If you’re talking about the uncaused first cause, that would be uncaused.
This is the presuppositionalist apologetic - to put the atheist on the defense. A philosopher by the name of Witmer wrote up a good treatment on how to respond to it. I have a copy of the pdf on my harddrive, but the original site I got it from is fried, apparently.
Here’s the wiki on presuppositionalism.
You could search Stephen Law’s blogs - he has many articles/arguments with presuppositionalists.
Here’s Iron Chariot’s article on the TAG, which presupper’s favor. And here’s a general commentary from debunking Christianity.
Yes, this is the same sort of thing that Gene Cooke does - they construct strawmen of the atheistic positions and then attack them (bags of matter ring a bell?).
Not really - they have vague ‘models’. Typically their argumentation consists of assertions, not evidence and definitely not reason (as man cannot reason autonomously, he must think God’s thoughts after him).
Yes, it’s hogwash.
Or, it requires a quantum fluctuation.
Your definition of nothing presupposes something.
How about existence?
You realize that if you posit “God” then you have a problem:
Why did God chose then to create the universe?
Also, you haven’t answered the question of why the a theory of time should be preferred. It seems that relativity is better explained through the b theory - with regards to simultaneous presents.
Again, I’m no physicist, but according to wikipedia:
Energy? Undergoing change? In space?
This still sounds an awful lot like something, as opposed to nothing.
Feel free to correct it.
So you take causality as an axiom until it reaches God, when you make an exception to causality.
Doesn’t seem like that’s really taking causality as an axiom after all.
There is no “then” with a timeless entity.
Not clued up enough on physics to even understand your question. As long as some of the world’s top physicists keep saying that space, time and matter had a beginning, that’s enough for me to reject the idea that naturalism can explain everything.
Everything with a beginning has a cause. I take that as an axiom.
If the uncaused first cause has no beginning, then the axiom does not apply.
That’s explaining it away, not explaining it.
:rolleyes: I “believe” no such thing. It happens all the time.
You are misinterpreting me, I am not suggesting that there ever was ‘nothing’. I’m not sure the term even makes sense.
Instead, what I am alluding to is that the initial state of the universe could be like a vacuum, where quantum particles arise without causes. This is the quantum fluctuation that I’m referring to.
No need - I’m not the one who is saying that ‘nothing’ is possible. I’m not sure the term makes sense. You are the one who is supporting the view that the universe came from nothing and therefore requires an explanation.
Um… So you are positing that God created time and space without time or space?
You seem to be positing incoherencies, which cannot be rationally affirmed.
It’s a question of philosophy, not physics, really.
Still, if you don’t even understand the question, then how can you be confident of your answer (ie, God did it)?
Out of the two theories, the b theory is preferred by philosophers. Further, you are confusing the beginning of our local universe with an ultimate beginning.
Finally, you are appealing to ignorance; ‘we don’t know, therefore God’.
That’s not a solid base to hang your hat.
Again, if you extend this to the universe you are begging the question with regard to the a theory of time.
Further, since we have no experience with ‘beginnings’ of this sort, your premise is begging the question with regard to ultimate beginnings.
You are confusing the changing of energy/matter into different states within the universe with ‘beginnings’. We have no experience with ultimate beginnings - or beginnings from nothing.
In fact, if something could come from nothing, the only way I can make sense out of it is if it is uncaused, since there would be nothing for an agent to act upon. So even if the concept did make sense, your explanation - that God took two scoops of nothing and created something makes EVEN LESS sense then the universe arising from nothing uncaused.
If the first cause was uncaused then how did it happen?
Uncaused cause = What is the sound of one hand clapping?
It’s and imponderable/strange loop/paradox. Its answers nothing.
Cute.
How do you propose to identify which things don’t have beginnings?
Quantum particles arising without a cause? Sounds implausibly magical to me.
We need to be careful what we mean by that. I certainly don’t believe that all there was nothing, and then there was a universe. I believe there was something that caused the universe.
Whatever caused time and space, by definition, did not use/rely on time and space.
Same deal applies. Eg, even if the universe as we know it today sprang from a Big Crunch, you still have time, space and matter all about the place.
No, I’ve never posited, anywhere in this thread, anything of the sort.
?
You are the one who posited “quantum fluctuations” and “quantum tunnelling” as potential beginnings of the universe.
This assumes such a first cause needs an agent to act upon.
I disagree. Anything arising “uncaused” makes far less sense that anything arising “caused”.
Are you actually listening to yourself? Substitute “God” for ‘anything arising “uncaused”’ in there - you’re kind of making the argument against yourself.
More implausibly magical than this?
That’s fine, but your beef isn’t with me, it’s with the majority of physicists.
Okay, so then we both agree that nothing is not a state that the universe could have ever been in. I’m not sure there’s anywhere to go from here if we both accept these things.
So what is this ‘cause’ and how did it create a universe?
I do not find this coherent at all, since it seems to be temporal. Please explain.
Actually it doesn’t. A local beginning is consistent with the b theory - or rather, I should say the appearance of a local beginning.
You are resting your claim that there is something beyond the physical on our ignorance. You might not be ready to claim that it’s God, but you are still appealing to ignorance.
Technically I’m not, but this is not relevant to my point. You are the one that is stating that everything needs a cause, right?
Why do you make this supposition? Is it because everything within the universe that we’ve seen requires a cause? If so, then what you are really saying is that already existing matter/energy needs a cause in order to change.
I would say that this says absolutely nothing about the prior state of the universe.
If you take out the agent then you have a potential situation that Richard Gott describes - a self causing universe that gobbles up it’s own beginning (temporally speaking).
So if there is no agent needed, then what’s the problem?
You just suggested that a first cause didn’t need an agent - I assumed that you are presupposing that this makes sense. Now you are saying that it make less sense?
Okay, that’s possible I guess, but now you have to explain how something can cause something else to come into existence from nothing.
Again, if you want to go this route, what do you mean when you say that something arose out of nothing, caused?
Nope. All we can say is that we have no idea what happened before t=0. Can’t say anything else about it right now.
At no time, God did nothing with nothing and created the universe?
I wondered what, if anything, was the difference between “naturalism” and “materialism” (as we’re using the terms here).
The thread title reminds me of the oft-alluded-to Moliere character who is astonished at learning that he has been speaking prose his whole life.
I wouldn’t call presupposing naturalism a fallacy, per se, but it is a presupposition. And, as such, it should be acknowledged as such, or else it can lead to fallacies like question-begging or circular reasoning.
People who give different answers to the questions you quoted above are going to be coming from different places (in, e.g. philosophical debates on religious matters), and they’re going to be talking past one another unless they can agree on them or at least understand where one another is coming from and agree to disagree or suspend judgment.