The existence of an Absolute Intelligent First Cause has been proven to exist with absolute metaphysical certainty. So why are people still atheists?

[rossum]

That’s a circular argument, try again.

No it is not. I use a perfectly good mathematical and philosophical definition of “universe” and derive conclusions from that.

rossum

 

[JohnC_1571]

First, please acknowledge that I have answered your question about uncaused events. After that I suggest that you re-read the Hawking quote I gave above. A zero energy universe requires zero energy (name removed by moderator)ut: nothing (name removed by moderator)ut.

Blockquote

From what I can tell, the zero energy hypothesis is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as it is concerned more with the idea that the universe is a closed system, as opposed to something which had no beginning or end. It feels like people are latching onto this idea, while ignoring quantum uncertainty and ignoring the Big Bang (which is still “the” idea for the formation of the universe) because it is a promising line of attack against theism. Obviously, if the universe is a closed system, there is no reason that it still could not have a set starting point, just as a terrarium (not truly a closed system, but is treated so for the purposes of argument) is assembled at some point, and then maintains itself as a closed system from that point forward.

As for the OP’s comments, I believe that it is fruitless to attempt to prove the existence of God with scientific measurement. The problem lies partly in the fact that, if God did exist, and has the nature ascribed to God as postulated by philosophical thought (i.e. unchanging, omniscient, omnipotent, etc), then it stands to reason that we would then lack a sufficient means for measurement and observation. It feels a little like dark matter in that sense - everyone is pretty sure it’s there (again, generalizing), but it can’t effectively be measured, only understood on the effects it seems to have on the measureable aspects of the universe.

 

[JohnC_1571]

I should probably clarify one point, that the idea of a zero energy universe probably isn’t incompatible with any of the theories about the ultimate fate of the universe, when I say “end.” Maybe saying “having reached maximum possible entropy” would be more sufficient in the place of “end.”

 

[IWantGod]

A thing moving or acting according to its nature is irrelevant. And the question of whether or not a thing can come from no-thing is a philosophical question and not something that is within the capacity of science to answer. You do not understand what you are talking about which makes it very difficult for me to have a reasonable discussion with you because it means teaching you the basic epistemological differences between science and metaphysics. You already don’t know the epistemological difference between a claim made within the subject of physics and a metaphysical claim about reality. This is made painfully evident when you claim that physicists can measure things coming from nothing and then you present that claim in the same context of a metaphysical inference.

A thing may not have a physical cause but that has nothing to do with the question of whether or not a thing has a existential cause - a cause for its existence.

 

[IWantGod]

No it is not. I use a perfectly good mathematical and philosophical definition of “universe” and derive conclusions from that.

So you start with the assertion that physical reality is all there is based of some definition that you found, and then you end your argument with the assertion you presented in your premise?

That’s a circular argument.

 

[IWantGod]

Hang on. You admitted your proof cannot tell us everything about God, and now you’ve downgraded it from metaphysical certainty to mere psychological certainty. If B always follows A, then we might be psychologically certain that A causes B, but really all we can say is that in our experience we’ve always seen B when A. We can’t be certain that B without A, tomorrow we might observe B without A. That’s a long way from metaphysical certainty, and is why science is always provisional.

Any Attempt to show that something can come from nothing results in a Reductio ad Absurdum. It defeats reason to think its possible. Fortunately i am not an anti-rational skeptic; in other words i don’t assume that metaphysically impossible things might happen on the basis that i cannot give a scientific account of it’s impossibility. I know that something cannot come from nothing in the same way that i know that a square-triangle can’t exist. It’s called Reason.

But you are free to be a victim of scientism if you please. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[rossum]

And the question of whether or not a thing can come from no-thing is a philosophical question and not something that is within the capacity of science to answer.

My definition of the universe “all that exists” was a philosophical definition. My argument was a philosophical argument, to which you have not yet made a cogent response.

So you start with the assertion that physical reality is all there is

No I do not. Any non-physical entity, such as angels or djinn, that exists is part of the “All That Exists” universe. I am not an atheist; I am Buddhist and there are many more gods in my religion than in yours.

You have still failed to show your argument for the existence of your intelligent first cause. You have also failed to show your argument that human intelligence requires a cause, since you agree that at least one intelligence is uncaused.

You need to do better at showing your side of the argument here.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

Any non-physical entity, such as angels or djinn, that exists is part of the “All That Exists” universe. I am not an atheist; I am Buddhist and there are many more gods in my religion than in yours.

When i talk about the universe, i am talking about physical reality. You are simply defining yourself as correct. In other-words you are playing a game of semantics. This doesn’t tell me that we are going to have a reasonable discussion. Like i said before, you don’t understand the difference between a scientific claim and a metaphysical claim. This has to be addressed first before i can continue with the argument.

 

[inocente]

Any Attempt to show that something can come from nothing results in a Reductio ad Absurdum. It defeats reason to think its possible.

Really? You’ve just asserted that any attempt to show creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) results in a reductio ad absurdum.

I know that something cannot come from nothing in the same way that i know that a square-triangle can’t exist. It’s called Reason.

We can prove a square triangle can’t exist from the definitions. But you can’t prove by definition that creatio ex nihilo is impossible.

But you are free to be a victim of scientism if you please. Whatever floats your boat.

Been a long week has it?

I’m simply agreeing with Paul the Apostle. In 1 Cor 1 he says all these supposed proofs are worldly foolishness:

Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs [i.e. tangible evidence] and Greeks look for wisdom [i.e. philosophical proofs and the like], but we preach Christ crucified

Proofs can’t move mountains. A mustard seed of faith can.

 

[IWantGod]

Really? You’ve just asserted that any attempt to show creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) results in a reductio ad absurdum.

I didn’t argue that God cannot create without Materials to create with. With God, i can at the very least say that the universe begins to exist on a foundation that already existed before it. That’s one thing. It’s quite another thing entirely to argue that the universe is all that exists and could possibly have come from nothing; that claim is definitely irrational not just improbable. Absolutely Nothing is no-being so how can being come from it without a cause? It’s impossible by definition. I’m perfectly within reason to point this out.

And this idea that because you quote some scripture that i cannot know something to be impossible is ridiculous and certainly isn’t going to attract any reasonable person to the faith…

 

[HarryStotle]

It is you who is talking nonsense, I’m afraid. I have a proof that the universe is uncaused:

• the universe is all that exists.
• the cause of the universe must be external to the universe.
• anything external to the universe does not exist.
• the universe cannot have any cause that exists.

Actually your argument is circular. You are trying to prove that there is no causal agent outside of the universe by assuming that there is nothing outside of the universe - your first premise.

Of course, if you assume there is nothing outside of the universe, then there can be no cause outside of it.

You are assuming in the first premise what you are attempting to prove as the conclusion of your argument. The definition of a circular argument.

However, you are still stuck with the implication that absolute nothingness can cause the universe which you by definition claim is ‘absolute everythingness.’

So the takeaway from your argument is the opposite of what from the time of Parmenides was understood as a philosophical truism:

Ex nihilo nihil fit (From nothing comes nothing.)

Your use of quantum mechanics to support your claim that something can come from nothing – I.e., “Some events in quantum mechanics are uncaused, like beta decay or pion decay.” – confuses unknown cause with no cause. Merely because a cause hasn’t been (or, even, cannot be by our current knowledge of physics) determined does not demonstrate there is no cause or that ‘nothing’ is, in any valid sense, a cause.

If you want to assume that nothing causes something or anything, then why don’t we witness all kinds of entities and events that occur from nothing (I.e., no cause) all the time, around us? Why don’t we simply give up on science and laws of physics altogether and just assume anything can happen for no particular reason at any time because nothing can be causally efficacious?

 

[inocente]

I didn’t argue that God cannot create without Materials to create with.

Best science says there were no Materials (btw why the capital letter?). The total energy of the entire universe sums to zero, hence by conservation of energy, it always has been zero, hence by mass-energy equivalence there was no preexisting material. (Basically, take all the energy bound up in matter and gravity, subtract all the dark energy opposing gravity, and it sums to zero. As it must, because if it didn’t start from zero, there would have to be a preexisting universe to supply the physical energy).

With God, i can at the very least say that the universe begins to exist on a foundation that already existed before it.

How could there be a before when there was no space or time?

It’s quite another thing entirely to argue that the universe is all that exists and could possibly have come from nothing; that claim is definitely irrational not just improbable. Absolutely Nothing is no-being so how can being come from it without a cause? It’s impossible by definition. I’m perfectly within reason to point this out.

You keep asserting that, but the big bang says space and time started from zero, and conservation of energy says energy started from zero and still sums to zero.

And this idea that because you quote some scripture that i cannot know something to be impossible is ridiculous and certainly isn’t going to attract any reasonable person to the faith…

Paul’s point is way deeper than that.

 

[HarryStotle]

No it is not. I use a perfectly good mathematical and philosophical definition of “universe” and derive conclusions from that.

rossum

No “a perfectly good mathematical and philosophical definition” of the universe is NOT “absolutely everything.”

A more accepted definition is “all space-time, energy and matter.” To assume that STEM is “everything” is making a terrifyingly imprecise leap of logic.

The argument that the universe (aka all space-time, energy and matter) came into existence at a determinable past time and could not just have ‘popped’ into existence in its entirety for no reason and without cause, is precisely a very good reason for proposing that the universe should NOT be defined as “absolutely everything.”

 

[rossum]

However, you are still stuck with the implication that absolute nothingness can cause the universe which you by definition claim is ‘absolute everythingness.’

No I am not. If the First Cause exists then it is part of the “All That Exists” universe, obviously. If, further, that cause is eternal, then the ATE universe is also eternal. Nowhere do I assert that the ATE universe had a beginning. An eternal ATE universe is possible, and indeed is required by the Abrahamic religions, which all assert an eternal God.

rossum

 

[HarryStotle]

Paul’s point is way deeper than that.

Is the depth of “Paul’s point” a measurable quantity?

If not, how can we know the relative deepness of it?

In any case, it wouldn’t seem to matter since mustard seeds are larger than and can move mountains. Ergo, the “depth” of Paul’s point could be, by God’s power, overturned by some shallow and insipid point – if we want to accept your position on God’s capriciousness and complete disregard for human reason and evidence.

Perhaps God can turn human wisdom into foolishness IF he wishes, but instead chooses to use it to “give us a leg up” to his wisdom provided we don’t get too puffed up and uppity about the domain of our wisdom.

Grace perfects nature, including human reason, rather than merely kicking out its feet from under it and then thoroughly immolating it.

 

[rossum]

A more accepted definition is “all space-time, energy and matter.” To assume that STEM is “everything” is making a terrifyingly imprecise leap of logic.

STEM is a definition of the material universe of science. This is the philosophy forum, so I use a philosophical/mathematical definition of “universe”.

The STEM universe had a cause: the multiverse, colliding branes or something cosmologists have not thought up yet. The ATE universe contains the STEM universe as well as all other existent entities.

It is important to note which definition of “universe” you are referring to. For philosophical discussions I prefer the ATE universe. For scientific discussions I prefer the STEM universe.

YMMV

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

I will make the argument eventually. The kind of argument i intend to present is not a probability argument where one solution is more probable than the other. My argument relies on a Reductio ad absurdum; that is to say, if you argue against the premise you undermine reason itself - you end up with something that is fundamentally irrational. In other words you have to do away with reason in order to defeat the conclusion.

 

[IWantGod]

Best science says there were no Materials (btw why the capital letter?). The total energy of the entire universe sums to zero, hence by conservation of energy, it always has been zero, hence by mass-energy equivalence there was no preexisting material. (Basically, take all the energy bound up in matter and gravity, subtract all the dark energy opposing gravity, and it sums to zero. As it must, because if it didn’t start from zero, there would have to be a preexisting universe to supply the physical energy).

I’m waiting for you to make the mistake of arguing that a zero sum universe metaphysically equals a universe that doesn’t exist. Or have you already made that mistake?

How could there be a before when there was no space or time?

When i say before, i don’t mean it in temporal or spatial sense. I mean before in a logical sense, like 1 goes before 2 for example. Of course if something is not physical, and therefore is not bound by the laws of physics, there need not be any question of how it could possibly be the foundation of the universe without being “before it” in a temporal sense.

Paul’s point is way deeper than that.

"A second passage that speaks of God’s revelation through nature is Romans 1:18-21. Paul wrote.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of humanity who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that humans are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened (Romans 1:18-21)."

 

[HarryStotle]

STEM is a definition of the material universe of science. This is the philosophy forum, so I use a philosophical/mathematical definition of “universe”.

The STEM universe had a cause: the multiverse, colliding branes or something cosmologists have not thought up yet. The ATE universe contains the STEM universe as well as all other existent entities.

It is important to note which definition of “universe” you are referring to. For philosophical discussions I prefer the ATE universe. For scientific discussions I prefer the STEM universe.

YMMV

rossum

So you will concede that the “material universe of science,” (I.e., all matter, space-time and energy) that comprises the STEM universe began at a determinable moment in the past and had to have been caused by a non-temporal, immaterial, non-spatial and eternal cause, (I.e., the underlying foundation of the ATE universe)?

And whatever that underlying cause is, in order for it to sufficiently explain the existence of anything whatsoever (anything in the ATE universe) it has to, first of all, be self-explanatory, I.e., have the explanation for its own existence “within” itself, and be its own necessary and sufficient condition of its existence, so to speak. Otherwise, there is no sense in which we could say it “explains” the existence of anything.

 

[inocente]

Is the depth of “Paul’s point” a measurable quantity?

If not, how can we know the relative deepness of it?

we preach Christ crucified - 1 Cor 1

Those who look for proofs are saying Christ crucified wasn’t enough, he died for us but that’s not sufficient. Which Paul says is rank foolishness, since:

whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. - Phil 3

Note he says “faith”, not “proof”. Proofs are among the garbage.

In any case, it wouldn’t seem to matter since mustard seeds are larger than and can move mountains. Ergo, the “depth” of Paul’s point could be, by God’s power, overturned by some shallow and insipid point – if we want to accept your position on God’s capriciousness and complete disregard for human reason and evidence.

“Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” - Matt 17

All together now: