Losing The Faith

[Norsklow]

All things have a cause, therefore there is God.

And yet God doesn't need a cause, and can spring from nothing. Yet matter can't do that, even though it would make just as much sense.

First cause is bullshit.

and btw, the conditions are like this because the universe is big, old, and random. Somewhere in the infinite space of reality, life, that random arrangement of atoms, exists as well.

Where is it said that the first cause must spring from something - as opposed to be timeless, without beginning or end?

[CVT Temp]

1: Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2: The universe had a beginning.
3: Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Premise 1 is not necessarily true, especially since cause and effect require time to exist in order to be well-defined. In addition, the big bang was not necessarily the beginning of everything, but just the beginning of the observable universe. Only the Hawking hypothesis has it as the beginning of absolutely everything. In eternal inflation and brane cosmology models, the big bang is just a local event in a larger cosmos that has existed for all eternity.

[Maudlnya]

yawn... I feel like supporting the athiests more than anyone in this forum room

[Norsklow]

1: Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2: The universe had a beginning.
3: Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Premise 1 is not necessarily true, especially since cause and effect require time to exist in order to be well-defined. In addition, the big bang was not necessarily the beginning of everything, but just the beginning of the observable universe. Only the Hawking hypothesis has it as the beginning of absolutely everything. In eternal inflation and brane cosmology models, the big bang is just a local event in a larger cosmos that has existed for all eternity.

I disagree with what you said on 1.
But I could see that making sense when applied to 2.

[Mavorpen]

1: Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2: The universe had a beginning.
3: Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Premise 1 is not necessarily true, especially since cause and effect require time to exist in order to be well-defined. In addition, the big bang was not necessarily the beginning of everything, but just the beginning of the observable universe. Only the Hawking hypothesis has it as the beginning of absolutely everything. In eternal inflation and brane cosmology models, the big bang is just a local event in a larger cosmos that has existed for all eternity.

I always found it funny how Alan Guth supports String Theory, when Eternal Inflation is a product of Inflationary Cosmology.

[CVT Temp]

Where is it said that the first cause must spring from something - as opposed to be timeless, without beginning or end?

But if this is so, why not "skip a step," as Sagan put it, and simply say that the cosmos, in some form, always existed? Why must it be an eternal conscious being that answers prayers and forgives sins?

[Galloism]

Where is it said that the first cause must spring from something - as opposed to be timeless, without beginning or end?

But if this is so, why not "skip a step," as Sagan put it, and simply say that the cosmos, in some form, always existed? Why must it be an eternal conscious being that answers prayers and forgives sins?

Because all the cool kids say so.

[Maudlnya]

Where is it said that the first cause must spring from something - as opposed to be timeless, without beginning or end?

But if this is so, why not "skip a step," as Sagan put it, and simply say that the cosmos, in some form, always existed? Why must it be an eternal conscious being that answers prayers and forgives sins?

All hail Sagan

[CVT Temp]

I disagree with what you said on 1.

However, what I said is correct, whether you agree or not. In quantum field theory, plenty of events happen without anything resembling what could be called a "cause" in a classical sense, and the problem becomes even worse when you enter the realm where gravitation becomes fully quantum, because in that case, time likely ceases to be a well-defined parameter since the geometry and topology of space-time can wildly fluctuate.

[CVT Temp]

I always found it funny how Alan Guth supports String Theory, when Eternal Inflation is a product of Inflationary Cosmology.

You can actually have both string theory and eternal inflation.

[Desperate Measures]

The Official God FAQ was made for OP.
http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

[Maudlnya]

I always found it funny how Alan Guth supports String Theory, when Eternal Inflation is a product of Inflationary Cosmology.

You can actually have both string theory and eternal inflation.

You can?

[Mavorpen]

I always found it funny how Alan Guth supports String Theory, when Eternal Inflation is a product of Inflationary Cosmology.

You can actually have both string theory and eternal inflation.

I wish Lawrence Krauss would accept that.

[Maudlnya]

I actually love this thread. The transitions are so smooth... Not sarcasm btw

[Norsklow]

Where is it said that the first cause must spring from something - as opposed to be timeless, without beginning or end?

But if this is so, why not "skip a step," as Sagan put it, and simply say that the cosmos, in some form, always existed? Why must it be an eternal conscious being that answers prayers and forgives sins?

I did not say that that follows out of it.
A deistic 'first cause' or even a Perfectly Round Stone ( that disappeared ( poof!) after doing its first and only causing ) works as well.
But these alternative First Causes do not negate the validity of the Qalaam argument per se.

Sagan puts two 'eternal conditions' against each other. That is all very nice, and I certainly wont argue against the tenability of either ( as internally logical systems ). But Occam's Razor is an esthetic.

It is no logical proof that a more complex solution to a problem ( when a simple solution can be found ) is an invalid solution.
2+2=4 does not invalidate 2+2+(2-2)+(2-2)=4.

[Tlaceceyaya]

But if this is so, why not "skip a step," as Sagan put it, and simply say that the cosmos, in some form, always existed? Why must it be an eternal conscious being that answers prayers and forgives sins?

I did not say that that follows out of it.
A deistic 'first cause' or even a Perfectly Round Stone ( that disappeared ( poof!) after doing its first and only causing ) works as well.
But these alternative First Causes do not negate the validity of the Qalaam argument per se.

Sagan puts two 'eternal conditions' against each other. That is all very nice, and I certainly wont argue against the tenability of either ( as internally logical systems ). But Occam's Razor is an esthetic.

It is no logical proof that a more complex solution to a problem ( when a simple solution can be found ) is an invalid solution.
2+2=4 does not invalidate 2+2+(2-2)+(2-2)=4.

No, it's not, because that's not how it works. It works to find the best explanation.

2+2=4
2+√4=4
1+1+1+1=4
1+1+2=4

They're all correct, but the first one is the best because it is the simplest and is just as accurate as the more complex 2i⁴.

Also, you forgot the A in aesthetic.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

But if this is so, why not "skip a step," as Sagan put it, and simply say that the cosmos, in some form, always existed? Why must it be an eternal conscious being that answers prayers and forgives sins?

I did not say that that follows out of it.
A deistic 'first cause' or even a Perfectly Round Stone ( that disappeared ( poof!) after doing its first and only causing ) works as well.
But these alternative First Causes do not negate the validity of the Qalaam argument per se.

Sagan puts two 'eternal conditions' against each other. That is all very nice, and I certainly wont argue against the tenability of either ( as internally logical systems ). But Occam's Razor is an esthetic.

It is no logical proof that a more complex solution to a problem ( when a simple solution can be found ) is an invalid solution.
2+2=4 does not invalidate 2+2+(2-2)+(2-2)=4.

That's because both are rule-breaking answers to an impossible question.

One lets a God, who obeys no rules of physics or logic being omnipotent, be beyond time and cause.

The other simply lets the universe, and energy itself, take that mantle of causelessness and timelessness.

But the question only exists if you believe something can't come from nothing.

As a nihilist, I don't have this problem.

[CVT Temp]

I did not say that that follows out of it.
A deistic 'first cause' or even a Perfectly Round Stone ( that disappeared ( poof!) after doing its first and only causing ) works as well.
But these alternative First Causes do not negate the validity of the Qalaam argument per se.

Sagan puts two 'eternal conditions' against each other. That is all very nice, and I certainly wont argue against the tenability of either ( as internally logical systems ). But Occam's Razor is an esthetic.

It is no logical proof that a more complex solution to a problem ( when a simple solution can be found ) is an invalid solution.
2+2=4 does not invalidate 2+2+(2-2)+(2-2)=4.

The problems with Kalam are the following:

1. "Cause" is poorly defined. It needs to have a very specific, operational definition instead of a fuzzy metaphysical definition if we are to decide whether premise 1 is true or not.

2. If we try to apply the "fuzzy" versions of causality usually put forward by philosophers, we wind up with premise one being false, either because QFT already invalidates this definition of causality, or because the notion of causality put forward is impossible if time does not exist, so it cannot apply to any potential beginning of time. The beginning of time cannot have any form of "cause" if the definition of "cause" requires time to be coherent.

3. The final conclusion of Kalam is, often, to assert that a first cause exists and that the first cause is a god of some sort. If stated this way, the argument is invalid even if it does follow that a first cause must exist.

[Norsklow]

I did not say that that follows out of it.
A deistic 'first cause' or even a Perfectly Round Stone ( that disappeared ( poof!) after doing its first and only causing ) works as well.
But these alternative First Causes do not negate the validity of the Qalaam argument per se.

Sagan puts two 'eternal conditions' against each other. That is all very nice, and I certainly wont argue against the tenability of either ( as internally logical systems ). But Occam's Razor is an esthetic.

It is no logical proof that a more complex solution to a problem ( when a simple solution can be found ) is an invalid solution.
2+2=4 does not invalidate 2+2+(2-2)+(2-2)=4.

No, it's not, because that's not how it works. It works to find the best explanation.

2+2=4
2+√4=4
1+1+1+1=4
1+1+2=4

They're all correct, but the first one is the best because it is the simplest and is just as accurate as the more complex 2i⁴.

Also, you forgot the A in aesthetic.

In other words, it doesn't disprove, and I am as free as a butterfly to pick whatever valid solution I fancy, and neither valid solution is more accurate as the other valid solution.

[Norsklow]

I did not say that that follows out of it.
A deistic 'first cause' or even a Perfectly Round Stone ( that disappeared ( poof!) after doing its first and only causing ) works as well.
But these alternative First Causes do not negate the validity of the Qalaam argument per se.

Sagan puts two 'eternal conditions' against each other. That is all very nice, and I certainly wont argue against the tenability of either ( as internally logical systems ). But Occam's Razor is an esthetic.

It is no logical proof that a more complex solution to a problem ( when a simple solution can be found ) is an invalid solution.
2+2=4 does not invalidate 2+2+(2-2)+(2-2)=4.

That's because both are rule-breaking answers to an impossible question.

One lets a God, who obeys no rules of physics or logic being omnipotent, be beyond time and cause.

The other simply lets the universe, and energy itself, take that mantle of causelessness and timelessness.

But the question only exists if you believe something can't come from nothing.

As a nihilist, I don't have this problem.

But if you are not a nihilist then you have resolved nothing.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

That's because both are rule-breaking answers to an impossible question.

One lets a God, who obeys no rules of physics or logic being omnipotent, be beyond time and cause.

The other simply lets the universe, and energy itself, take that mantle of causelessness and timelessness.

But the question only exists if you believe something can't come from nothing.

As a nihilist, I don't have this problem.

But if you are not a nihilist then you have resolved nothing.

There is nothing to resolve, it's more of a back-up belief, but I have no actual reason to believe anything, even existence itself.

Pure chaos, that takes the guise of order, by pure chance. And it conflicts with no model of reality.

Basically "for no reason" becomes reason for all, and you can never be proven wrong.

Its a pet theory of mine, but I still search for truth forever more, which I will likely not find in my short life.

[CVT Temp]

No, it's not, because that's not how it works. It works to find the best explanation.

2+2=4
2+√4=4
1+1+1+1=4
1+1+2=4

They're all correct, but the first one is the best because it is the simplest and is just as accurate as the more complex 2i⁴.

Also, you forgot the A in aesthetic.

No, you're both wrong. None of these four statements is different. They are all the same "explanation" so to assert that one of them is the "best explanation" out of the set of "possible explanations" would be absurd, because it would be saying that 2 + 2 = 4 is more likely to be true than 2 + 1 + 1 = 4, when both are true simultaneously.

Occam's razor is a principle which says that you should make as few independent assertions as possible. The word independent is very important here because it lets us know that "The air in this room is made of billions of molecules." is a single assertion instead of a billion separate assertions. Occam's razor is not an aesthetic principle. It's just a statement of probability. The more statistically independent postulates you have to make, the less likely you model is to be correct a priori.

[Norsklow]

I did not say that that follows out of it.
A deistic 'first cause' or even a Perfectly Round Stone ( that disappeared ( poof!) after doing its first and only causing ) works as well.
But these alternative First Causes do not negate the validity of the Qalaam argument per se.

Sagan puts two 'eternal conditions' against each other. That is all very nice, and I certainly wont argue against the tenability of either ( as internally logical systems ). But Occam's Razor is an esthetic.

It is no logical proof that a more complex solution to a problem ( when a simple solution can be found ) is an invalid solution.
2+2=4 does not invalidate 2+2+(2-2)+(2-2)=4.

The problems with Kalam are the following:

1. "Cause" is poorly defined. It needs to have a very specific, operational definition instead of a fuzzy metaphysical definition if we are to decide whether premise 1 is true or not.

2. If we try to apply the "fuzzy" versions of causality usually put forward by philosophers, we wind up with premise one being false, either because QFT already invalidates this definition of causality, or because the notion of causality put forward is impossible if time does not exist, so it cannot apply to any potential beginning of time. The beginning of time cannot have any form of "cause" if the definition of "cause" requires time to be coherent.

3. The final conclusion of Kalam is, often, to assert that a first cause exists and that the first cause is a god of some sort. If stated this way, the argument is invalid even if it does follow that a first cause must exist.

Is QFT a
A]hypothesis,
B}a theory, or
C] a proven fact?

While I don't accept C, I will accept that the underlined conclusion does not automatically follow.
My Perfectly Round Stone works just as well.

[CVT Temp]

But the question only exists if you believe something can't come from nothing.

As a nihilist, I don't have this problem.

You don't have to be a nihilist. "Something cannot come from nothing" is not a basic principle of physics. It's just an intuition that a lot of people have, but nothing in the basic fundamental laws of modern physics suggests that it's true at all. Furthermore, it's problematic because "something" and "nothing" are very vaguely defined in this proposition, so it's hard to tell whether a given process counts as "something from nothing" or not.

[New Sapienta]

I did not say that that follows out of it.
A deistic 'first cause' or even a Perfectly Round Stone ( that disappeared ( poof!) after doing its first and only causing ) works as well.
But these alternative First Causes do not negate the validity of the Qalaam argument per se.

Sagan puts two 'eternal conditions' against each other. That is all very nice, and I certainly wont argue against the tenability of either ( as internally logical systems ). But Occam's Razor is an esthetic.

It is no logical proof that a more complex solution to a problem ( when a simple solution can be found ) is an invalid solution.
2+2=4 does not invalidate 2+2+(2-2)+(2-2)=4.

That's because both are rule-breaking answers to an impossible question.

One lets a God, who obeys no rules of physics or logic being omnipotent, be beyond time and cause.

The other simply lets the universe, and energy itself, take that mantle of causelessness and timelessness.

But the question only exists if you believe something can't come from nothing.

As a nihilist, I don't have this problem.

Anti-Nihilism is so much better.