Why not this scenario?

[STT]

As in, possibly existing but not necessary.

It is necessary too unless you can show that the act of creation is logically possible.

They are brought into existence, really that’s getting into a different argument

You need to show that the act of creation is logically possible.

First off, the properties of the Universe are extremely delicate and well-balanced, and the fact that there is order should cause one to realize thought in the beginning.

Really, even without order, the fact of existence upon thinking can bring one to realize that which upholds and makes possible existence.

These are just statements and are not related to our discussion.

Energy is a property of the natural universe. To claim something from within the natural universe gave rise to the natural universe is silly, no? Does it not strike as odd?

I am not claiming that. I am claiming that there is stuff right there and the amount of this stuff was constant if you go back in time until you reach the beginning of time.

 

[STT]

If you want the discussion to go well, then you need to argue rationally. That is what your friends here reasonably demand from you. If you don’t do it you will appear as absurd when you think you are profound; ridiculous when you think you are sophisticated; obstinate when you think you are far superior than them and, therefore, naturally incomprehensible to them (and they might be right!).

I am trying to be as rational as possible. I know that people in here are my friends and I respect their time and the effort they put in replying to me.

You believe in the universality and necessity of the principles of conservation. And so you suggest that the system energy-matter that exists today is quantitatively the same as it was before, at any moment; though it is qualitatively different. The universe is always changing. If it is changing, you would suggest, it is because it has the potential to change. And then you generalize (right or wrong, you do): it has always been like this!

I am saying three things which are simple to discuss and argue: (1) The amount of stuff is constant, (2) The stuff is subject to change and (3) There was an unstable stuff at the beginning of time.

So, all you are saying, STT, is that you believe that this universe, as a whole, has no cause; that it has always existed. It is an old and well known belief; and of course, it is not your creation.

No, I am saying that the universe had a beginning.

 

[Gorgias]

What I am claiming is that the stuff has existed since the beginning of time.

OK – so, you don’t mean that it pre-exists creation, correct? Then, if time has a beginning, then your “unstable energy” does, as well. Therefore, it’s created.

I am saying that the stuff was there. No creation.

Philosophically, that’s problematic. The universe is contingent – that is, it didn’t have to exist. Given that it exists, it was created, and requires a creator.

The stuff at the beginning was not simply contingent. It was beginning of time so there was no time that anything existed before. Therefore the stuff at the beginning didn’t come from something else. It is simply origin of everything.

So… this is called “an assertion”. It’s not even an argument. As such, we can just shrug and say, “that’s your opinion.”

In any case, I feel like you’re just not getting the ‘necessary being’ / ‘contingent being’ distinction. Here’s a bit of reading to help you out:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#ArguForNonContCaus
http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/necessity.shtml

Now… asserting that there’s an non-intelligent necessary being makes no sense.

No, it was not created at all. Just forget about the concept of creation unless you can show that it is logically possible.

The argument that the universe is created isn’t just possible, it’s required. This whole discussion of ‘contingency’ supports it. Ask yourself: is it possible that the universe might not have existed at all? If the answer is ‘yes’, then the universe is contingent, and therefore, the universe must have been created.

The unstable energy just was there at the beginning of time. It is existence is necessary unless you could show that the act of creation is logically possible.

No… it’s only required for your argument, not philosophically necessary.

I am talking about the creator. The five ways as far as I know are not claiming that the act of creation is logically possible.

Umm… among the five ways are demonstrations that creation is, well, created!

The five ways as far as I know are talking about the necessity of something. Aquinas didn’t show that the act of creation is logically possible.

I know that this is one of your stock phrases – “creation isn’t logically possible” – but we’ve pretty soundly refuted that claim.

The unstable energy was not on his menu too.

And rightly so.

Perhaps he would change his mind knowing the possibility of existence of unstable energy and knowing the fact that he could not prove that the act of creation is logically possible.

I give up.

 

[Kei]

I believe you are speaking about the Law of Conservation of Energy?
If so, then yes, since the beginning of energy’s existence, it has been so, but that is within the Universe.

Show that Creation is logically possible? The Universe at one point did not exist, but now it does.
Are you claiming this is an act of formation but not of Creation?

 

[Ignatius]

All of the material that exists, all matter, energy and Time itself had a beginning about 13.7 billion years ago. The question is what caused all of this to begin to exist from nothing.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I am saying three things which are simple to discuss and argue: (1) The amount of stuff is constant, (2) The stuff is subject to change and (3) There was an unstable stuff at the beginning of time.

I don’t think you are able to discuss and argue that the amount of “stuff” is constant. It is just a belief, and not of your invention.

That the “stuff” is subject to change has not been objected even by Parmenides, so, there is no need to argue anything about it.

As “unstable” just means “changing” and it is pretty clear -even for a toddler!- that there is change, it would be irrational if someone says that at some moment the “stuff” was stable and without cause it became “unstable”. If the “stuff” is unstable now, then it has always been unstable (though it is not necessary that it will be forever unstable). And, as I said above, nobody argues that the “stuff” is not changing (that is to say, “unstable”).

JuanFlorencio:

So, all you are saying, STT, is that you believe that this universe, as a whole, has no cause; that it has always existed. It is an old and well known belief; and of course, it is not your creation.

No, I am saying that the universe had a beginning.

Every word we use has its context within our spatiotemporal human reality. This way, when I say “always” I do not mean “eternally” (which is a negative word), but “at any time”. And this is what some materialists and agnostics claim: that the universe as a whole is unstable and has always existed. So, you are not saying anything new. It is only that those guys use the English language much better than you.

 

[STT]

OK – so, you don’t mean that it pre-exists creation, correct? Then, if time has a beginning, then your “unstable energy” does, as well. Therefore, it’s created.

No. Therefore it was simply there. You need to show that the act of creation is possible to take one step further.

Philosophically, that’s problematic. The universe is contingent – that is, it didn’t have to exist. Given that it exists, it was created, and requires a creator.

Philosophically speaking you cannot show that the act of creation is logically possible. Therefore we have to stick with the minimal model.

So… this is called “an assertion”. It’s not even an argument. As such, we can just shrug and say, “that’s your opinion.”

In any case, I feel like you’re just not getting the ‘necessary being’ / ‘contingent being’ distinction. Here’s a bit of reading to help you out:

God and Other Necessary Beings (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Necessity"

Now… asserting that there’s an non-intelligent necessary being makes no sense.

No, it was not created at all. Just forget about the concept of creation unless you can show that it is logically possible.

I know what is the meaning of contingent and necessary.

The argument that the universe is created isn’t just possible, it’s required. This whole discussion of ‘contingency’ supports it. Ask yourself: is it possible that the universe might not have existed at all? If the answer is ‘yes’, then the universe is contingent, and therefore, the universe must have been created.

I stress again. You need to show that the act of creation is logically possible to could conclude that.

No… it’s only required for your argument, not philosophically necessary.

It becomes a physical necessary if we accept the fact that the universe exist and the act of creation is logically impossible.

Umm… among the five ways are demonstrations that creation is, well, created!

So could you please elaborate and show that the act of creation is logically possible. Otherwise five ways are simply empty assertions.

I know that this is one of your stock phrases – “creation isn’t logically possible” – but we’ve pretty soundly refuted that claim.

Where is that refute? You didn’t say anything in this regards.

And rightly so.

That is not correct. He just missed it.

I give up.

Oh come one. You cannot give up in middle of discussion.

 

[STT]

I believe you are speaking about the Law of Conservation of Energy?

Yes.

If so, then yes, since the beginning of energy’s existence, it has been so, but that is within the Universe.

But that is all. There is no outside universe. It is like saying outside existence.

Show that Creation is logically possible? The Universe at one point did not exist, but now it does.

That doesn’t show that the act of creation is logically possible. It just show that the act of creation is necessary given the fact that the creation didn’t exist and now exist. You are however making a mistake when you say the universe didn’t exist and then exist since the beginning of time is equivalent with beginning of existence of the universe and there was no point before the beginning of time.

Are you claiming this is an act of formation but not of Creation?

No, I am claiming that the initial energy just was there at beginning of time. It was uncreated for the reason I explained.

 

[STT]

All of the material that exists, all matter, energy and Time itself had a beginning about 13.7 billion years ago.

Yes and that’s it.

The question is what caused all of this to begin to exist from nothing.

You need to provide an argument that shows nothing existed and then something exist. This leads to logically absurdity since you are using “then” which this requires the existence of time prior to creation.

 

[Kei]

But that’s the thing, we kinda know the universe did not exist.
You are switching around definitions methinks.

 

[Gorgias]

No. Therefore it was simply there. You need to show that the act of creation is possible to take one step further.

Philosophically speaking you cannot show that the act of creation is logically possible.

Actually, from a philosophical standpoint, we’ve got the strongest argument that creation is logically necessary!

Here’s the thing: if we asked the question “is the physical universe a necessary being or a contingent one?”, we would have to answer ‘contingent’. After all, the universe could fail to exist and nothing illogical would proceed from its lack of existence. There would, simply, just fail to be any physical existence.

(Here’s where Aquinas comes in…) Therefore, since it is contingent, there can be a state in which it does not exist. Therefore, it must be created in order to come into existence.

The argument from contingency requires that the universe be created. Therefore, time – and your hypothetical ‘unstable energy’ – must themselves be created. QED.

No, it was not created at all. Just forget about the concept of creation unless you can show that it is logically possible.

I have. Many times. And I’ve just done it again. If you can’t assail the argument with logic, then you’ll have to drop your “there is no logical possibility for creation” mantra. Sorry.

I stress again. You need to show that the act of creation is logically possible to could conclude that.

This is that whole “time precludes creation” silliness, isn’t it? We’ve demonstrated to you that time does not exist until there’s a physical universe. The fact that you don’t want to accept it doesn’t mean that your argument holds – it just means that it’s leading you into further error.

So could you please elaborate and show that the act of creation is logically possible.

God exists. God creates the universe. There’s no logical impossibility there.

Where is that refute? You didn’t say anything in this regards.

In your thread where you make that claim.

Oh come one. You cannot give up in middle of discussion.

It’s not really a discussion. You ask for rebuttal, we provide it, and then you just keep on shouting “logical impossibility!” and stop up your ears.

 

[STT]

I don’t think you are able to discuss and argue that the amount of “stuff” is constant. It is just a belief, and not of your invention.

If you accept the fact that what we observe is related to reality then we have to accept that the stuff which is out there is constant. This is well accepted opinion between physicists. It is related to fact that causality can be expressed as spread of a wave function which satisfies Schrodinger equation for a close system. I don’t see any reason that causality does not respect the conservation of stuff? Do you have any argument? If not I don’t see a reason why we should not stick to observation.

That the “stuff” is subject to change has not been objected even by Parmenides, so, there is no need to argue anything about it.

I understand what you are saying here but what is the relation between the fact that Parmenides didn’t object the conservation of stuff and the subject of our discussion that the stuff could be constant.

As “unstable” just means “changing” and it is pretty clear -even for a toddler!- that there is change, it would be irrational if someone says that at some moment the “stuff” was stable and without cause it became “unstable”. If the “stuff” is unstable now, then it has always been unstable (though it is not necessary that it will be forever unstable). And, as I said above, nobody argues that the “stuff” is not changing (that is to say, “unstable”).

I don’t understand what you are trying to say in here.

Every word we use has its context within our spatiotemporal human reality. This way, when I say “always” I do not mean “eternally” (which is a negative word), but “at any time”. And this is what some materialists and agnostics claim: that the universe as a whole is unstable and has always existed. So, you are not saying anything new. It is only that those guys use the English language much better than you.

Great. So what is your argument against the conservation of stuff? Or do you just believe so?

 

[STT]

But that’s the thing, we kinda know the universe did not exist.

No we don’t know that the universe did not exist. That is just a belief and I am arguing that it could be otherwise.

You are switching around definitions methinks.

I think that I am not switching the definitions.

 

[Kei]

Define universe, please.

 

[STT]

Actually, from a philosophical standpoint, we’ve got the strongest argument that creation is logically necessary!

I don’t think that your argument is that strong.

Here’s the thing: if we asked the question “is the physical universe a necessary being or a contingent one?”, we would have to answer ‘contingent’. After all, the universe could fail to exist and nothing illogical would proceed from its lack of existence. There would, simply, just fail to be any physical existence.

Yes, the universe could have not existed but it exists. So what? You then conclude that there must be a creator that created the universe. I see a gap in your reasoning.

(Here’s where Aquinas comes in…) Therefore, since it is contingent, there can be a state in which it does not exist. Therefore, it must be created in order to come into existence.

That doesn’t really follow.

The argument from contingency requires that the universe be created. Therefore, time – and your hypothetical ‘unstable energy’ – must themselves be created. QED.

Actually what you are arguing is that if the universe didn’t existed then it must be created. You need to show three things to complete your proof. First, you need to show that the act of creation is possible. You need to show that the universe didn’t exist (what I am charging against). Things cannot pop out of nothingness. Then I bow down and accept your job as done!

I have. Many times. And I’ve just done it again. If you can’t assail the argument with logic, then you’ll have to drop your “there is no logical possibility for creation” mantra. Sorry.

No, you didn’t. You just talk about necessary of the act of creation if nothing has existed. Your argument however is incomplete as it is stated. Claiming that my argument is stronger than yours doesn’t really count. I can say that mine is stronger if we strive to the fact that simpler model is better.

This is that whole “time precludes creation” silliness, isn’t it? We’ve demonstrated to you that time does not exist until there’s a physical universe. The fact that you don’t want to accept it doesn’t mean that your argument holds – it just means that it’s leading you into further error.

What you said is completely meaningless. You believe that there was no time before creation and then use “then” to explain your idea. Isn’t “then” related to a temporal process? If not what fills between two state of affairs? You cannot say nothing.

 

[STT]

God exists. God creates the universe. There’s no logical impossibility there.

That is the conclusion. You need to show three things which was stated to complete your proof.

In your thread where you make that claim.

I don’t remember anything. Could you please refute my claim again?

It’s not really a discussion. You ask for rebuttal, we provide it, and then you just keep on shouting “logical impossibility!” and stop up your ears.

Yes, there was a discussion but you don’t pay any attention to it!

 

[STT]

Define universe, please.

What we observe as a whole. What has existed since the beginning of time.

 

[Kei]

What we observe as a whole?
I asume you mean even that which is too far to observe, but simply that which has existed since the beginning of time.

Ok, now, something reliant upon time cannot act outside it.

 

[STT]

What we observe as a whole?
I asume you mean even that which is too far to observe, but simply that which has existed since the beginning of time.

Yes.

Ok, now, something reliant upon time cannot act outside it.

What do you mean with “it”? I agree with your statement if by it you mean the universe.

 

[Kei]

Time, but the universe as well fits.