I think simple mathematics can help to explain a crude answer to this:
0+0=0 Always.
In other words, it takes something to make something. Therefore (by default) the universe must have always existed.
Maybe this explanation is tooooo simple. So unless God could somehow equal 0, and create stuff from that ‘state-of-being’…ok now I’m confused…
Just trying to do my part to haze the already murky waters of the message boards.
The laws that govern this universe do not neccessarily govern the rules out side the univese, thus saying that a universe can’t appear out of thin air in our univese. But outside space and time 0+0 may = 4832784756 and 2 or 4 or 246.385 any way you get the idea. the basic laws of our universe come from the properties of local space time. there is a recent artical Time magazine about multiple universes.
I had always heard that 0=0, but a heck of a lot can happen during the “=” part.
A really big quantum fluctuation that eventually collapses back onto itself does not violate any type of conservation principle in the end, and the final state id the only one that really counts in the equations. As the Universe is going from 0 to plus and minus 41,987,442.24 and then back down to 0 it can look like it had to be caused, but the super-electron and super-positron will cancel each other out eventually.
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
Projector Emeritus, Grand Academy of Lagado
“You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason.”
Oh, where to start?
First, I’d like to say that if you want to attack me because I happen to believe in God, "Oh well. So why bother? The attacks to the effect of tooth fairy, et al, really show your maturity. If you can’t beat the logic, make fun of the issue (shaking head, unbelieving).
I guess I’ll have to take it from the top again since some of you don’t read my postings.
1) Whatever begins to exist, has a cause for it’s coming into being (something cannot spontaeously come to be with a causing agent)
How anyone can dispute this is beyond me, but denial can do strange things. Maybe if i explain a little. NOTHING (with the exception of God, to be explained later) can come into being, with something else causing it to come into being. Everything that exists is in space and time; we take up space, we move thru time. Things that are material (matter) are affected. You are, at least partially, made of material. This means you are finite, limited and changing being, for matter is a principle of limitation and change. Because you have limitations, you are dependent upon other things for your existence, such as air and water. If I take that away, surely you will change (die). You exist if something else is exists.
But not everything can be like this. If it was, nothing would be able to cause the existence of something else. So, there must be something that does not exist conditionally; something which exists in itself. Since all things in this world are material, this “something” must necessarily exist outside of this world. A “causing agent”, if you must, since “God” seems to scare most of you.
Many of you have asked (though I’ve answered it) “Well, if that is true, who created God?”
I remember asking that when I was 8. At least some of us have advanced intellectually.
Now, if you accept, as you should, since it is logically sound, that things just don’t pop out of nowhere, they must be caused, then everything that is came about due to a cause. Going backward in time, we can trace the causation of all things, all back to a single point of causation. Many folks say that is the Big Bang theory, which seems logical to me, as I understand it. (The cosmos if not infinitely old, read on). If all matter came from this single “thing”, that begs the question, where did this single “thing” come from? Since nothing can come from nothing, something must have casued it to come about. Things don’t just come about by themselves. This causing agent must have been outside the realm of this material, to be able to act upon it. It certainly couldn’t cause it while it is in it, since it doesn’t exist. You can’t create subset “A” while in subset A if you haven’t created it yet. The causing agent must have been outside of this material realm to act upon (and create) it.
If this first causing agent really did “start the ball rolling” so to speak, that agent would necessarily have to have existed without being caused. If it was never caused, it always was, as it could be if it resides outside of time and matter.
Which God does, and this why you people so hell bent on proof of God won’t get it. He’s outside of our realm, but not outside of our knowing.
Patrick Ashley
“For those who believe, no evidence is necessary; for those who don’t believe, no evidence is enough.” -Unknown
Right, this is my first ever post, but I’m a long time lurker, and I love these metaphysical debates, and I really want to post to this one, so here goes:
Note: I’m a heterosexual, male, atheist, 20 year-old, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-homo/bisexuality, computer geek, just to give people a bit of a hint as to my positions.
Now that that’s out of the way:
<Quote from Pashley>
The attacks to the effect of tooth fairy, et al, really show your maturity. If you can’t beat the logic, make fun of the issue (shaking head, unbelieving).
</Quote from Pashley>
No-one’s making fun of the issue! Not as such, anyway. Comparing God to the IPU is a pretty acceptable debating attack, I feel.
<Quote from Pashley>
Maybe if i explain a little. NOTHING (with the exception of God, to be explained later) can come into being, with something else causing it to come into being.
</Quote from Pashley>
Except for the Quantum Mechanic particles brought up by Gaudere (even though I’m not sure these are definiteve of something being spontaneously created, just that modern science cannot explain it). Plus, you claim you’ll explain the divine exception to this rule later - how much later? It doesn’t come up in your post.
<Quote from Pashley>
Since all things in this world are material, this “something” must necessarily exist outside of this world. A “causing agent”, if you must, since “God” seems to scare most of you
</Quote from Pashley>
The concept of an omnipotent being who will damn me to hell for eternity for having premarital sex scares the willies out of me, actually. What are you, fearless??
<Quote from Pashley>
Many of you have asked (though I’ve answered it) “Well, if that is true, who created God?”
I remember asking that when I was 8. At least some of us have advanced intellectually.
</Quote from Pashley>
Well, put me down in the intellectually un-advanced camp then, because I think it’s a valid question. All of your defenses against this question are circular arguments - God can exist without a cause, because he’s God and can do anything - That’s like putting a random symbol into a mathematical equation and saying ‘This symbol solves the equation - it doesn’t have to follow the laws of mathematics, because it’s a special symbol. Everyone says so.’ I’d be interested to hear what you were told when you were 8.
<Quote from Pashle>
Going backward in time, we can trace the causation of all things, all back to a single point of causation.
</Quote from Pashley>
Can I see a demonstration of this?
<Quote from Pashley>
If all matter came from this single “thing”, that begs the question, where did this single “thing” come from?
</Quote from Pashley>
Replace ‘single “thing”’ with God in that question and you’ve got a pretty good refutation of your argument, surely?
<Quote from Pashley>
Which God does, and this why you people so hell bent on proof of God won’t get it. He’s outside of our realm, but not outside of our knowing.
</Quote from Pashley>
Um… dude!! You were the one trying to prove it in the first place!!
<Quote from Pashley>
“For those who believe, no evidence is necessary; for those who don’t believe, no evidence is enough.” -Unknown
</Quote from Pashley>
“For those who believe, no detracting evidence is enough; for those who don’t believe, no detracting evidence is necessary, but it’s nice to have just in case.” -Loki, about 5 minutes ago.
I’m a newbie. Please be nice to me.
-Loki
A couple people have hit upon this one before, but I have yet to see a sufficient answer. Why, exactly, did your version of God have to be the one who created it all? Could it have been Allah? Or Zeus? Or several animistic Gods working in junction? All you’re “proving” is that the Earth is created, not who did it.
Now, what you’re stating back and forth with Otto and others is something that is referred to in philosophy as the Principle of Sufficient Reason. The PSR basically states that a) there must be an explanation of the existence of any being, and b) there must be an explanation of any positive fact whatsoever. Pretty much any proponent for an argument for God of the type you’re throwing at us will agree with that. Most people who accept do so because they claim it to be intuitively true. That is obviously not the case, because there are quite a few philosophers who outright disagree with it, as you’ve seen by this thread. So others claim that PSR is a basic assumption that rational people make, whether or not they know it. But even if we assume things, does that necessarily mean they’re true? I could assume that anyone who disagrees with me on this is an idiot, but that might not be the case, eh? So basically, your entire argument hinges on a presupposition that may or may not actually be true, and nobody can really prove it one way or the other. Even if your argument is sound, it’s technically not valid, because we can’t prove all the premises, assumed or stated, to be true.
Surely Pashley is perfectly aware of the fallacy of his arguments. He enjoys creating a ruckus.
No. I am convinced this one honestly thinks he is right all of the time, and being shown evidence to the contrary does nothing to dissuade him. He has his little book which tells him everything he needs to know.
If it wasn’t for the fact that he (and the likes of him) are so gung-ho about making everyone a mindless drone like they are (“We are Borg. We will assimilate you. Resistance if futile.”), I would actually feel genuine pity for them and him.
Yer pal,
Satan
http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One week, four days, 1 hour, 43 minutes and 21 seconds.
442 cigarettes not smoked, saving $55.36.
Life saved: 1 day, 12 hours, 50 minutes.
Indeed. Your assertion that something cannot spontaneously pop into being depends on that something being subject to linear time. The thing is, if I remember my Hawking correctly, there is no linear time prior to the Big Bang. In fact, the very concept of “prior to the Big Bang” is meaningless, because your backward march of causes ends there. It is not necessary to postulate an unmoved mover. If God exists outside of space and time, as you say, he doesn’t cause anything, because the idea of “cause” applies only within our universe.
Also, you said:
It is true that specific configurations of matter, such as myself, are dependent on things like air and water. Other configurations, like the sun, are dependent on things like hydrogen and gravity (if you perceive theses things from within a framework of linear time, that is). But it doesn’t follow from this argument that matter itself is dependent on other stuff for its exisitence. It may follow from other arguments, but not this one.
Science and logic, I feel compelled to point out, are not universal laws of reality. They are descriptions of patterns that we (humans) observe, and as such are limited by our human perceptions and modes of thought. The universe itself is subject to no such limitations.
“Are you frightened of snakes?”
“Only when they dress like werewolves.”
-Preacher
According your own statements, God fulfills that description.
I don’t know. How can you?
The point is tht tit is possible that the universe has always existed.
Do you really think just saying “no” proves anything?
Well, so far it’s been just your say-so. Care to provide anything more?
Well, by presenting God, you’ve done A. Care to do B?
Saying it’s solid doesn’t make it so. Have you ever taken a logic class in you class? If you have, you obviously didn’t learn anything.
Really? When?
How is that relevant? According to standard Christianity, the world isn’t completely material; it contains such things as souls. Were souls created? If so, it implies that immaterial things (such as God) still need a Creator. If not, then that means that there wasn’t a sole Creator.
That’s a flat out lie:
Name one person that’s doing that. People aren’t attacking you because you believe in God; they’re attacking you because you’re an idiot.
How is asking you to respond to counterexamples "making fun of the issue? Why is your God so special that positing any other deity is “making fun of the issue”?
Why a single point? Why not several points?
In other words “If God were caused, then my system of beliefs would not work. Therefore, God is not caused.” You really think this is logical?
You have repeatedly stated that everything must have a cause. So what is God’s cause? Saying this is a stupid question doesn’t answer it. Saying that if God can’t be caused doesn’t answer it either; if you say that everything is caused, you don’t get to make exceptions just because it’s convenient.
Damn! A whole thread based on one of the most classic logical fallacies, and I’m actually working all afternoon! Can’t let that happen again! 
If God exists as a physical being, then pldennison’s argument from infinite regress follows. If God does not exist as a physical being, then you cannot say anything intelligent about His attributes. Indeed, you haven’t said anything other than “God is the reason there’s something rather than nothing”. This statment is eqivalent to “The IPU (or Satan, ##*@%*@#, or my left testicle) is the reason there’s something rather than nothing”. It’s really equivalent to saying, “I don’t know why there’s something rather than nothing.” All you’ve done is label your ignorance; you haven’t said anything interesting.
A very long investigation into this argument (which I haven’t yet read) can be found at Causation and the Logical Impossibility of a Divine Cause. I’ll read it over the weekend and report on its conclusions Sunday or Monday.
Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!
I also want to say that pashley’s argments here, as demonstrated by many previous posters, are trite, unsophisiticated and have already been substantively refuted. If this is the best the faithful can do then I would avoid religion merely to avoid being associated with such pathetically weak reasoning. Even a Jesuit would destroy his argument with one lobe tied behind his cerebellum just on the principle that God deserves a more intelligent defense than my honorable collegue has so far offered.
Note to moderators: I’m deprecating his arguments, not the man himself. If the mood takes me, I’ll post a more thorough analysis of his personal character in the Pit.
Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!
I am not attacking you for your faith. This is the third time I have explicitly stated this.
Unlike some of the other responders, I agree with you that some posters have posted irrelevant and trivial and ad hominem comments. But many posters have raised significant issues and asked significant questions. You have not responded to those issues and questions other than restating your original argument using more words.
Obviously. people can and do dispute this. That is a fact. You would do well to try ro understand why, rather than calling it “denial” and then ignoring it. It is not denial.
This paragraph is not a justiifcation of your premise, it’s a set of conclusions from your premise. You have not yet justified the original premise.
Apparently God scares a few of the posters, but I would say that they’re a small minority. The concept of God does not scare me. You seem to be assuming that people who do not believe in God or who deny the existence of God (which are two different positions) do so because of fear. Not so, and again you would do well to try to understand rather than putting a convenient label on the phenomenon and dismissing it. I’m trying to understand your position without labeling it and thinking that I’ve achieved something by that label.
[qyote]Now, if you accept, as you should, since it is logically sound, that things just don’t pop out of nowhere, they must be caused
[/quote]
No, we do not accept that, and we contend that it is not logically sound. This has been said over and over again in this thread. As the propounder of that hypothesis, you have the responsibility to justify it. So far I have seen nothing from you other than a re-assertion of the original hypothesis.
Given that we do not accept your hypothesis, we obviously do not accept the argument based on it. There is no point in restating that argument until you have meaningfully discussed the hypothesis on which it’s based.
I’m not hell-bent on proof or disproof of God, and I don’t see evidence that a significant number of other posters in this thread are. There is one person here who’s hell-bent on proof of God … pashley. Why isn’t your faith enough for you?
jrf
[Moderator Hat: ON]
The Ryan said:
And I’m warning you because you just insulted him. So stop it. Or take it to the Pit.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Wow, DavidB defending me? That alone is proof of God.
Anyway…
People seem to be arguing here that they don’t believe that something can come from nothing; that things can just cause themselves to be on their own.
How this is logically valid, I don’t know. It isn’t in my opinion. Things don’t just happen without a cause.
So for now, I don’t know where to go. If you can’t allow that first premise, there is no where to go. Again, I feel that this first premise is rational, valid and logical, even though no one else here has proven otherwise, even given an example of the uncaused coming into being (with exception of the electron/anti-electron example, which appears uncaused).
And as far as the regression theory on God, I’ve addressed that twice, at least.
So, i guess we are at logger heads here.
Oh whole, a decent debate, as far as manners go, with some exceptions, but attacking me personally is something I can’t control. If they (going unnamed, not stooping to their low level) want to do that, fine.
Now, I’ll make a wild prediction, and say that a few will say since I can’t defend my argument, i’m chickening out, or something to that effect. No, I’m just agreeing that we disagree, since we can’t seem to get beyond the first premise.
Patrick Ashley
“For those who believe, no evidence is necessary; for those who don’t believe, no evidence is enough.” -Unknown
**
He’s doing his job.
**
No. They are arguing that you have no reason to assume this to be true, and the moment you make an assumption, your logic breaks down.
If I am making a logical argument with you, I cannot say that a key point to my premise is a fact without being able to prove it so.
As others have shown, you only contradict yourself.
**
But you argue that God did. You cannot have it both ways, unless you are into fallacies bordering on the hypocritical.
**
If you cannot prove it as a fact, it is not admissable as a fact. If you can prove it, feel free. However, people here have taken this assertion of yours on with both scientific and philosophical arguments that you cannot refute.
**
First of all, you have yet to refute that. If you are attempting to argue logic, one chink in the armor is enough to cause the whole house of cards to fall, you know. (Damn, now he’s got me mixing metaphors!)
Second of all, it HAS been effectively dismissed using logic and philosophy.
You refusing to acknowledge of comprehend that it has ben refuted does not mean it hasn’t been, you know.
**
Addressing something and making a solid argument for or against something are two different things.
**
Some people may have gotten frustrated. I do believe that your very first post in another thread elsewhere started off with “You idiots.”
Is that a really long-winded way of saying that you can’t admit you are wrong even though all evidence proves you wrong?
Yer pal,
Satan
http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One week, four days, 12 hours, 57 minutes and 10 seconds.
461 cigarettes not smoked, saving $57.70.
Life saved: 1 day, 14 hours, 25 minutes.
**
You mean, like God?
**
Um… I’d say the refuting of that example was weak. In fact, I’d say that simply calling something “weak” does not make it so. So, please do show WHY the example is “weak.”
**
Well, instead of patting him on the back, why don’t you try and take on the many sound philosophical arguments saying the logic is wrong? Or do you just think that they’re all “weak” too, huh?
You mean like how God did?
Yer pal,
Satan
http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One week, four days, 13 hours, 3 minutes and 40 seconds.
461 cigarettes not smoked, saving $57.72.
Life saved: 1 day, 14 hours, 25 minutes.
In your experience within the scope of human existence nothing happens without a cause. You have no knowledge or experience of things outside of this scope; any philosophical (I can’t bring myself to call your arguments “logical”) statements you make about things outside of this scope are necessarily your opinion.
You see, this perfectly illustrates exactly what everyone here has been trying to explain to you: Just because YOU don’t personally understand something, that doesn’t mean that it is unknowable, or that it can’t be true. (e.g. I don’t know a damn thing about cars, but that doesn’t stop the engine from starting when I insert the key and turn it.)
The argument you are positing is, as Singledad pointed out, one of the oldest logical fallacies. It has a long history of being passed around by philosophers as a sort of ‘whetstone’ for honing their logical arguing skills – because there are SO MANY ways to refute it. It has been called the argument from First Cause, the argument from the Prime Mover, the Causality argument, and the argument from Personal Incredulity (my favorite), along with many others I don’t remember right now.
Well, I seem to have gotten here too late, but I image that this isn’t really the end of it (at least in part because this subject gets rehashed about once a week on this board).
Let me say one thing, though:
You have made a positive statement here; the burden of proof is on YOU to prove it – it is NOT UP TO US TO DISPROVE IT. You wish to make your point by using logic, so let’s follow the rules of logic. Two of the more important and relevant rules for this situation: A)If the premises are false, then the argument is false, and B) A negative statement can NOT be proven, therefore the positive statement must be.
The “loggerheads” that we have reached has been created by yourself, by failing to back up your first premise. If you find a logically sound way to support it, then maybe the debate can progress.
Everest:
Causality is on shaky ground. We may exist as quantum fluctuations of nothingness. Matter has been observed to come into being spontaneously.
THe universe may simply have always existed.
There may in fact be no first cause.
There is some evidence to suggest the first explanation is the best hypothesis.
At any rate, a first cause based proof of God is faulty on at least two premises.
That there has to be a first cause
That God had to be responsible for it if there was.
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar
Everest: Are you really an Assistant Professor of Philosophy? Wow. Just…wow.
Anyway, listen, Lambchop. You say, “everything must have had cause to come into being.” Among other things, that’s what people in this thread have been disputing. Why did the universe have to begin to exist? Why can’t it have always existed? You do see, don’t you, that absent a beginning point, no causative agent is necessary?
Plus, unless you’re arguing that God is just a guy in another, ‘higher’ dimension–a dimension populated by many ‘gods,’ all of whom have their own causative agents from a yet higher dimension–then I don’t see how you can say that
[ul][li]Everything that begins to exist must have a cause[/li][li]Everything begins to exist[/li][li]Except God, who doesn’t have a cause[/li][li]And therefore is the only exception to the rule that everything begins to exist[/ul][/li]
Do you and, um, pashley, really not see how that is circular reasoning?