In order to explain it, you must refer to something intrinsically different
We are saying that it’s possible that the multi-verse is intrinsically different. That intrinsically different does not necessarily mean a “mind”. It could be some outlandish “physical” law. We don’t know. If you claim you do, expect to be laughed at.
But it’s not, according to the theory. It’s just the summation of all parallel universes (which makes no sense, since there is only one universe, by definition). They may have different properties but they are not intrinsically different. But this also depends on how we define universe.
This is what I claim:
Also, this position solves the problem of induction and Cartesian doubt. Not that this will convince anyone…
You do not know, nor have any evidence, that at one point the multi-verse (or universe depending on how you define it) did not exist. It could have the same exact property you are proposing god has in being timeless.
So I say that B caused C (the universe) and you’re saying that B was actually caused by A (A>B>C). In that case, A (rather than B) would be God. If you’re saying that B was caused by A which was caused by something else, so and so forth, then you’re denying point (3), and the argument is illogical.
This will be my last response.
Unless you think that God is nothing then your point 4, that you said you held to be true, will remain an issue for you.
That’s a good point. I should have said “contingent things.” But that begs a question that I have already dealt with.
muslims believe in the muliverse model and God, Am I right in assuming that you mean to imply that the multiverse model would disprove God?
The Quran states:
So [Allah] decreed them as seven heavens (one above the other) in two days and revealed to each heaven its orders. And We [Allah] adorned the lowest heaven with lights, and protection. Such is the decree of the Exalted; the Knowledgeable.
Allah is the one who created seven superimposed Heavens. You do not see variations in the formations of the Compassionate, so redirect your sight, do you see any creation (the arabic word Futtur means creation from nothing)? Then redirect your sight again (refers to light changing direction), your vision returns to you in defeat and regret.
Am I right in assuming that you mean to imply that the multiverse model would disprove God?
No, it simply shows that anybody who claims that the singularity or the fact that this universe has a beginning, is a logical proof of god is talking out their ass. We are not the ones claiming logical proof.
Sam,
Blah, blah, blah. This debate is over. Esuric and I seem to be far more educated in this area than anyone else. It’s quite embarassing actually that you were using the multiverse escape before you even knew what it was.
Ever single thing you’ve brought up has been dealt with ad nauseum. Go back and re-read my posts.
There is no ‘outlandish’ physical law that just exists necessarily. All physical laws are based off of the initial conditions and came into being.
Being does not come from non-being uncaused, especially without prior matter. Laws do not cause anything.
Your argumentation is poor, and your logic is virtually non-existent. I’m embarassed for you. Claiming things about the universe being timeless above all things. That doesn’t even make a lick of sense. You can’t just skim over all the evidence I’ve posted and then say that there is no evidence, that God is at the same level of the multiverse. No one who can read would say that.
Hot tip #1: Buy some reading glasses.
Hot tip #2: Study logic and philosophy.
I’ve tried to keep cool over these last few pages, but this is too much. You’re laughing at things you have zero knowledge of.
Nirgraham,
The argument is not that everything that exists has a cause, but that everything that begins to exist has a cause. God never began to exist, the universe did.
To all:
The problem here is hard-heartedness. Some people just don’t like the evidence. They don’t like logic or reason or science. Most importantly, they don’t like the conclusions. They simply refuse to believe because they willfully make themselves ignorant. That is all.
Any objection at all in these last two pages has already been answered. Don’t post anymore objections unless you read the last 5 pages first. That’s a rule.
God never began to exist, the universe did.
From Wiki:
Scientists have come to some agreement on descriptions of events that happened 10−35 seconds after the Big Bang, but generally agree that descriptions about what happened before one Planck time (5 × 10−44 seconds) after the Big Bang are likely to remain pure speculation.
God never began to exist
ah so you’re an atheist too? god never began to exist… god does not exist.
You sure are, buddy!
The argument is slightly different than you presented: if we wish to explain an incredibly complex phenomenon that we cannot satisfactorally understand (such as the universe), then it is wrongheaded to posit an explanation that is even more complex (e.g., a god with more mysterious properties than our universe).
Your rebuttal would require that your god be fully comprehensible; is it?
The universe is eternal
The universe came into being uncaused out of nothing, by nothing, and for nothing. Saying that there was previous matter and a different kind of time before the universe began only pushes it back one more cause. You would end up with an infinite regression which is impossible.
The universe was caused by a timeless, changeless, powerful, and intelligent being.
You can’t trust Wikipedia for accurate updates on modern cosmology.
Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and my philosophical argument posted about a page ago. I’m thinking of introducing another argument that shows the universe began to exist, but no one has even tried to refute the first.
The first cause is an uncaused entity. He never began to exist, because he always was.
Neoclassical,
You can jump in at any time and rebut any of the arguments that I’ve put up.
Dawkins is a poor philosopher. He assumes that a divine designer must necessarily be more complex. A divine designer is not composed up of parts and cogs. A mind is a simple thing – what a mind thinks may be complex. He confuses a mind’s ideas from its effects.
Eric,
We accept #3 because we have two options now that we have eliminated the eternality of the universe.
The universe came into being uncaused from nothing.
The universe came into being because it was caused by a mind.
Which is more rational? Why think that number one is rational? Why think that things inexplicably come into being out of nothing?
Also, you must show that the law of conservation excludes a creator, instead of just claiming it.
Ever single thing you’ve brought up has been dealt with ad nauseum.
So had Esuric’s. He’s the one who started in with old well tread arguments.
There is no ‘outlandish’ physical law that just exists necessarily. All physical laws are based off of the initial conditions and came into being.
Being does not come from non-being uncaused, especially without prior matter. Laws do not cause anything.
I didn’t say it was necessary. You’re the one claiming a timeless entity is necessary to explain the universe. You have not answered how you can make an exception that ONLY applies to a mind, that couldn’t equally apply to some multiverse. You’re the one claiming that actions happen outside of the universe that caused it to exist. Why does it have to be a mind instead of the physics of the multiverse? I’m not making any claims, I’m saying your claim that you’ve ruled out all other possibilities is extremely presumptuous and unimaginative. You rule out every other possibility based on nothing in order to create room only for your favorite dog in the race. We aren’t making ANY claims about the universe beyond our own. You on the other hand are.
Your argumentation is poor, and your logic is virtually non-existent. I’m embarassed for you. Claiming things about the universe being timeless above all things. That doesn’t even make a lick of sense. You can’t just skim over all the evidence I’ve posted and then say that there is no evidence, that God is at the same level of the multiverse. No one who can read would say that.
In the same breath you claim timelessness as a concept applies to god, and then decry it when it’s applied to anything other than some vague all powerful immaterial contradictory mind. I didn’t claim timelessness for the multiverse, I said if you can say something is timeless, so can we. Your ridiculous special pleading has become tiresome, and you condescension comedic. But this type of meta argumentation style does remind me of someone.
Multiverse, meet my friend, Ockham’s razor.
Anyway, you’re treating the two as if they’re on the same level. One has evidence and the other does not. Simple as that.
You have not proven anything vague or contradictory about this mind. I’m not even sure why you’re claiming something like a multiverse – no one would ever bring that up against the Kalam.
Two options:
The universe came into being out of nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.
The universe was the product of a first cause which absolutely fits the causal criteria. This is why it’s the only option.
You should pick a new model; the multiverse is only used to fight the teleological argument, not the Kalam.
You don’t understand fallacies. I condescended because you just don’t understand. I don’t know how else to put it. I’m not trying to be mean.
We can rule out all other options deductively. A, B, or C. If not A, or B, then C. I almost feel tempted to restate the premises of the Kalam cosmological argument, but I won’t. I don’t think it’ll do much good.
Edit: Also, I had not heard of this Rettoper until now. I’m amused.
Here’s a fun little paper by Alexander Vilenkin, one of the guy’s who wrote what you claim is the damning proof that the universe had to have a beginning. Vilenkin was even asked if his paper proved there was a beginning to the universe, to which he responded.
“No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.”
What they proved was something different than what you’re saying.
Here is Alan Guth to explain.
“Putting general relativity and quantum mechanics together, one can imagine that the universe started in the total empty geometry – absolute nothingness – and then made a quantum tunneling transition to a nonempty state. Calculations show that a universe created this way would typically be subatomic in size, but that is no problem . . . Vilenkin was able to invoke inflation to enlarge the universe to its current size.”
And while yes, this was before the paper you seem to enjoy throwing at everybody to prove a beginning of the universe, here’s a few interesting quotes from Vilenkin made after that paper, which expanded upon Guth.
“The state of “nothing” cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus “nothing” should be subject to these laws. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe.”
Your comological argument misunderstands the way Vilenkin uses the word nothing.
And here’s a number of other theories all collected in a book for your convenience, which I’m sure you and I don’t have the qualifications to rule out just yet. They even have a few of the papers in there available online for free.
That paper is from 1982. Their theorem is from 2003.
You can evade the theorem, sure enough, but doing so lands you in obvious absurdities.
I don’t depend on this paper at all. I’ve used philosophical argument to already show the singularity. It’s not been refuted yet. Still waiting. I’m going to throw in another argument as well just to spice things up in a little bit.
They try and invoke inflationary/quantum models that either contradict themselves or are purely speculatory. Sub-atomic events are not uncaused. There is no such thing as a free lunch as far as the universe is concerned.
I’m aware of Vilenkin’s model of quantum creation. He tries to avoid the singularity by positing that the universe tunneled to inflation from a radius of zero. His quantum tunneling is from something to something and is not true nothingness, which is what his theory, empirically demonstrated.
He’s trying to find some model to avoid the conclusions of his original theory which is empirically verified. It isn’t working very well. There’s nothing he can do to bridge the gap between uncaused being to non-being. That’s why he has to contradict (without any evidence) his previous theory and say that it wasn’t really ‘nothing’ it was just really, really, really, small.
Can’t be.
You’re post, ironically, is on my side even though you don’t know it. He’s trying to avoid this state of nothingness that he himself empirically verified because he can’t accept uncaused being from non-being.
He won’t accept my alternative, either. I might have all the evidence on my side, but I can’t force someone to adopt the truth. I can’t force them to think. They simply don’t like my alternative, so they posit false models. He’s forced to assume that the laws of physics must have existed.
He’s trying to avoid nothingness so that he can invoke his pet inflation theory.
But of course, the origin of the initial point of Vilenkin’s tunneling diagram remains unexplained. – (in his book, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes)
His quantum tunneling is from something to something and is not true nothingness, which is what his theory, empirically demonstrated.
I’m sorry, but I’d LOVE to see how they empirically demonstrated quantum fields didn’t exist the before big bang. As far as I can tell, this claim is, at the very least, completely unsubstantiated, if not refuted by the fact that Vilenkin still postulates that quantum effects created the big bang.