How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?

[Freddy]

Yes, and those are not mere assumptions.

I’m afraid they are.

Now if you said: ‘as far as we can tell, everything within this universe appears to have a cause’ then I’d say ‘press on harsh’. But you didn’t.

And if you said that ‘on the assumption that this universe is all there ever has been and cannot considered to be, for example, part of a cyclical existence’ then I would again encourage you to proceed further. But you didn’t.

You are ignoring other options. You need to specifically exclude them for the purpose of any argument you make and prove them not to be valid for inclusion (which is impossible at the moment) or state that for the purpose of your argument they are assumed to be invalid.

 

[Pattylt]

My problem is that while everything IN the universe has a cause we really have no idea what the conditions were before time/space began. It’s a wall of ignorance. We really can’t assume that any conditions we have within our universe applies to anything before/outside/beyond that wall. We don’t know and may never know.

So, I don’t worry about it. It could be anything that even our fantasies can’t imagine.

 

[Freddy]

My problem is that while everything IN the universe has a cause we really have no idea what the conditions were before time/space began. It’s a wall of ignorance. We really can’t assume that any conditions we have within our universe applies to anything before/outside/beyond that wall. We don’t know and may never know.

So, I don’t worry about it. It could be anything that even our fantasies can’t imagine.

It drives me to distraction. The assumptions fall thick and fast and the only response is generally along the lines of: ‘Well, it’s obvious. Just common sense’.

Yeah, just like a father can’t be younger than his daughter. Well, Einstein might disagree. And something can’t be in two place at once. Well, any quantum physicist will disavow you of that. And those galaxies can’t be moving away faster than the speed of light. I think Hubble had something to say about that. That star obviously exists - I’m looking at it. Actually it ceased to exist a few billion years ago.

‘On the assumption that…’ and ‘As far as we know…’ are statements that are implicit in any scientific statement. It seems religious arguments get a free pass on that.

 

[Noose001]

My problem is that while everything IN the universe has a cause we really have no idea what the conditions were before time/space began. It’s a wall of ignorance. We really can’t assume that any conditions we have within our universe applies to anything before/outside/beyond that wall. We don’t know and may never know.

So, I don’t worry about it. It could be anything that even our fantasies can’t imagine.

There’s a problem with words and huge problem with your choice of words.
The word ‘before’ denotes time and the words ‘outside/beyond’ denotes space.
The implication of your words is that there was space-time before the universe only that you don’t know the conditions during that time period.

The conditions shouldn’t worry anyone because we can easily tell it was dark; darkness is n’t caused, it was silent; silence isn’t caused, it was cold; coldness isn’t caused plus many other ‘things’.

Your only option to explain ‘nothingness’ is to keep quiet otherwise use of ‘words’ will be turned against you. Words can only explain something, even the word ‘nothing’ can not be used to explain nothingness.

 

[Wesrock]

You are ignoring other options. You need to specifically exclude them for the purpose of any argument you make and prove them not to be valid for inclusion (which is impossible at the moment) or state that for the purpose of your argument they are assumed to be invalid.

I don’t mean to single you out, Freddy. This was on my mind yesterday. And I don’t think this was the most tactfully put thread. But these topics always seem to devolve into reverse accusations and skepticism of theist arguments, rather than any counter position being offered or defended.

So what are these other options? Must there be an explanation (ontological) whether or not we know it? Should we be able to provide one philosophically (on an epistemic level)? Should we not be worried about claims of ontological brute fact (that is, claims that there is no explanation). Do atheists even concern themselves with the question of whether reality is intelligible?

Atheists are obviously not uniform, and some do. I just don’t typically encounter it on internet forums.

 

[Wesrock]

My problem is that while everything IN the universe has a cause we really have no idea what the conditions were before time/space began.

It sounds like you saying that everything that’s ever comprised the universe should have a cause, and that this was caused by something “prior” in a sense to the universe, but we can’t make any judgments about whether that (or those) thing(s) obey any type of causality. Is that right?

 

[Freddy]

So what are these other options?

It would be better to describe them as possibilities.

As I said earlier, I would have no objection to any given theist saying (for example): ‘Assuming that events must have a cause and that this universe is not eternal or part of an eternal cycle then…X, Y, Z’.

We could then go straight to X, Y and Z and discuss them based on the assumptions. Otherwise they become a given in the whole proposal. People want you to accept them as a given before they start the argument.

Sorry, but that’s not acceptable.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

So what are these other options?

It would be better to describe them as possibilities.

As I said earlier, I would have no objection to any given theist saying (for example): ‘Assuming that events must have a cause and that this universe is not eternal or part of an eternal cycle then…X, Y, Z’.

We could then go straight to X, Y and Z and discuss them based on the assumptions. Otherwise they become a given in the whole proposal. People want you to accept them as a given before they start the argument.

Sorry, but that’s not acceptable.

Well, again, this just pends the question back to theists with skepticism. What of my other questions?

 

[o_mlly]

We don’t know and may never know.

Scientifically speaking, that’s quite a refreshing notion.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Wesrock:

So what are these other options?

It would be better to describe them as possibilities.

As I said earlier, I would have no objection to any given theist saying (for example): ‘Assuming that events must have a cause and that this universe is not eternal or part of an eternal cycle then…X, Y, Z’.

We could then go straight to X, Y and Z and discuss them based on the assumptions. Otherwise they become a given in the whole proposal. People want you to accept them as a given before they start the argument.

Sorry, but that’s not acceptable.

Well, again, this just pends the question back to theists with skepticism. What of my other questions?

Options? Two were given. There are many more.
Does there have to be a reason? No, but there will be an explanation.
A philosophical answer? Only if the question is a philosophical one.
Brute fact? They are explanations in themselves.
And reality being intelligible? I think it’s open to being understood. We’ll get there eventually. Look how far we’ve come in the last 100 years. Imagine if we manage another million or so. I’m an optomist.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

“Pattylt, post:45, topic:608637”]
My problem is that while everything IN the universe has a cause we really have no idea what the conditions were before time/space began. It’s a wall of ignorance.

We don’t know and may never know.

I don’t think we will ever have the science in our lifetime. and that’s what matters to us.

 

[lelinator]

As I’ve stated numerous times, the First Way is specifically regarding the principles of Act and Potency, and “motion” in the classical and Aristotlean sense refers to the actualization of potency.

The First Way concerns things that must continue to be acted upon to keep their potency actualized.

The first thing that I would like to point out, is that this interpretation of the First Way would seem to have nothing to do with change, because we’re not talking about something changing from one state to another state, we’re simply talking about maintaining something in it’s current state.

So the First Way would seem to have nothing to do with change, other than change also involves the actualization of potency. But that type of actualization of potency is what the Kalam Cosmological Argument is addressing, but it’s seemingly not what the First Way is addressing.

The First Way would seem to be about maintaining something as it is, but not about changing it from one state to another state.

Is this correct?

 

[EndTimes]

Where is the science to show how the universe and life came into existence without God?

science - aka Man’s attempt to Know Everything? - does not know how the Universe came to be.

Neither has Man come to find out how Life formed from chemicals.

_

 

[Eric_Hyom]

science - aka Man’s attempt to Know Everything? - does not know how the Universe came to be.

This has been said a number of times.

Neither has Man come to find out how Life formed from chemicals.

So what do non - theists mean when they say; we have the science to show there is no God? These are two big questions that really need an answer.

 

[EndTimes]

EndTimes:

science - aka Man’s attempt to Know Everything? - does not know how the Universe came to be.

This has been said a number of times.

Neither has Man come to find out how Life formed from chemicals.

So what do non - theists mean when they say; we have the science to show there is no God? These are two big questions that really need an answer.

Call it Man’s ongoing investigations into call it Astro-Physics, Origin of the Universe
No man definitively knows / has definitively shown - how the Universe has come into existence

+++++++++

RE: Any who claim they’ve evidence - there’s no God?

evidence is evidence - and is not necessarily Fact.

Ape skeletons can be offered as ‘evidence’ in an ERGO MAN CAME FROM APES - form of Claim.
But that evidence is not Proof…
It’s evidence sans sufficient and undeniable supportive argumentation

There also exists Evidences that God Exists.
Yet said evidences are likewise not considered to be Second Coming Level PROOF!

We’re no strangers to ongoing attempts to prove God does not exist.
Not a one holds water…

So. Someone thinks they have solid evidence? Prove it! Show Us?
+

 

[Freddy]

So what do non - theists mean when they say; we have the science to show there is no God?

Where are these guys? If you find one, tell him Freddy says he’s an idiot.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

As I’ve stated numerous times, the First Way is specifically regarding the principles of Act and Potency, and “motion” in the classical and Aristotlean sense refers to the actualization of potency.

The First Way concerns things that must continue to be acted upon to keep their potency actualized.

The first thing that I would like to point out, is that this interpretation of the First Way would seem to have nothing to do with change, because we’re not talking about something changing from one state to another state, we’re simply talking about maintaining something in it’s current state.

So the First Way would seem to have nothing to do with change, other than change also involves the actualization of potency. But that type of actualization of potency is what the Kalam Cosmological Argument is addressing, but it’s seemingly not what the First Way is addressing.

You’re right that it’s not what the First Way is really addressing. Unless you feel it important I don’t think it necessary to quibble over the word change, it doesn’t seem immediately necessary to understand the argument at this point. Where you write “maintaining its current state” I might write “keep its potential for this state of being actualized”, or even just its being actualized.

The First Way would seem to be about maintaining something as it is, but not about changing it from one state to another state.

Is this correct?

Yes… I mean, we can look at maintaining a continual state of change, too, like constant acceleration in a frictionless system. Or in a system with friction having to apply a constant force to maintain velocity. And we come to understand that the actualization of an essence (in which the essence is distinct from its existence) at any moment requires the same type of continuous activity of a sort, and activity is a sort of “motion” in the sense we mean, as opposed to just being static.

I don’t mean for the long answers, I’m just hesitant over using the word “maintaining”, but in the sense I described above, yes.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Freddy:

Wesrock:

So what are these other options?

It would be better to describe them as possibilities.

As I said earlier, I would have no objection to any given theist saying (for example): ‘Assuming that events must have a cause and that this universe is not eternal or part of an eternal cycle then…X, Y, Z’.

We could then go straight to X, Y and Z and discuss them based on the assumptions. Otherwise they become a given in the whole proposal. People want you to accept them as a given before they start the argument.

Sorry, but that’s not acceptable.

Well, again, this just pends the question back to theists with skepticism. What of my other questions?

Options? Two were given. There are many more.
Does there have to be a reason? No, but there will be an explanation.
A philosophical answer? Only if the question is a philosophical one.
Brute fact? They are explanations in themselves.
And reality being intelligible? I think it’s open to being understood. We’ll get there eventually. Look how far we’ve come in the last 100 years. Imagine if we manage another million or so. I’m an optomist.

So what is the distinction between reason and explanation that you are making? To me, you cannot have an explanation without reasons. An explanation is “Such-and-such is so because of [reason(s)].” Are you just ruling out value/purpose statements? Or do you mean something else?

I could have been clearer on a couple points. I did not mean a philosophical answer to the beginning of the universe specifically, but some type of whole, consistent framerwork of epistemology and other philosophical considerations. Science is based on certain philosophical suppositions.

An ontological brute fact is the antithesis to an explanation. We call it a brute fact because it’s supposed to be accepted as having no explanation or reason for why it is the way it is, or why it is at all.

Intelligible was the other word I could have been clearer on. I actually think reality is open to being understood [by humankind, I assume] is a stronger position than the claim that reality is intelligble. If we believe reality is open to being understood and we’re just not there yet, we believe that we have or will have the epistemic tools to understand all things at some point. When I asked if reality was intelligible, I meant it in a weaker sense. Even if it’s beyond our epistemic limits to ever know, it in itself is intelligible, explainable. It is not just absolutely random in all things, without explanation or reason (again, whether or not humankind would ever be able to know it). If a bowling ball appears in front of me, I would assume there is an intelligible explanation with reasons for how it happened, even if I did not know the explanation.

 

[lelinator]

You’re right that it’s not what the First Way is really addressing. Unless you feel it important I don’t think it necessary to quibble over the word change, it doesn’t seem immediately necessary to understand the argument at this point. Where you write “maintaining its current state” I might write “keep its potential for this state of being actualized”, or even just its being actualized.

Okay, thanks.

Next question. Was God’s creative act an example of the actualization of potency?

 

[Freddy]

Are you just ruling out value/purpose statements?

Science is based on certain philosophical suppositions.

An ontological brute fact is the antithesis to an explanation.

Intelligible was the other word I could have been clearer on. I actually think reality is open to being understood [by humankind, I assume] is a stronger position than the claim that reality is intelligble.

Yes, I’m ruling out purpose. There is none.

Science is based on a general agreement that what we see is what we got. I’m not sure that we need anything else.

My calling a brute fact an explanation might be more a matter of semantics than science. If you keep digging deeper and reach an end point then there’s your explanation. Why does an electron have a negative charge? Because it does. That’s your (somewhat unsatisfactory) explanation. You can say 'cos God decided it had to be that way. Which is another brute fact but you might personally class that as an explanation as well.

And yes reality is coherent even if we could never understand it completely (if that what what you were asking). But I think there’s no doubt that we will understand it. There will be a point (if we reach it) where everything will be understood. I have no doubt about that whatsoever.