’t need to look it up! How many cosmologists do you speak to on a regular basis? None? Okay then kindly STFU until you can demonstrate that you have superior credentials to educate me on what the universe is. For one thing, words don’t have “meanings” - they have usages, and universe (like most other words) can have multiple usages. Secondly, the definition you gave is a “dumbed down” definition for the laymen. If you want to actually explore this question seriously, then you need to study what cosmologists say about it. While the term universe is derived from a Greek word which means everything that exists within nature, that’s not how it is commonly used in cosmology. In cosmology “universe” refers to all existing matter, energy, space, and time which is observable and measurable - aka “The Known Universe”. It describes our local presentation of space-time from microseconds after the Big Bang expansion. We can’t see what happened before the Big Bang so we don’t start counting time until the universe begins to expand. Since we cannot see outside of the microwave background radiation (or before the Planck time) there are no scientific assertions about what can or cannot exist outside of that presentation. The laws of physics literally break down before the (which is to say they no longer work and cannot be applied) which means that when cosmologists are talking about “the universe”, they’re talking about the local presentation. In short, the reason it’s spoken about in those terms is because logically we don’t know (and cannot know) if anything exists (or can exist) external to what is perceived or measurable. Speaking about the universe in the theological sense (using the definition of classical philosophy) assumes facts not in evidence and often misapplies science to presumptions which cannot be tested. When you assert that the universe is the totality of all existence, you’ve made an unfalsifiable statement that you’re using as a foundation for all of your beliefs. But it’s a poor foundation that necessarily leads to a faulty conclusion since it’s only presumed.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2022 0:07:50 GMT
Especially in the cosmological sense. Seriously, man. Look it up. It literally means "everything that exists anywhere; the totality of existing things." I suppose next you'll be talking about the end of infinity. I don’t need to look it up! How many cosmologists do you speak to on a regular basis? None? Okay then kindly STFU until you can demonstrate that you have superior credentials to educate me on what the universe is. For one thing, words don’t have “meanings” - they have usages, and universe (like most other words) can have multiple usages. Secondly, the definition you gave is a “dumbed down” definition for the laymen. If you want to actually explore this question seriously, then you need to study what cosmologists say about it. While the term universe is derived from a Greek word which means everything that exists within nature, that’s not how it is commonly used in cosmology. In cosmology “universe” refers to all existing matter, energy, space, and time which is observable and measurable - aka “The Known Universe”. It describes our local presentation of space-time from microseconds after the Big Bang expansion. We can’t see what happened before the Big Bang so we don’t start counting time until the universe begins to expand. Since we cannot see outside of the microwave background radiation (or before the Planck time) there are no scientific assertions about what can or cannot exist outside of that presentation. The laws of physics literally break down before the (which is to say they no longer work and cannot be applied) which means that when cosmologists are talking about “the universe”, they’re talking about the local presentation. In short, the reason it’s spoken about in those terms is because logically we don’t know (and cannot know) if anything exists (or can exist) external to what is perceived or measurable. Speaking about the universe in the theological sense (using the definition of classical philosophy) assumes facts not in evidence and often misapplies science to presumptions which cannot be tested. When you assert that the universe is the totality of all existence, you’ve made an unfalsifiable statement that you’re using as a foundation for all of your beliefs. But it’s a poor foundation that necessarily leads to a faulty conclusion since it’s only presumed. It's cute that you think the universe is limited to what we can see, but the First Cause argument isn't as short-sighted. At any rate, do you know what "by the way" means? Because I'd really like you to explain how the absence of a First Cause doesn't necessitate an infinite chain of causes.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 2, 2022 2:08:09 GMT
It's cute that you think the universe is limited to what we can see, Wow, really? This was your take away after what I just wrote? You really don’t have the reading comprehension skills do you? [rhetorical] I destroyed the “first cause” argument pages ago (when you abandoned that line of reasoning). You can’t appeal to an “infinite” and still have a “first” numbnuts! Of course it would, but that’s not my problem. I’m saying that you cannot establish that there was a first cause with your line of reasoning. You are the one asserting that there has to have been a first cause. Your problem is that you cannot demonstrate that, and the argument you’ve used to support it rationally is self defeating. How do you demonstrate whether there was a first cause OR an infinite chain of causes? That’s something you need to explain in order to rationally conclude one or the other. Go!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2022 4:10:55 GMT
I'd really like you to explain how the absence of a First Cause doesn't necessitate an infinite chain of causes. Of course it would, but that’s not my problem. I’m saying that you cannot establish that there was a first cause with your line of reasoning. You are the one asserting that there has to have been a first cause. Your problem is that you cannot demonstrate that, and the argument you’ve used to support it rationally is self defeating. How do you demonstrate whether there was a first cause OR an infinite chain of causes? That’s something you need to explain in order to rationally conclude one or the other. What do you don't seem to understand is that you're doing the exact same thing. You concluded a first cause when you said the universe itself isn't bound by it's own laws of physics and therefore is the uncaused cause of all other causes. But you speak of a time/place/plane/universe/whatever in which natural laws don't apply, then embrace the impossibility of infinite regress in a causal universe. You can't stand behind an argument you claim to have destroyed. Do you suppose something caused the Big Bang?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 2, 2022 21:20:42 GMT
Of course it would, but that’s not my problem. I’m saying that you cannot establish that there was a first cause with your line of reasoning. You are the one asserting that there has to have been a first cause. Your problem is that you cannot demonstrate that, and the argument you’ve used to support it rationally is self defeating. How do you demonstrate whether there was a first cause OR an infinite chain of causes? That’s something you need to explain in order to rationally conclude one or the other. What do you don't seem to understand is that you're doing the exact same thing. You concluded a first cause when you said the universe itself isn't bound by it's own laws of physics and therefore is the uncaused cause of all other causes. But you speak of a time/place/plane/universe/whatever in which natural laws don't apply, then embrace the impossibility of infinite regress in a causal universe. You can't stand behind an argument you claim to have destroyed. Do you suppose something caused the Big Bang? I think you are falling into the common trap that first cause is really first cause. It's first observable cause, which is what God is described as, the Jews use the word ain soph ur, meaning the unknown. Essentially we cannot know anything about God or what preceeded it, the point is that God is the first cause of OUR existence, not necessarily ALL existence. Meaning God could well be part of a chain of causes as well, it's just not important because firstly it is out of our possible scope of understanding (being outside our existence) and as God would (in that scenario) be the only source of our existence it does not matter how God came about. In short God IS the first cause of all we can know and understand, our understanding is limited to our existence.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2022 21:37:41 GMT
What do you don't seem to understand is that you're doing the exact same thing. You concluded a first cause when you said the universe itself isn't bound by it's own laws of physics and therefore is the uncaused cause of all other causes. But you speak of a time/place/plane/universe/whatever in which natural laws don't apply, then embrace the impossibility of infinite regress in a causal universe. You can't stand behind an argument you claim to have destroyed. Do you suppose something caused the Big Bang? I think you are falling into the common trap that first cause is really first cause. It's first observable cause, which is what God is described as, the Jews use the word ain soph ur, meaning the unknown. Essentially we cannot know anything about God or what preceeded it, the point is that God is the first cause of OUR existence, not necessarily ALL existence. Meaning God could well be part of a chain of causes as well, it's just not important because firstly it is out of our possible scope of understanding (being outside our existence) and as God would (in that scenario) be the only source of our existence it does not matter how God came about. In short God IS the first cause of all we can know and understand, our understanding is limited to our existence. If it was caused, then it isn't uncaused and therefore not the first cause. And the argument doesn't wallow in the short term; it addresses the origin of the universe, not just some stop along the way.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 3, 2022 0:13:03 GMT
How do you demonstrate whether there was a first cause OR an infinite chain of causes? That’s something you need to explain in order to rationally conclude one or the other.What do you don't seem to understand is that you're doing the exact same thing. First of all, that’s a Tu Quoque fallacy! Even IF that was true, that doesn’t make your argument rational. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Except that I never said that. You added the part in bold yourself. That’s a straw man argument! I’m not standing behind anything. I never made an argument or any any definitive statements about the universe which we cannot demonstrate. Everything else that is speculative represents arguments which YOU are standing behind. I never once said that there was another universe, plane or whatever, nor did I say that all causes reduce to an infinite regression. These are all straw man arguments that assign me to holding positions that I don’t hold. The only argument I’m making is that you cannot rationally justify YOUR conclusion that there is a “first cause”. I don’t need to prove an infinite regression, you need to disprove it in order to show your hypothesis true. And by the way, IF you also argue that the prime mover has its own “will” or some kind of “eternal nature”, then your argument becomes self defeating because one cannot solve the problem of infinite regression by appealing to an infinite. Sure. Relevance?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 3, 2022 0:21:07 GMT
In short God IS the first cause of all we can know and understand, our understanding is limited to our existence. Just out of curiosity, are you interpreting Admins argument to be one supportive of the existence of a god?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 3, 2022 2:03:29 GMT
What do you don't seem to understand is that you're doing the exact same thing. First of all, that’s a Tu Quoque fallacy! Even IF that was true, that doesn’t make your argument rational. It makes yours just as rational as mine. The only difference is that I don't believe the universe is supernatural. I'm not sure why I have to keep stating the obvious, but here we go again: If the universe is uncaused but causes everything else, it would be the uncaused cause of all causes. You seem to think that unless it's a verbatim quote, you didn't say it. All that silly spin does is stagnant the discussion, and next thing you know, we have 10 pages of you saying the same thing over and over as you're saying you never said it. I didn't say "another," but you did say, "The laws of physics apply to the operational dynamics within 'this universe', not necessarily to universes themselves." That's you speaking of a time/place/plane/universe/whatever in which natural laws don't apply. Infinite regression isn't a reduction. Funny, I thought I was joking when I said you would talk about the end of infinity. That isn't how arguments work, and it isn't MY conclusion; it's THE conclusion and it's perfectly justified by the argument in the same way that a conclusion of 4 is perfectly justified by 2+2. It's a causal universe. We witness causes and effects literally all the time. We have never observed an effect without a cause. To argue for infinite regress in the real world, you would need to abandon the very laws of physics that took you down that road to begin with. And that's fine for theism, but not science. You've demonstrated this throughout this entire thread, but for some reason known only to you, you just won't admit it. The description I provided doesn't include "will," but to say that the chain of causes in the universe regresses infinitely with no first cause is to say that the universe is eternal. If something caused the Big Bang, then it wasn't the First Cause, which means there exists something external to the universe. How long do you suppose the, um, singularity existed before it was banged by something? Forever, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 4, 2022 18:42:40 GMT
I think you are falling into the common trap that first cause is really first cause. It's first observable cause, which is what God is described as, the Jews use the word ain soph ur, meaning the unknown. Essentially we cannot know anything about God or what preceeded it, the point is that God is the first cause of OUR existence, not necessarily ALL existence. Meaning God could well be part of a chain of causes as well, it's just not important because firstly it is out of our possible scope of understanding (being outside our existence) and as God would (in that scenario) be the only source of our existence it does not matter how God came about. In short God IS the first cause of all we can know and understand, our understanding is limited to our existence. If it was caused, then it isn't uncaused and therefore not the first cause. And the argument doesn't wallow in the short term; it addresses the origin of the universe, not just some stop along the way. My comment WAS addressing the origin of the universe, a creator god must be by definition bigger than the universe. I think you miss the point, gos would be the first cause of THIS creation, and there is no way we can or even need to say anything more about it because it is both beyond out understanding and not required. As above so below.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 4, 2022 18:43:20 GMT
In short God IS the first cause of all we can know and understand, our understanding is limited to our existence. Just out of curiosity, are you interpreting Admins argument to be one supportive of the existence of a god? It does not support the existence of a god, the concept can explain the idea of a god though.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 4, 2022 21:38:07 GMT
If it was caused, then it isn't uncaused and therefore not the first cause. And the argument doesn't wallow in the short term; it addresses the origin of the universe, not just some stop along the way. My comment WAS addressing the origin of the universe, a creator god must be by definition bigger than the universe. I think you miss the point, gos would be the first cause of THIS creation, and there is no way we can or even need to say anything more about it because it is both beyond out understanding and not required. As above so below. You excluded the origin of the universe when you addressed the cause of "OUR" existence as opposed to "ALL" existence, and I'm neither arguing for nor attempting to say anything about God. I even went so far as to say a first cause can be acknowledged without calling it God, which Bryce has demonstrated throughout this entire thread. You also said I'm "falling into the common trap that first cause is really first cause," despite my repeated declaration that if it was caused, it isn't the first cause. If the first isn't really the first, then...well...it isn't really the first. If you believe otherwise, then I suspect it's you falling into the common trap that first cause isn't really first cause, similar to those who ask what caused the first cause.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 4, 2022 21:41:53 GMT
Just out of curiosity, are you interpreting Admins argument to be one supportive of the existence of a god? It does not support the existence of a god, the concept can explain the idea of a god though. Funny, I said something similar a couple of weeks ago right here in this very thread: Acknowledging a First Cause is not an acknowledgment of a god, and personally, I don't think the argument necessarily proves the existence of a god, but as Peter Kreeft once put it, "it's too thick a slice of God for atheism to digest." I would propose that as a (if not the) reason so many of these discussions turn into semantic arguments. I wonder if Bryce will respond to you with the same childish vitriol he gave me...
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 5, 2022 0:57:23 GMT
My comment WAS addressing the origin of the universe, a creator god must be by definition bigger than the universe. I think you miss the point, gos would be the first cause of THIS creation, and there is no way we can or even need to say anything more about it because it is both beyond out understanding and not required. As above so below. You excluded the origin of the universe when you addressed the cause of "OUR" existence as opposed to "ALL" existence, and I'm neither arguing for nor attempting to say anything about God. I even went so far as to say a first cause can be acknowledged without calling it God, which Bryce has demonstrated throughout this entire thread. You also said I'm "falling into the common trap that first cause is really first cause," despite my repeated declaration that if it was caused, it isn't the first cause. If the first isn't really the first, then...well...it isn't really the first. If you believe otherwise, then I suspect it's you falling into the common trap that first cause isn't really first cause, similar to those who ask what caused the first cause. But you are giving God the property of being uncaused, what I am saying is that you dont need to do that, and in fact theology tells you that god is unknowable so precludes you from having this situation where you declare a rule (everything is caused) and then have to exempt something from this rule. In other words the first cause is not a first cause because it does not matter it is simply this universes first cause. As for OUR existence vs ALL existence, our existence is all practical existence, since the only thing outside of it would be God and we cannot know anything about God nor the existence it finds itself in, all we have to do on is the rule in OUR existence as above so below which we might like to apply to gods existence. At the end of the day the first cause argument is flawed because it relies on breaking it's own rules.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 5, 2022 1:51:52 GMT
You excluded the origin of the universe when you addressed the cause of "OUR" existence as opposed to "ALL" existence, and I'm neither arguing for nor attempting to say anything about God. I even went so far as to say a first cause can be acknowledged without calling it God, which Bryce has demonstrated throughout this entire thread. You also said I'm "falling into the common trap that first cause is really first cause," despite my repeated declaration that if it was caused, it isn't the first cause. If the first isn't really the first, then...well...it isn't really the first. If you believe otherwise, then I suspect it's you falling into the common trap that first cause isn't really first cause, similar to those who ask what caused the first cause. But you are giving God the property of being uncaused, what I am saying is that you dont need to do that, and in fact theology tells you that god is unknowable so precludes you from having this situation where you declare a rule (everything is caused) and then have to exempt something from this rule. In other words the first cause is not a first cause because it does not matter it is simply this universes first cause. As for OUR existence vs ALL existence, our existence is all practical existence, since the only thing outside of it would be God and we cannot know anything about God nor the existence it finds itself in, all we have to do on is the rule in OUR existence as above so below which we might like to apply to gods existence. At the end of the day the first cause argument is flawed because it relies on breaking it's own rules. No, I'm giving the first cause the property of being uncaused. Here it is again: "an eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused being upon which all other existence ultimately depends"Now before you and I get bogged down in semantics, I understand the issue with the word "being," so I have no objections with using something else. Entity, perhaps? I also wouldn't object to removing "independent" if it's redundant. But it doesn't really matter because the point here is that while the conclusion may be a description of "that which we call God," the argument itself is just an argument for a first cause. Why is it special pleading when someone calls it God, but not when someone calls it the universe? God is presumed to have those traits; the universe is not. I mean, to most people, saying the first cause is God is to state the obvious. But to say the first cause is the universe is to make an exception to its own rules not only without justification, but in direct opposition to everything we know about natural law. At any rate, if it was caused, it's not the first cause. Call it what you will.
|
|