Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[ynotzap]

continuation of Post 560
When I quoted the dictionary, I gave you the first meaning, and I should have used the second meaning taken from the word “sentience” to make my point clearer. 2nd meaning :mere awareness of sensation that does not involve thought or perception, that’s why I question your usage of sentient mind, which is justified according to the dictionary.

 

[Bradski]

Such evidence as you demand would only be possible if God was argued to be an object inside the universe.

That is, why are your arguments so very convincing for you when really your only argument that there is no God is that there is no credible evidence for God?

Have I demanded particular evidence? Are you confusing me with someone else? The only evidence that I consider is that supplied by you. I am going to assume that you are going to give it your best shot and present the very best available, but you have come up short.

I have no argument for the fact that there is no God. I cannot present any evidence in support of an argument that doesn’t exist. All I do is listen to YOUR arguments and decide if they are credible.

It might help you if you made an attempt to understand my position a little better rather than
Slot me into some preconceived notion thatnyounhave of anyone who describes themself as an atheist.

And to Peter…was that rather lengthy post a claim that evetprything is natural or supernatural. It seems that from what you posted it would look exactly the same either way.

 

[PRmerger]

I have no argument for the fact that there is no God. I cannot present any evidence in support of an argument that doesn’t exist. All I do is listen to YOUR arguments and decide if they are credible.

Really?

You’ve never examined the classical arguments for God’s existence?

 

[Bradski]

Really?

You’ve never examined the classical arguments for God’s existence?

Your evidence meaning Christian evidence. And there’s a lot of it about…

You guys set up some weird standards: I won’t believe until there is evidence. And evidence for God cannot be philosophical, theoretical, speculative arguments. It has to be hard data.

And: Well, of course the multiverse could exist! Wbe use philosophical, theoretical and speculative arguments to come to this conclusion. That is “hard data” in the world of theoretical quantum physics.

No again. It’s Christians that supply the evidence. 'It was written…the philosophy suggests…it’s designed…people don’t die for a lie…here’s a miracle…NDEs…absolute morality exists therefore…Paul said…Jesus said…lots of people saw…there’s a shroud…the tomb was empty…

And for a lot of people, and it’s an increasing minority, based on the evidence that you supply, it’s simply not credible.

 

[PRmerger]

Your evidence meaning Christian evidence. And there’s a lot of it about…

Not sure what you mean.

You *have *examined the classical arguments for God’s existence?

 

[Bradski]

Not sure what you mean.

You *have *examined the classical arguments for God’s existence?

They aren’t really relevant to the current topic, but if you want to start a thread on them, then be my guest.

 

[PRmerger]

They aren’t really relevant to the current topic, but if you want to start a thread on them, then be my guest.

Have you examined them?

And of course they are relevant to the current topic–the OP is one of the Believer Biggies.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

From reading this I get the impression that my previous response might have been interpreted as being ill intended. I meant no insult, but I entertained the possibility of communicating with someone that is blind because I do work on building several computer driven systems for which additional effort is made to ensure they are usable to people that visually impaired or completely blind and occasional interact with people that are blind online.

My apologies if I seemed to be insulting, that isn’t my intention.

In that case, it is me who want to offer you my apologies: you wanted to help me, and I misinterpreted you. I am sorry for that.

And if you want to answer my question, I will appreciate it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I am going to assume that you are going to give it your best shot and present the very best available, but you have come up short.

Why do I have the distinct impression from you that if I introduced you to God in person, that would be coming up short, as you would explain God as a hallucination?

In other words, there is no evidence, credible or not, that would convince you.

You have decided the matter even before the evidence is presented, as all atheists tend to do until their heart is opened to truth.

 

[Bradski]

Why do I have the distinct impression from you that if I introduced you to God in person, that would be coming up short, as you would explain God as a hallucination?

In other words, there is no evidence, credible or not, that would convince you.

You have decided the matter even before the evidence is presented, as all atheists tend to do until their heart is opened to truth.

How on earth can I decide on something without having any evidence presented? What a patently absurd thing to suggest. It was only when it dawned on me that I was meant to take the evidence for Christianly seriously that I began to doubt it.

And unless you have something to add other than yet more quotes from Jewish physicists, then my position isn’t likely to change.

 

[Bradski]

And of course they are relevant to the current topic–the OP is one of the Believer Biggies.

And well over 500 posts in, no-one has come anywhere close to answering it.

But everything must have a cause! Well, sometime back I gave you two examples of things that appear not to have a cause. Virtual particles and radioactive decay. That was simply ignored.

Ah, but something cannot come from nothing! Because…it’s illogical. And numerous examples have been given where logic cannot be used to determine something. That’s been ignored.

Well, God created it because He’s omnipotent. It stands to reason. Well, no. You can’t include the answer to your proposal in the proposal itself. That IS illogical.

So if you don’t know, then it must have been God! A classic argument from ignorance. Please insert anything into the gap that we have in our knowledge and it will do the job.

But it has to be God because nothing we can imagine is greater than God! A schoolyard argument. I know the biggest number. Well, add one to it and you’re wrong. Well, no…I know that that is now the biggest number.

But it IS God and He is this particular God! Nothing connects the two whatsoever. If something created it, then that something may not now exist. Or may be completely ignoring us. Or may be actively causing us to suffer.

Notwithstanding that no-one on this forum even begins to understand the physics involved. At least I know that I don’t know and have no problem in saying so. But all we get from the other side is: ‘Look, science can go no further. It must therefore be supernatural’. And you claim the territory from that point onwards (along with every other religion).

 

[Peter_Plato]

Have I demanded particular evidence? Are you confusing me with someone else? The only evidence that I consider is that supplied by you. I am going to assume that you are going to give it your best shot and present the very best available, but you have come up short.

I have no argument for the fact that there is no God. I cannot present any evidence in support of an argument that doesn’t exist. All I do is listen to YOUR arguments and decide if they are credible.

It might help you if you made an attempt to understand my position a little better rather than
Slot me into some preconceived notion thatnyounhave of anyone who describes themself as an atheist.

And to Peter…was that rather lengthy post a claim that evetprything is natural or supernatural. It seems that from what you posted it would look exactly the same either way.

On what basis do you “decide if [any arguments] …are credible?”

Aren’t you assuming that your own rationality has the wherewithal to make that kind of decision?

What precisly gives you the kind of “faith” in your capacities that is required to underwrite that kind of decision?

Be explicit, Brad.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How on earth can I decide on something without having any evidence presented? What a patently absurd thing to suggest. It was only when it dawned on me that I was meant to take the evidence for Christianly seriously that I began to doubt it.

And unless you have something to add other than yet more quotes from Jewish physicists, then my position isn’t likely to change.

Oh, then you would be open to books by non-Jewish physicists?

You said you are familiar with the classical arguments for God. No point rehashing them.

Are you familiar with Antony Flew’s book, There is a God? Flew, a clever and highly respected British atheist, became a theist after reviewing *The Science of God *by Gerald Schroeder. Oh, I forgot, Schroeder is another Jewish physicist.

Are Jewish physicists off your reading list? If not, you need to clarify that right away as you are dangerously close to sounding … :tsktsk:

 

[Bradski]

On what basis do you “decide if [any arguments] …are credible?”

I use a process called ‘thinking’.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And well over 500 posts in, no-one has come anywhere close to answering it.

Isn’t the question itself a malformed one? I mean what it implies is that effects can exist with NO explanation, for NO reason, whatsoever. That would mean it would be possible, in principle, for something to occur without explanation; not merely that human beings have no explanation for some event or entity, but that there need not be any explanatorily sufficient reason (cause) for the occurrence of that event or entity at all, in principle – i.e., Why couldn’t the universe exist for no reason whatsoever?

How could we know THAT without knowing the absolute parameters of what can be explained and also know beyond any possibility of being wrong that no explanation does exist nor can possibly exist for some eventualities?

But everything must have a cause! Well, sometime back I gave you two examples of things that appear not to have a cause. Virtual particles and radioactive decay. That was simply ignored.

I wouldn’t say “ignored,” so much as being extremely stunned that anyone would propose “two examples of things that appear not to have a cause” as if simply not knowing that cause entails “therefore, NO cause.”

Again, to contend, as you do, that anything CAN exist without a sufficiently explanatory reason (aka cause) means that you are prepared to abdicate reason completely – i.e., that you are seriously proposing that things can happen which need no explanation. Not that we have none at the moment, but that in principle we don’t require one – which is, essentially, what it means to propose and accept that some events can exist without any explanatory cause, whatsoever.

How can anyone respond to that except by shaking their head in astonishment that you could seriously propose such a thing to be true and at the same time consistently contend that you STILL require “good reasons” to accept theistic claims? Apparently, you think it is entirely consistent to insist that some things (like virtual particles and radioactive decay) can be accepted as being the case for no reason whatsoever, but other things (like God) require bullet-proof reasoning before you can accept them.

I mean, if you are prepared to accept events and entities CAN exist for no explanatory reason whatsoever what is to stop you from believing anything at all for no reason whatsoever, including theistic claims? Perhaps your claims are not being “ignored” so much as triggering silent :ehh:

Ah, but something cannot come from nothing! Because…it’s illogical. And numerous examples have been given where logic cannot be used to determine something. That’s been ignored.

So why are you holding out against the possibility of God when you insist things can happen for no reason whatsoever and are prepared to toss out logic completely? In principle, you have NO legs left to hold any position whatsoever BECAUSE you are prepared to accept that things can occur for no reason whatsoever.

You have just kicked out whatever legs you had to hold fast to any position you might insist upon as being true BECAUSE you insist that things can be “true” for no reason whatsoever.

Well, God created it because He’s omnipotent. It stands to reason. Well, no. You can’t include the answer to your proposal in the proposal itself. That IS illogical.

Well, I would suppose “illogical” is quite meaningless for someone who insists things might be true for no reason at all. So why is logic or having sufficient reason to believe anything important when you are prepared to believe things can happen or exist for no reason whatsoever?

The following video accurately depicts your predicament when you begin permitting that effects need no explanation at the same time as you want to insist – inconsistently – upon NOT including explanations to proposals in the proposal itself.
youtu.be/hz65AOjabtM

Essentially, your claim is that eventualities need no explanation, which means that reasons for those eventualities are not at all required. So why insist reasons cannot reside in the proposal itself if you are willing to allow that they need not reside anywhere at all?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I use a process called ‘thinking’.

I see, but not apparently for everything you make determinations about.

 

[Solmyr]

That would mean it would be possible, in principle, for something to occur without explanation; not merely that human beings have no explanation for some event or entity, but that there need not be any explanatorily sufficient reason (cause) for the occurrence of that event or entity at all, in principle.

Bad, bad wording. The major error is highlighted. The correct wording would be: “…something to exist without explanation…” (Again, not “occur”, rather “exist”.)

This is elementary. And we don’t even need “omniscience” to understand it. Simple logic will do. An “explanation” is reducing something unknown to something else, which is already known or partially known. This chain cannot extend to infinity. Therefore there must be an “end” to it, something that needs no explanation, something that just “is”.

In the abstract sciences this “end” is the set of axioms which need no explanation. In the physical sciences the “end” is the universe. Real physics (not some “metaphysics”) shows that there is no “space”, no “time”, no “causality” outside the universe. The universe is a brute fact.

Believers try to peddle this final “something” as God. For them God is a “brute fact”. But while we experience the universe, and as such there is no doubt that the universe exists, there is no way to experience God.

 

[PRmerger]

And well over 500 posts in, no-one has come anywhere close to answering it.

But everything must have a cause! Well, sometime back I gave you two examples of things that appear not to have a cause. Virtual particles and radioactive decay. That was simply ignored.

Ah, but something cannot come from nothing! Because…it’s illogical. And numerous examples have been given where logic cannot be used to determine something. That’s been ignored.

Well, God created it because He’s omnipotent. It stands to reason. Well, no. You can’t include the answer to your proposal in the proposal itself. That IS illogical.

So if you don’t know, then it must have been God! A classic argument from ignorance. Please insert anything into the gap that we have in our knowledge and it will do the job.

But it has to be God because nothing we can imagine is greater than God! A schoolyard argument. I know the biggest number. Well, add one to it and you’re wrong. Well, no…I know that that is now the biggest number.

But it IS God and He is this particular God! Nothing connects the two whatsoever. If something created it, then that something may not now exist. Or may be completely ignoring us. Or may be actively causing us to suffer.

Notwithstanding that no-one on this forum even begins to understand the physics involved. At least I know that I don’t know and have no problem in saying so. But all we get from the other side is: ‘Look, science can go no further. It must therefore be supernatural’. And you claim the territory from that point onwards (along with every other religion).

This seems to suggest you have NOT examined the classical arguments for God’s existence.

How odd.

Why would someone whose basic principle is “I believe based on evidence alone” assert, “There isn’t any credible evidence for God’s existence”, yet also not have examined the evidence?

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws....s/2014/05/doesnt_make_any_sense_anchorman.gif

 

[Bradski]

The point was made that it is nonsensical to suggest that something could have no apparent cause. But this is the case with the universe.

‘Well, if that is the case, then how about we throw up some more examples of this mysterious phenomenon of something that has no apparent cause’.

Well, OK. So two examples have been given. But it’s no good saying that those aren’t valid because it’s simply a case of not knowing what that cause is in those two examples. Because that is exactly analogous to the universe.

We now have three things that happen apparently without cause, for which we have no scientific evidence. There are, I am sure, many more. I am not in a position to deny that virtual particles exist. They do. Just as I cannot deny that the universe exists. It does. Both existing without an apparent cause. The word ‘apparent’ is the critical one. It means that we have no scientific answer as to what caused them.

I’m going to repeat that in another way. We have no evidence for their cause. And that word ‘evidence’ is equally critical.

Because you say that you DO know what caused the universe. There’s still no evidence for the act of creation, but you say it was your God that did it and that there is evidence for God.

Well, I don’t think (there’s that process I was talking about earlier), that the evidence that you produce (you being Christians in general) is credible. So not only do I not think that a supernatural entity created everything (there is zero evidence for that, although it remains a possibility), I don’t think that your God could have done it in any case as I have rejected your evidence for that specific being (although He remains a possibility).

So although I don’t know what caused it, I don’t think that your explanation carries enough weight to be considered.

 

[Solmyr]

This seems to suggest you have NOT examined the classical arguments for God’s existence.

Would be interesting to see what are those “classical” arguments in YOUR OPINION? Would it be something: “the incredible beauty of rap music proves that God exists”? Or the awesome wonder of the devastating Ebola virus is a proof of God’s existence? Or the indescribable horror of the Holocaust is a testimony of God’s “love” for us? Speak up, GIF-queen. The phrase “classical arguments” is too vague to take it seriously. As we know, the devil is in the details.