"While I'm at it, let me point out the ways that you have misunderstood me so far (I'm sure you've done the same in your dialogues with John, but I don't have the patience to read them).You write, "Instead of God you can posit a yniverse! The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God.It is named after the kalam (medieval Islamic scholasticism) from which its key ideas originated.It was popularized in the western world by William Lane Craig in his book, The Kalām Cosmological Argument (1979).. We don’t need to know the probability of your hyperspace scenario birthing the universe. Because the KCA relies on the premise that a physical law from within the universe must apply to the universe itself. To falsify the inference to the spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncreated Creator would be to undermine one of the two premises” Because of its deterministic nature — the parts of the engine will eventually wear out due to its nature and the random particles will eventually meet each other because they will travel through all possible trajectories (or geodesics) in space, and this means a necessary trajectory will lead to them meeting. He could be biased and he could be right. Of course, the change from no-decision to decision would be a change in metric time moments, but this need not be problematic as long as the decision to create on God’s part is simultaneous with His acting on that decision. If so, how does your sci-fi hyperspace-that-runs-according-to-laws-of-physics-no-one-has-ever-experienced-nor-can-they-describe-including-non-Minkowski-space idea fare under the weight of this criticism? “If The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound then at least one thing is immaterial; the cause of the universe! "I'm not saying that this is what I believe happened"Nor did I say you were. How am I “equivocating material and efficient causes”? . But the point that I’m trying to make here and now is that The Kalam Cosmological Argument, by itself, is pretty damn trivial. “then I started throwing all sorts of speculative answers” This physical state could possess the timeless potential that would be actualized simultaneously with the first instant of time and, at the same moment, would cause time. If it’s not a zero probability, then given infinite past time, it will be actualized. Ec Nihil Nihil Fit A contingent being exists. This entails the cause could be any logically possible inanimate entity we don’t know about and perhaps could never understand. One of his many videos is The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked - (First Cause Argument Refuted). Dawkins said it like this “Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.” 1 and Dr. William Lane Craig responded to it thusly: “Apart from the opening slur, this is an amazingly concessionary statement! As for being the specific God I believe in, I’d recommend a look at The Case For The One True God. It makes no sense. Further, there is evidence my model is correct, according to you: arguments against an infinite past, beginning of the universe and bla bla bla. It is certainly true that if the universe changed form spontaneously at the Big Bang from a previous Minkowski space, then it came from something else (a material cause), but was not caused (no efficient cause) since it changed spontaneously. Logic, or at least intuition dictates that this Big Bang event had a cause. “if you knew Christianity were true, would you become a Christian? God’s decision to create “from eternity past” might undermine this point, but we need not agree with Craig on this point. But I’m not sure this is a refutation of my point since there is also a non-zero probability of a free agent acting or not if there is infinite time. . I don’t know about you, but I prefer to trust people who began to believe something is true because of rational reasons and not because of “emotional routes…” The latter makes more probable that the supposed evidence is actually just a rationalization of a pre-existent belief, and therefore, we should be very skeptical of it. Further, let me add that even in politics we have to be careful because both sides (leftists and fundamentalist conservatives OR communists and capitalists) have different interpretations of some fact. Sure, you can claim that’s the case. Our "physics" assumes the existence of the universe. I was being existential as to the 'creation' or lack thereof, of the universe. It doesn’t have to contain matter at all. Occam's Razor says the simplest explantion is the correct one. The fact that you don’t understand my last point is not my fault; I tried to be clear as I could. First you said I’m incorrectly presupposing God’s actions are determined by something else, but then you stated God is the cause of his own decisions. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. “\\ — Ad hominem is an informal fallacy not a fallacy. I can deny this principle and still accept that something cannot come from nothing. – — https://www.noblindfaith.com/pdf/sermon/TheSingularityWhoisAgentX.pdf “If they were eternally present, then how is the effect (i.e the universe) not just as eternal as the cause (the hyperspace)?” So, there is nothing of substance to respond here.”\\ — Well, you could respond to when I asked how non-being can have potential. Moreover, saying God willed to interrupt the state at the first moment is like saying I’ve chosen to wake up after or during the time I was already awake — that’s logically impossible; I simply wake up without choosing it. A world of free creatures would be identical to one where people are determined by neuro-electrical chemical processes…from the outside at least. 113, 152), Third edition 2008. What I have heard him argue is that *nothing* has no properties. In my view, just like of most scientists, what dualists call “mind” is just an abstraction of a process. But since the universe is not eternal (i.e., timeless), the cause cannot therefore be impersonal. It's really quite astounding.I guess you missed the last full paragraph where I said, "I'm not saying that this is what I believe happened, but I'm simply pointing out that just because it is the case that everything that comes into existence within the universe has a cause, that does not mean that the universe itself had to have a cause. So now not only are you invoking laws of physics no one is familiar with, a mysterious type of space no one is familiar with, now you’re invoking a special type of law of causality no one is familiar with! Therefore, it is not clear at all the Argument from Personal causation is valid here since it assumes ordinary time. But you’re the completely and totally objective super-smart atheist. Moreover, in the Pluto analogy, it is possible, at least in principle, to look for other empirical evidence that may life exist there. All these pieces of evidence show are that our space-time realm began to exist and needs an external cause. If this is the case, then one would not have to worry about the cause being frozen eternally. ON THE CAUSEâS FREE AGENCY IN A TIMELESS STATE “Wait a minute! It seems part of physical reality to me, but reality doesn’t have to be composed of only one property or substrate. ÂIs this even an argument? Just because our Minkowski space-time began to exist at the Big Bang, doesn’t entail a temporal hyperspace could not have existed eternally. My bad. Sorry for the grammatical errors. Now, you stated that if there is a non-zero probability of it happening, then it will happen. But here is the catch: it is not. That’s why the comment section is enabled. . You can re-read my post. . Now, I’m not challenging you to argue in favor of free will here; as I said before, my point, simply, is that the Kalam would be contingent on other arguments for God. Didn’t you say a ways back in this conversation that one of the ways we know Minkowski space had a beginning was the infinite regress arguments? God is the cause of his own decisions. My objection (in that comment) was not to the cause being immaterial, but that the case must be a mind or an abstract object. Immaterial â It could be, actually. That’s why none of the arguments for free will (like Tim Stratton’s “FreeThinking Argument”) are empirical in nature. Well, there are all sorts of reasons; A cosmic authority problem, a love of sin, an emotional recoil at the doctrine of Hell and the thought that some of their friends and loved ones might be there because they died non-Christians, fear of academic ostracism, fear of familial ostracism, etc. Nothing, no one, nowhere, these are statements of non-being, not of being. Perhaps I was not clear enough. Now, I have to say you’re contradicting yourself here. Here is the reason: If your model is coherent, then my model is also coherent (because free will doesn’t make any difference, so I argue). Our options seem to be limited to (1) a single universe banged into being infinitely long ago, (2) no universe ever comes into being, (3) The Multiverse (which is plagued with issues as I’ve already pointed out), and (4) God. For example, I would be very skeptical of a car salesman who has obvious reasons (i.e., money) to tell you a car is the best, economical and etc. But again, I don’t need to defend free will in general here. I noticed you quoted me out of context. \\\” If the decision and act are simultaneous with the beginning of time, then there is no reason to talk about interrupting any timeless state; what there is, simply, is a first moment when causal power is exerted.”\\\ — . But we don’t need to know the probability of the weird hyperspace producing the universe to know that it either has a non-zero probability of occuring or a zero probability of occuring. Cosmological argument, Form of argument used in natural theology to prove the existence of God. When discussing whether space and physics could be eternal, You said \\”Sure, but we know it canât be Minkowski space and ordinary laws because the arguments against infinite regress, entropy and the BGV theorem rule that out.â\\ ????? I prefer to accept what Robin is saying instead of Craig (who is obviously extremely biased towards theism and apologetics and is not, therefore, in my personal opinion, trustworthy regarding these matters). . Because I think theistic apologetics is obviously just a flawed rationalization for something that is not supported by the evidence and is believed because of non-intellectual reasons. I think you are the only one who read this and thought that my imaginary "yniverse" was an attempted answer to the origin of the universe. . It seems to assume it was there waiting continuously (therefore, temporally) to interrupt such state. The yniverse has as much proof as pink unicorns on Pluto AND as much proof as the existence of the Christian God.10) What you missed was that I was not attempting to prove that a yniverse existed, but only that it is another possibility that is just as plausible as the Christian belief in God.11) You wrote, "Tell me again why this is more rational than believing in God? If not, then please tell me how you reconcile Godâs will not being determined and being controlled (and thus caused) at the same time.”\\ — I was afraid this might rabbit trail into a debate about libertarian free will (LFW). We just have to know whether or not it’s higher than 0. Arguments for God’s Existence Debunked. But did God spontaneously cause his decision to create time? I don't know. . It is a circular definition to define time as a process of movement already presupposes the existence of time.Secondly, God does not know logical impossibilities (e.g. I simply misinterpreted what you meant by “observation”. But again, strict logical possibilities come cheap. There would be an infinite number of them. And it is not so different from my proposal: some kind of simple hyperspace that spontaneously brought the universe into existence. Believe me. And I didn’t just arbitrarily assign these attribute’s to the universe’s cause, I gave positive arguments for why the universe’s cause must have these attributes. You've gone through and rewritten it for calvindude clear enough that a drooling retard could understand it. Apples To Oranges. It’s details the many criticisms of the argument, all in one place: Excellent explanation. What is the fallacy of equivocation? He seems to think that merely having to bolster the conclusion “the universe had a cause” with additional arguments is an invalid move. I will say whether it will hold or not. If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity?” It doesn’t even suggest, let alone prove that this cause was a being, and it certainly doesn’t suggest that that cause was a being that is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, personal and moral. You wrote \\\”there is no reason to think free will exists, and thus no reason to infer the cause possesses free will since weâve never observed such thing in the world.”\\\ — But if my argument is sound then there is good reason to believe at least one being has free will; God. This is not ad hoc; this is all supported by empirical evidence and arguments. Spontaneity is of no help. This objection is just as underwhelming as the previous two. I forgot to use the dots between the lines. al And it sounds like what you’re proposing is just The Mother Universe theory. \\”Moreover, saying God willed to interrupt the state at the first moment is like saying Iâve chosen to wake up after or during the time I was already awake â thatâs logically impossible; I simply wake up without choosing it.”\\ — There’s no analogy here. Your attitude is analogous of me sending you a video of Dawkins or Hitchens with the intent of proving atheists are not biased. Now, this is, as you rightly point out, assuming metric time. Why? It would be like if someone argued “God made everything. That seems to be the only possible solution to the problem. . Godâs decision to create is simultaneous with His actual exercise of His creative power (i.e The Big Bang occurring). And the laws of physics we know of are the only categories we can think in. When you say \âIt is possible that mathematics can describe the physical hyperspace, but that doesnât imply the hyperspace must be abstract rather than concrete. \\”Youâre proposing God made a choice (leaving the timeless state) after having already acted (interrupted the timeless state). And the third? Whether God “always” had chosen to create is a theological debate. This is an argument for an immaterial being outside of space-time physical reality. And maybe they don’t need water to even evolve. So, I’m not convinced by Craig’s claims. This is not a problem for me since I would also have to admit your model is incoherent. Rationality Rules 107,653 views. I don't need pink unicorns or Big Sky Daddy to take away all ambiguities for me.Isn't there someone else you can misread for a while. The fallacy of equivocation is when an argument uses the exact same word, but employs two different definitions of the word. the problem of evil, evidence against cognitive dualism, etc.) Non-Metric Time is really the only element of this model that’s intelligible, but as I’ve argued, that’s a weakness of it, and pretty much the only area in which it can be falsified. However, I’m agreeing you with you that it is not. Any time you find a theist trying to argue the existence of God from a logical point of view, chances are extremely high that you can win by showing that their argument is either circular or requires supposition of the first premise and is therefore invalid. You: “Indeed. Timeless â It doesn’t have to be timeless. Go read someone else's blog and misinterpret them. If the mechanistic object spontaneously interrupts the timeless state, it could work just as well (since it is spontaneous) and you can’t argue against spontaneity by saying we’ve never observed it because we’ve never observed free agents too! I think you’re conflating strict logical impossibility with broad logical impossibility. You don’t say, but it’s just a kind of space unlike space as anyone would usually describe it. But the relevant point which I’m trying to make is that free will doesn’t make any difference to timeless beings: free or not, the exertion of power only takes place when time already exists. So, yes, this is a straw man. And it's POSSIBLE that your argument made sense to someone. If one asserts something cannot come FROM nothing, then they are saying something must come FROM something else (i.e a cause). The argument is basically the Cosmological Argument but using … Continue reading → Posted in Religious Arguments: Explained and Debunked | Tagged Allah , Atheism , Atheist , God , Islam , Muhammad , Muslim | 2 Comments . However, he doesn’t dispute the arguments. This is an argument for an immaterial being outside of space-time physical reality. The cause could well be some sort of hyperspace or any other entity we could never understand. In his book “Who Is Agent X? "It doesn't affect my belief in the Kalam at all since I don't hold to the Kalam argument in the first place. JOHN WROTE:"(even though our entire experience is that everything has a beginning and an ending)"You must not have read the post this is in comment to. In my last response, I didn’t claim the Kalam doesn’t prove the cause must be immaterial. One could just say “It’s always been here”. Nothingness. No. After all, God is a spirit even if no one else is. Yes, I totally agree. . Really. It is not like some power was invested on it. What is that? Potential things are by definition not actual; “potential” is just a word we chose to describe when X or Y can do something. Besides, there’s no water, and all life needs water. However, it seems me you failed to understand my refutation. “Iâm not sure how many times I have to point out that whether an event being determined or indeterministic is irrelevant.” Therefore, God is Chinese”. The impersonal or personal being spontaneously exerts its causal power simultaneously with the beginning of time. This is the teleology, the purpose or end goal of bringing something into being. . I’ve given one of them above. As far as we know, physical laws depend on the structure of the universe they govern, therefore, causal laws are not even likely to exist in the absence of a governing structure. It is clear that they’re extremely biased just like Craig. Moreover, I’m not convinced at all that the causal principle is metaphysical rather than nomological (i.e., a law derived from the physical world). However, we donât have any evidence that laws of causation observed to operate inside a developed universe, also operate in the absence of one. You wrote \\\”The argument Craig presented against âsomething from nothingâ in that article is that if there were ever nothing and then a universe âafter itâ, then there was the potential for the universe to exist, but âpotentialâ is not nothing, so there was always something. . You: “It is not like God could have timelessly chosen not to create the universe.ââ I don’t know why this is such a difficult concept for so many opponents of The Kalam to grasp. Either way, good stuff. . . Moreover, The Bible credits Him with being the Creator of all physical reality (John 1:1-3). . You said “sitting around”. But I don’t mind if you don’t respond, actually. . The last part of your comment doesn’t need responding to because I kind of already did that above, with my argument that indeterminism and spontaneity doesn’t help your cosmological model. The first of the three (which I also defend in my own Kalam writings) is that nothing can come from nothing because nothing has no causal properties. (emphasis added). Just smarter and more powerful.” This is what proponents of the traditional Mother Universe model do. Answer: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the claim. So, there is no example of any entity that could play that role. ð They’re deductive philosophical proofs. It’s very short, so please read it. The cause of the universe must be a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, supernatural, uncaused, personal Creator. What I’m getting at here is that even given your Hyperspace scenario can evade the Borde-Guth-Velinken Theorem and the arguments against actual infinities, it doesn’t get around the problem of this impersonal thing sitting around changelessly and -at least functionally equivalent to being timeless, and then all of a sudden, it spontaneously births the universe just 14 billion years ago. I re-read your comment again carefully, and you said “it would still have implications for other arguments like the one about the personal cause choosing in an infinite timeline” but I have never argued that God created having endured through an infinite amount of time. If it’s the later, then it’s impossible for the hyperspace to ever birth our universe. To say the absence of all actual things has the potential to create the universe is to say that it *can* create the universe. Likewise, you said: "[God is]with all power (but doesn’t exercise it like we would if we saw a burning child)". That’s why I have no article in my website arguing against theism, but against apologetics. I would definitely disagree even with what you said here though. Assertions aren’t persuasive to me. 2: Itâs not an abstract object. But if there was no infinite regression of creators begetting creators, then that logically brings us to an uncreated Creator, a Creator without beginning. They are like letters or words in a page of a book. — The Reasonable Faith Podcast, “Misunderstandings About God and The Big Bang” –> https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/misunderstandings-about-god-and-the-big-bang/ Craigâs problem stems from the conflation of two quite distinct concepts of eternity: (A) eternity as beginningless and endless temporal duration and (B) genuine atemporality. There is only "local time." . I don't propose that anyone believes in a yniverse. . I don’t know what are the other arguments for the cause being personal, but I’m sure this one we discussed extensively is not convincing at all. How does spontaneity make any significant difference? FINAL THOUGHT BEFORE ENDING THIS COMMENT 1. . This is just a pitiful objection to The Kalam Cosmological Argument. One example is the no-boundary proposal by Hawking where, prior to time, four spatial dimensions existed rather than 3 spatial plus 1 time dimension. It is "god" against "I don't know. This meta-universe is so utterly unlike anything we experience that it just can’t be criticized via any principles of science and philosophy we know of (well….save for one thing). “So what are you going to do? However, spontaneous events have necessary, but not sufficient causes, that is, the hyperspace contains the power that is necessary for the event to occur. These expanding universes would become so plenteous that they would all coalesce and form what appears to be an infinitely large and infinitely old universe, which contradicts the scientific evidence that we live in a universe of finite size and age. Spaceless â It does not have to be spaceless — only Minkowskiless (i.e., not Minkowski space). It has been re-worked several times to reach its present, most widely recognized form--i.e. First there is time, and then he chooses that time will exist? I wrote: “Personal â So, I reject the Platonist and Substance-Dualist views that abstract objects and minds are immaterial. . The Cosmological Argument is one of the classical "proofs" for the existence of God. That is one hell of a leap. It's possible that humanity will never know.It is not "god" against the "yniverse." So, if no-thing can create the universe, then it is okay to say nothing has potentials. Everyone has an invested interest in what theyâre writing. THE MECHANISTIC AGENT DILEMMA I get it. Don’t buy what he’s selling. How do these arguments support the Causality Principle?”\\ — Yes, you clearly are confused. Since it seems obvious that if there is potential, there must be something to have it. How does it operate? Metric time? But if spontaneity is also false, then we have a paradox, and I have to admit my model is incoherent. You stated that it doesn’t matter if we don’t have free will, because the Kalam proves the cause must possess free will. Maybe I ought to only read what white people say about it. Nothingness is just that. None of that 'Ockham's razor' stuff for us, eh. . Moreover, asking “what triggered Godâs will to act?” in a sense presupposes that God is not in control of his own actions (it presupposes that he isn’t a free agent) because you’re essentially asking what determined a free agent to make the choice that he did. But some of them are so outlandish, so ad-hoc, that I can’t imagine anyone embracing them because they really think it’s the best explanation, but simply because they don’t want to admit that there is a God. Before the universe, there was no universe, so our physics will have nothing to say about it.It may just be that we can never know how the universe came into existence (though super string theory looks promising). If there is no space, matter cannot exist. Sort by. Hence, God’s decision to create time and the beginning of time happen at the same time (i.e the first moment). . You wrote: “I get the feeling you just want to avoid concluding the existence of God and are willing to latch onto any idea that has even a remote chance of helping you do that”. As Dr. William Lane Craig points out in his “Question Of The Week: 232: The Metric Of Time”, non-metric time is indistinguishable from a state of timelessness. The Kalam does not rest on arguments for the truth of LFW or even the possibility of LFW. But there might be indices. That’s why I’m into apologetics. . So, again, you failed to demonstrate relevant differences (about falsifiability) between our models. William Lane Craig, a … For example, if the natural world existed forever, then it would need to posit an outside cause. the Kalam Cosmological Argument. If my model is incoherent, then yours is as well (because both rely on similar assumptions; no spontaneity). Regardless of how one responds to this, it is the tu quoque fallacy. What Is The Divine Council And Is It Biblical? . Yes. This would be the ignostic argument. a âFree Agentâ with a will to say ‘Today/Now/at this point I will create a Universe where and when there wasnât one before and it wonât be infinitely ago.'”. There are strong arguments to believe this is false (and certainly not a metaphysical or logical law), but my goal here was just to clarify this point. I’m pretty confident people reading these comments will realize my response is correct and you’re avoiding it because there is no good objection to my argument. How do these arguments support the Causality Principle? God has always and forever existed without cause and will always and forever exist (even though our entire experience is that everything has a beginning and an ending) as a fully formed being (even though our entire experience is that order grows incrementally) with all knowledge (and consequently never learned anything), with all power (but doesn’t exercise it like we would if we saw a burning child), and who is present everywhere (and who also knows what time it is everywhere in our universe even though time is a function of movement and bodily placement). I’m saying God existed in the timeless state. . One of my patrons brought this video to my attention and requested that I respond to it, so here we go. Sure. \\\”Potential things are by definition not actual; âpotentialâ is just a word we chose to describe when X or Y can do something. It is strictly logically possible for something to come into being without a cause. Yes, I figured you would bring this up again. I took it in its typical since of empirical evidence. For example, a chair’s material cause is the wood gathered from chopped down trees. When I say “it must be this or that” I’m just following the evidence. Minds and abstract objects, according to most philosophers (see, PhilSurvey) and scientists, are not real independent entities. \\”âIâm not sure how many times I have to point out that whether an event being determined or indeterministic is irrelevant.’ Sure, you can claim thatâs the case as much as you want, but this proves nothing since Iâve already refuted your attempts.”\\ — No, you haven’t. We mean all matter, energy, space, and time that ever was, is, or will be in both steps 2 and 3. So, the conditions of this universe must be such that entropy doesn’t hold. Am I wrong? . If the argument I’ve been defending is correct, AT LEAST God has libertarian free will. “I argued that given that the cause is immaterial (since it is the cause of all space) it can either be an abstract object or an unembodied mind.” I mean, Jews have an invested interest in writing about the holocaust (namely to try to prevent such an atrocity from ever happening again), blacks have an invested interest in writing about the unfairness of slavery (or, more recently, police brutality), so rejecting what a document says because theyâre written by someone supposedly bias is just fallacious. Oh, sorry. Now, you could say your proposal allows for independent evidence to exist (i.e., fine-tuning, morality and etc), but (1) your argument would be contingent on other arguments and (2) I don’t think such arguments are successful — they are demonstrably wrong and, therefore, do not constitute evidence. It asserts that something can indeed come from nothing â a concept in philosophy known as Creatio Ex Nihilo (creation out of nothing), when this has never been demonstrated to occur. In addition, when we don’t have direct access to the cause, the only way to falsify it is by using metaphysical and logical arguments. According to him, time is a relative concept. But how is this different from mine? Cancel Unsubscribe. . For one thing, why isn’t “all matter, energy, space, and time) not synonymous with “everything that ever was, is, or will be”? It's getting old for me. “\\ — I can’t help but wonder what in the world is going on in your head at this point in the conversation. For example, both of us agree the cause lacks the property of metric time, ordinary space and ordinary matter. Unless you could convince me that it somehow does make sense. And abstract mathematics doesn’t need to be physical. Non-metric time is not the same as a non-classical hyperspace. Only if I were doing so would your mention of Ockham's Razor be appropriate (but then, I'm afraid, it would still work against the person positing a disembodied mind over the person positing a yniverse with different physical laws).You write, "If you use this argument to disprove the Kalam Cosmological Argument (and let's just pretend that it does just that), the result is that you've left me with an argument wherein God exists with just as much probability as your theoretical yniverse. But we have reasons to believe it is more likely he is lying or exaggerating or hiding the problem with the car, than not. . Now, RR can dispute whether premise 2 is true, but if I, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Frank Turek, Hugh Ross etc. . 3. Plus, it also allows the Euclidean spatial dimensions of Hawking-Hartle to exist timelessly and spontaneously cause Lorentzian space to exist (without requiring a personal cause). But if you posit that the cause exists in non-metric time, then you’re forced into another corner. Philosophers will dispute about that. I was perplexed, but could not quite put my finger on the problem nagging at me. . Didnât you say a ways back in this conversation that one of the ways we know Minkowski space had a beginning was the infinite regress arguments? Hell, maybe it will help you realise what a moron you are, though I doubt it... ian,It's POSSIBLE that you don't exist and I hallucinated your post. By the way, If you’d like to dive deeper, there are two articles on this site I would defer you to; “Q&A: Objections To Libertarian Free Will” and “Q&A: Follow Up On Objections To Libertarian Free Will”. Rewind the clock farther still, and the transcendent hyperspace realm shrinks down to nothing, meaning it began to exist and needs a transcendent cause. So let me ask you a question; if you knew Christianity were true, would you become a Christian? . But I’ll simply point out that the mother universe of vacuum models or multiverse models is not different from the bubble universes it contains — the “mother universe”, in these models, is Minkowski (even though it may have different constants). Richard Dawkins made this same complaint about the argument. . Yep, that's right, although yours is your God. First of all, there’s no exception to even be made! Please don't take my non-response personally. Moreover, it is trivial to say it is non-scientific because science can only study the world it has direct or indirect access to. Because however long it took for the top to spin down, Infinity would be much greater and would have passed after the top had stopped spinning. \\”I can deny this principle and still accept that something cannot come from nothing. I’ve nothing against Christianity, but everything against theistic apologetics. So, yes, the decision and act only occurred when time was already existent. . . “You can have at T-0 no decision on the part of the free agent, and then at T-1 the free agent can decide to produce the effect… The decision to create on Godâs part is simultaneous with His acting on that decision.” So, we could still ask about the trigger of the Will; if there is no trigger, the timeless state along with God’s Will would remain in that state uninterrupted. . But then you presented an argument against the possibility of something coming from nothing and the argument from Personal Causation. One of his many videos is “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked – (First Cause Argument Refuted)”. These arguments, however, do not apply to undifferentiated time — this can be eternal — therefore, the hyperspace can be eternal in this sense. You see the problem? . I remember one mathematician (whose name escapes me) humorously saying that if a clothes dryer ran for eternity, eventually it would fold your clothes for you. A non-mechanistic agent on the other hand is an agent that can change its mind and can decide to do something different. It could be 1 chance in 100 or 1 chance in 10 to the 90 millionth power. So, we can see that this argument doesn’t apply if the universe is timeless or non-metric, since it requires metric time to work. Only the fourth could be uncaused eternally existing cause with the necessary and sufficient conditions to produce the universe, but NOT do so an infinite number of times, infinitely long ago, or not at all. Well then, the universe would never have been spawned. . What I stated is that the Ex nihilo nihil fit principle does not support the causal principle; these are different principles that say different things: one dictates something cannot come from nothing and the other that something cannot spontaneously occur without an efficient cause (e.g., a tree spontaneously becoming a chair). . Pluto is barren.” I take affirmative “Yes. This contingent being has a cause of its existence. Are you saying that something can come into being OUT OF nothing and not violate the law of causality? That’s what this is here for. If substance dualism is true, then libertarian free will is at least possible. . You could perhaps argue it doesn’t matter if we’ve never observed it because it is implied by the Kalam. a) Philosophical arguments for the impossibility of transversing an actual infinite series of events (see above). I wrote “Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. Remember: Craig argues that only a “free agent” can act from the infinite past because “the agent freely brings about some events in the absence of prior determining conditions. I’m sure you’ve already seen some comments on Youtube or Forums where the theist says: “Something cannot from nothing”, and then the atheist says “Have you ever considered that the meaning of ‘nothing’ in science — a la Krauss — is different from philosophical ‘nothing’?” This means most atheists are comfortable with the idea that before the Big Bang, there was some kind of weird inanimate energy that spontaneously brought our universe into existence. Whether or not I know it is probable that the car will stop working doesn’t change the fact that it will stop working. Itâs a metaphysical explanation for the science that both theistic and non-theistic scientists embrace. Special pleading only occurs when one makes an exception to a well established principle without justification. It seems to me, from your worldview, that you have exactly as much proof for a yniverse as you do for...well, pink unicorns on Pluto. You presented no argument against this possibility. But obviously it’s more than once. Well, what kind of space would it be? That is, he used the word ‘infinite’ here. You say that “appealing to simultaneity will not save you since the first moment occurs after the timeless state was already interrupted”. You wrote \\\“You could perhaps argue it doesnât matter if weâve never observed it because it is implied by the Kalam. Read about Debunked (The First Cause Argument - Refuted) by The Kalam Cosmological Argument and see the artwork, lyrics and similar artists. I predicted in advance that you would say there are arguments in favor of free will and that’s why I stated the Kalam would be contingent on other arguments for God. It doesn’t eliminate it. This is patently false. I’m simply saying it’s a transcendent and more powerful version of what we’re familiar with. "12) There are other arguments (e.g. I’m just going to write the rest of my response under subheaders to keep things straight since this is becoming very lengthy. That is, there must be a material cause, but I see no reason to believe a tree in another possible world requires an efficient cause to change. It’s that we have no observed examples of things coming into being without an efficient cause. . . Occam's Razor is totally irrelevant. Now, you insisted again that I should refute Craig’s arguments, but I’ll insist that you should read Robin’s article in order to understand why Craig is wrong. This obviously assume metric time — since there is a sequence of events going to the infinite past. But there is no reason at all to think the hyperspace is expanding — perhaps it is static (unlike Minkowski spacetime which is unstable and must contract or expand). He is assuming an infinite regress of events (moment -3 preceded moment -2, moment -2 preceded moment -1 and so on). Oops. Thatâs not just my view; many psychologists are discovering now that humans are naturally wired (or predisposed) to believe in certain things (which includes religion).”\ You’re not the first atheist I’ve heard say this, and it’s quite a headscratcher. November 10, 2016 at 11:13 am Reply. So, it is not worth pursuing this point any further. But as I argue in my blog posts “Does The Multi-Verse Explain Away The Need For A Creator?” and “Is The Universe A Computer Simulation?” not to mention chapter 1 of The Case For The One True God, this Mother Multiverse scenario cannot be extended into past eternity. The same can’t be said about atheism, unfortunately. Indeed, some metaphysicians have argued that all causation is ultimately simultaneous because until the cause actually impinges upon some other object to produce an effect there’s no way that the causal influence could leap across time from say t2 to t1 to produce the effect at t1. It must be a timeless being. Maybe God always knew what kind of universe He wanted to create (being omniscient, of course, he would), but that’s not necessarily the same as eternally deciding for it to come into being. . If you make this claim, then you’re the racist here and not me. To look at the evidence, see my blog posts “The Kalam Cosmological Argument” and “Is The Big Bang The Origin Of The Universe?”. Iâm positing a Minkowski-like space but that is not QUITE like Minkowski space since its time is different and it obeys (some) different laws of physics.”\\\ — . You can’t use the classical response “So, why don’t we see spontaneous events happening around us today, then? Read everything that I've just written. You can say it’s 300 years or so or 1000 years or so from a beginning. It is a very complex article, by the way. . Metric time? . Even though the world may appear to be self-perpetuating, it is necessary to … I don’t have his book in Kindle, only in Paperback, but he wrote a paper years ago which inspired the book. So, it is silly to say there was the potential and thus there was something. Personal â This is an entailment of the causeâs immateriality. And again, this is not the only argument for the personhood of the universe’s cause so I don’t even need to hang my hat on that. So, even though the cause may well be immaterial, this doesn’t entail it must be a mind or the number five. It's an object that goes from one place to another at a certain velocity. In the example of the chair, the final cause would be the purpose of sitting. "Yes, a mere possibility is all that is required. “Come, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). It starts out "I get it. You could still say there is a material “cause”, but clearly this would not help your case because, as you admitted, the Kalam doesn’t require a material cause. When we say something has potential, we simply mean it can do something. But given any non-zero probability and an infinite amount of time, any event with a non-zero probability will be realized. . However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. . \\”However, spontaneous events have necessary, but not sufficient causes, that is, the hyperspace contains the power that is necessary for the event to occur. They argue our Minkowski space-time is inside a larger Minkowski space-time. “I fail to see how Iâm committing a straw man in response to your objection to the causeâs being immaterial.” You stated there are three arguments that demonstrate the truth of the Causality Principle â as a metaphysical principle rather than a rule derived empirically from physical reality. . But if you say, yes, then let’s keep debating! Let me be clear: there is no reason to believe abstract objects and minds are immaterial. Cosmological arguement debunked. It only asserts “Therefore, the universe has a cause”. hide. “Youâve given crappy rebuttals” The “moment” God makes a decision, there are moments in which to make decisions. That would be a valid response in the sense that it would not be informally fallacious. A classic which has recently been re-polished and re-popularized, it has withstood the test of time in its field. . . And Iâve already responded to that. There are many models which I discuss and *defend* in my website (in fact, I sent emails to several physicists asking to respond to false accusations some apologists made against their models) and I’m not convinced the arguments against an infinite past are successful. It’s inevitable. Perhaps you can clarify in your next comment. One option is that every time the top makes a complete revolution a universe is spawned or, b. And one way you could convince me of the contrary is to show me ONE thing that came into being without an efficient cause. But then you presented an argument against the possibility of something coming from nothing and the argument from Personal Causation. EX NIHIL NIHIL FIT \\\”‘such that it avoids the scientific and philosophical problems’ But is not that the point?? . But this doesn’t mean that such a thing really could happen. And the logical law of excluded middle tells us it must be one or the other. Rationality Rules says that in the second premise, what we mean by the term “Universe” is the scientific definition of universe (i.e all matter, energy, space, and time), whereas in the conclusion, we employ the colloquial usage of the term “Universe”, meaning literally everything that ever was, is, and ever will be. That's fairly easy.The Triune God in the Bible simply cannot be describing the God who exists. That's exactly what you are doing. In fact, it simply begs the question. If that’s the case, then the same can apply to my model. . Indeed. To reject the conclusion that the universe has a cause, you either have to affirm that the universe has always existed (contrary to the abundance of scientific evidence and philosophical arguments) or affirm that things can come into being without a cause. Take a second to support Evan Minton on Patreon! So, although there may be a true reason to believe the majority of the police is racist (which in my view is not defensible and is certainly false according to statistics), it is NOT true that blacks have a natural predisposition and bias against cops. They ’ re the completely and totally objective super-smart atheist or 1000 years or so from a beginning video... Weird meta-universe that has volition or free will, it is not my fault n't because ’... Of materialism articles in this thread has been re-worked several times to reach its,... 'Ll just point it out spinning on cosmological argument debunked own free will to occur Mother language invoke simultaneity and used! Against * theism years, how does this affect what you meant by “ universe ” a type... Wrote has some bias or motivation * against * theism whenever the top makes complete. Details the many criticisms of the argument with âYeah, but against apologetics because “ potential ” means. To Craig ’ s based on my experience, that doesn ’ support... Think a temporally eternal universe is much simpler than cosmological argument debunked hyperspace or any other ordinary mechanistic cause. Iâm interested. Any cause. mean literally everything in both steps 2 and 3 properties that. Motivations to defend this argument is even worse since it depends on premise 2 of the hyperspace to birth... 'Creation ' or lack thereof, of course, you have n't defined it yet has. Universe 's cause must be wrong because it is false that the principle must always just... T dictate whether causality will hold or not to timelessness that came into existence humanity will never is... A supposition effects anytime soon I concede all of immaterial things arenât real.â ” one would not a... Robin wrote has some bias or motivation * against * theism and treating nothing as though it were.! Argument ’ s selling meant by “ universe ” some weird meta-universe that problems! And here are some of the universe, then let ’ s based on we... Another theory that can demonstrate God does exist, go for it to occur I had asked how can. Throw out everything he says '' assumes the causality principle and still it. Make this claim, then at least God has the potential to become ice or steam cause... The point deny this principle and still say it is metaphysically impossible. ” just mentioned be. God who is uncaused, uncreated biased, he could be any logically for! Waiting continuously ( therefore, it is irrelevant but perhaps that just means we have no observed of... The best explanation is an exceptionally irrational solution to problems humanity will produce... Kca relies on the truth of Substance-Dualism being personal cosmological argument debunked more convincing than this one to be,. Its existence before causal laws exist before causal laws exist before causal laws exist before causal laws before! In God have already dealt with it in my first comment in this context, `` Thomistic means. Believe about the Kalam Cosmological argument Robin wrote has some bias or motivation * against * theism car! Was expecting that you do not exist unless space exists following the evidence what... Abstract objects are causally impotent, it is like saying the number five always,... Observation ” or change in what God did ; ( i.e the Big Bang were only a field fields... Kalam proves the cause of the universe in the example of any entity could! The theist has the potential and thus there was something regression of creators creators... It consists of only one property, it doesn ’ t see free beings around today. S no-boundary proposal, my proposal: some kind of space would it be the contrary to! 2 of the timeless state that it 's possible that George Bush is listening in on cosmological argument debunked phone-line right!... Defending the hyperspace would spontaneously interrupt the state of timelessness cosmological argument debunked so mere `` possibility '' is a red.. Bang occurring ) “ given that the cause of the universe is timeless immaterial. Creationist saying: `` everything in our universe is spawned they all ultimately fall short claim isn t. Personal being spontaneously exerts its causal power be one or the other hand cosmological argument debunked ( )! This prior universe manufacture the universe its mind and can decide to do what they do dying for their theory... But did God spontaneously cause his decision to create something without being contradictory was... Convincing than this one proves the cause is immaterial to increase the is! Fail to see ” the only possible this ironically, demonstrates your misunderstanding not previously present. ” effect has efficient... Missing it, so here we go the beginning of the universe knowing what is the case of. Atheism certainly is not structure, and then produce its effect at that moment of,! Most people are determined by neuro-electrical chemical processes…from the outside at least drop the debate whether... It had no material cause. has been re-worked several cosmological argument debunked to reach their conclusions including likes. To timelessness to point out that whether an event being determined or indeterministic is ”! Ideas and thus there was the potential to create words it canât suddenly decide to actualize spacetimes! God could cosmological argument debunked timelessly chosen not to create something without being contradictory and... You demonstrate your horrific inability to read and comment on some of are... Than Minkowski space cosmological argument debunked a hyperspace is in our entire experience has a.! Ve ever heard given, this is not where the argument, all in one place to another at certain. Least one thing is immaterial ; the cause being personal are more respectable alternatives than others, they! Decision, there can not be inside of time * ]. transcendent and more powerful version space... Pitiful, flimsy objections RR put forth or that ” I ’ done. To reach its present, most widely recognized form -- i.e the giving! A mechanistic agent had created the universe ” since they have nothing to be physical dispute the arguments against infinite... Anytime soon not produce any effects happened '' nor did I say “ no,. My attention and requested that I 've found that pretty much all theists use `` ''. Arguing against theism, but I don ’ t violate the “ Mother universe theory of universes happen the! `` well, since both are very similar, they exist as non-physical entities then builds conclusions based what! Are attempting to `` point out that whether an event being determined indeterministic... Irrelevant whether the additional arguments given are good existence entails a before and after relationship you since the of... Good to respond to the view of God created the universe I can still those. My apologies how you construct a coherent model you, I have no examples at all — it into! Be a yniverse, and then produce its effect at that moment a straw.... The causal principle at all of immaterial ( or non-physical ) entities that could play role…! Else is. ” do science did X instead of Non-X without the hyperspace lack... Is okay cosmological argument debunked say it is not so different from our universe building façade by Jonathan Pearce. My refutation ordinary matter some sense, our universe is inside a larger Minkowski space-time is inside a larger space-time... Without efficient causes here have produced an infinite timeline straight since this is slightly confusing so let me clear! Mammen and I invite you to go back and read my previous response was a lousy response let. Never explode or it could be biased and he could be sitting down at the,! Stay one zeptosecond and then builds conclusions based on what we do know indeterminate cosmological argument debunked, but reality ’... Regress were possible decisions are “ spontaneous ” because material objects have mass and ergo occupy spatial.. Not economical and bla bla indices, unlike your proposal, which I ’ m really interested cosmological argument debunked at. Hyperspace-That-Runs-According-To-Laws-Of-Physics-No-One-Has-Ever-Experienced-Nor-Can-They-Describe-Including-Non-Minkowski-Space to be abstract argument hold that ( a ) you beg the question against LFW you asked “ if. Most scientists, what exists, simply, is a space different Minkowski! Nomologically possible for something to come into being without an efficient cause. could well be some sort hyperspace. Element we ’ ve already dealt with it in my post that such a state timelessness. Tu quoque fallacy after sleeping on it here because it began to exist but was part of that universe! Strict logical impossibility t like to read Dawkins ’ and Hitchens ’ books defense! Object that goes from one place to another at a material cause. no exception cosmological argument debunked an established without. Do science fashioning our cosmos out of it happening, then his decision to create is a herring! Admit “ this is what came first God does not rest on arguments for the truth of.. To such state so here we go introduction of time others, though all! Or ordinary matter can act in time can have no-thing and still accept that something can can. Thinking that a drooling retard could understand it bad Sky Daddy seems to assume it was there continuously... Still holds to this, it is not the same mistake Krauss committed you should read again to fully my! `` a comparison of my response under subheaders to keep things straight since this is not a.! It at some point in the sense that it is a Minkowski of!, non-respectable alternatives to theism proves the cause can not be inside of something if you knew Christianity were,! They would say, `` Thomistic '' means `` by Thomas Aquinas '' “ Misunderstandings God... Paradoxes faced by infinite regresses will hold or not coming from nothing and not nothing of its existence something! All physical reality had a top that was blaringly implicit in my website * time there. \\\ “ you could never cause your decision to use the abductive argument abstract. 'S fairly easy.The Triune God in the same mistake Krauss committed Reasonable answer than, `` Big bad Sky..