Mick wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

In any case, I don't think that Oldsketpic was appealing to the vaguness and fuzziness of certain (all?) predicates. His objection does not seem that sophisticated.

There is no need for sophisticated arguments. If the 1st law of thermodynamics holds, and I have never seen anyone show that it doesn't or how it couldn't, then the 1st premise, (1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence, is wrong because it presuppose that anything has had a beginning of its existence.

And the second premise, 2) The universe has a beginning of its existence, is just wrong.

If the universe is all that exists it can have no beginning or end.

There is no need for sophisticated philosophical arguments, it is just the way it is.

E=MC^2

It is just that simple and elegant.

But that I began to exist doesn't violate that first principle since my beginning doesn't require that my composition (energy/matter on your view) is newly created. Your fallacy is confusing composition with identity, or at least not offering argument for it.

Craig's/the Kalam argument is about the creation/beginning of the existence of everything. This argument takes an intuitive approach to things like you and me and extends it to everything that exists.

Mine and your beginning of existence does not violate the 1st law of thermodynamics because there is no claim that the matter and or energy that we are made of did not exist before the initiation of our existence.

The Kalam argument does claim a beginning of all matter and or energy, and for the argument to hold up Craig, as the major proponent of the argument needs to be able to show how this is possible given the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Teuton wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:
If the universe is all that exists it can have no beginning or end.

If the spatiotemporal universe is the entire universe, then its temporal dimension needn't be past-infinite or future-infinite.

Who's talking about infinities? If some models are correct there is no need for past, present or future infinities. It all just is.

E=MC^2

ughaibu wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Delivered in just a few short sentences what it usually takes me reams to deliver, and shows precisely why the argument is utter bollocks, and why anyone who thinks otherwise, well, isn't fucking thinking.

You are here supporting an argument that relies on a premise that cannot, even in principle, be demonstrated to be true. I hope you can now get the point that premises need not be demonstrated to be true, in order to be acceptable.

It is not a premise. It is a "universally" accepted law that for a good fucking reason is called the first law.

It is best to base a premise on something with evidential support. The Kalam argument does not do this. It begins with a premise with no evidential support, and continues to a second premise with even less evidential support. All this might be fine, except that this philosophical/religious argument runs head first into a wall of science.

Oldskeptic wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Delivered in just a few short sentences what it usually takes me reams to deliver, and shows precisely why the argument is utter bollocks, and why anyone who thinks otherwise, well, isn't fucking thinking.

You are here supporting an argument that relies on a premise that cannot, even in principle, be demonstrated to be true. I hope you can now get the point that premises need not be demonstrated to be true, in order to be acceptable.

It is not a premise.

Special relativity relies on unprovable premises. You encapsulated your argument in the famous equation, didn't you?

Asserting the 1st law of thermodynamics doesn’t get you off the AvT hook.
When did that law come into existence? We don’t know that it has always applied. If we ourselves are interior elements of that “law” how can we logically make assertions about (the absence of) exterior elements not subject to that “law”. (Like someone on land asking a fish if the water is warm and the fish replies…”what is water?”)

Pretending multiverse is impossible doesn’t get you off the hook.
There’s no epistemological barrier to conceiving that this single universe might have parallels elsewhere– especially if we invoke metaphysics. Quite the contrary. Humans – in thought and in deed - have been exploring and expanding beyond previous assumed boundary conditions since forever.

…discovering new countries, new worlds, new galaxies, new cosmologies – that’s why unified theories of “everything” never get nailed down.

Simply by asserting that the universe is a perpetual motion machine which has existed forever, and in which matter/energy “just are” eternal brute facts, you aren’t off the hook.
A “big bang” / “big crunch” pendulum universe, which swings back and forth over and over again for eternity, might still be subject to an even greater “law” of gradual slow entropy – with each dark energy-driven swing of the cosmic pendulum “creating” a universe slightly less persistent than the previous. We just dont have the tools to measure that slow entropy.

ughaibu wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

You are here supporting an argument that relies on a premise that cannot, even in principle, be demonstrated to be true. I hope you can now get the point that premises need not be demonstrated to be true, in order to be acceptable.

It is not a premise.

Special relativity relies on unprovable premises. You encapsulated your argument in the famous equation, didn't you?

I am really getting annoyed with people like you picking one part of my posts to respond to. Here is all of it:

It is not a premise. It is a "universally" accepted law that for a good fucking reason is called the first law.

It is best to base a premise on something with evidential support. The Kalam argument does not do this. It begins with a premise with no evidential support, and continues to a second premise with even less evidential support. All this might be fine, except that this philosophical/religious argument runs head first into a wall of science.

Notice that there is more to the response/post than the four words that you picked out.

As for E=MC^2 or Einstein's theory being an unprovable premise -Maybe you could consult some of the people that lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during August or 1945. Einstein's unprovable premise exploded over their heads and killed a few hundred thousand people instantly.

I'm always intrigued by the mind which can quite comfortably speculate about an "eternal, all powerful, uncaused" thing called a universe but which struggles with the idea of God.

I find the no-god hypothesis cosmologies very demanding upon my "just have faith" quotient.

Oldskeptic wrote:I am really getting annoyed with people like you picking one part of my posts to respond to. Here is all of it:

If I had anything to say about the rest of your post, then I would have quoted it, wouldn't I? If you stick your oar in, when I am making a point to Hackenslash, then stick to that point.
And I didn't write that either

Oldskeptic wrote:E=MC^2 or Einstein's theory

was an unprovable premise, did I? So, if you're going to respond, deal with what I wrote, dont misrepresent me.

Lion IRC wrote:Asserting the 1st law of thermodynamics doesn’t get you off the AvT hook.
When did that law come into existence? We don’t know that it has always applied. If we ourselves are interior elements of that “law” how can we logically make assertions about (the absence of) exterior elements not subject to that “law”. (Like someone on land asking a fish if the water is warm and the fish replies…”what is water?”)

Pretending multiverse is impossible doesn’t get you off the hook.
There’s no epistemological barrier to conceiving that this single universe might have parallels elsewhere– especially if we invoke metaphysics. Quite the contrary. Humans – in thought and in deed - have been exploring and expanding beyond previous assumed boundary conditions since forever.

…discovering new countries, new worlds, new galaxies, new cosmologies – that’s why unified theories of “everything” never get nailed down.

Simply by asserting that the universe is a perpetual motion machine which has existed forever, and in which matter/energy “just are” eternal brute facts, you aren’t off the hook.
A “big bang” / “big crunch” pendulum universe, which swings back and forth over and over again for eternity, might still be subject to an even greater “law” of gradual slow entropy – with each dark energy-driven swing of the cosmic pendulum “creating” a universe slightly less persistent than the previous. We just dont have the tools to measure that slow entropy.

Cali my like spending inordinate amounts of time and effort responding to your nonsense but I will not do it. You and your comments are a waste of time.

ughaibu wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:I am really getting annoyed with people like you picking one part of my posts to respond to. Here is all of it:

If I had anything to say about the rest of your post, then I would have quoted it, wouldn't I? If you stick your oar in, when I am making a point to Hackenslash, then stick to that point.
And I didn't write that either

Oldskeptic wrote:E=MC^2 or Einstein's theory

was an unprovable premise, did I? So, if you're going to respond, deal with what I wrote, dont misrepresent me.

Your position and arguments are laughable.

Ughaibu wrote:
Special relativity relies on unprovable premises. You encapsulated your argument in the famous equation, didn't you?

Teuton wrote:

hackenslash wrote:
What is this 'spatio-temporal universe' bollocks you keep banging on about? Could you define it for us please?

It's the (at least) four-dimensional natural/physical world.

Then you can drop the 'spatio-temporal', because it's unnecessary and merely obfuscating, as navel-gazers and wibblers are wont to do.

Lion IRC wrote:I'm always intrigued by the mind which can quite comfortably speculate about an "eternal, all powerful, uncaused" thing called a universe but which struggles with the idea of God.

I find the no-god hypothesis cosmologies very demanding upon my "just have faith" quotient.

Usually God is characterised by theists as being even more "eternal, all powerful, uncaused" than the Universe. By that token you have more "faith" than us.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

hackenslash wrote:

Teuton wrote:

hackenslash wrote:
What is this 'spatio-temporal universe' bollocks you keep banging on about? Could you define it for us please?

It's the (at least) four-dimensional natural/physical world.

Then you can drop the 'spatio-temporal', because it's unnecessary and merely obfuscating, as navel-gazers and wibblers are wont to do.

I disagree with much of what you've said so far but I agree this is a fair point. The phrase does have an unfortunate tendency to imply the divine without directly saying so. For what else could exist "beyond space and time". Apart from a decent synopsis for a new Star Trek TV series.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

All in all this and it's sister thread seems to have provoked more ire between theists and atheists and other atheists than I would have expected. Very entertaining in a ghoulish sort of way.

Oldskeptic wrote:Craig's/the Kalam argument is about the creation/beginning of the existence of everything.

everything that began to exist, sure.

This argument takes an intuitive approach to things like you and me and extends it to everything that exists.

Again, it limits itself to what begins to exist.

Mine and your beginning of existence does not violate the 1st law of thermodynamics because there is no claim that the matter and or energy that we are made of did not exist before the initiation of our existence.

Right, but you said that it has not been shown that anything at all began to exist, and this would therefore include me and you. If you meant to say that it hasnt been shown that energy and matter began to exist, then you need to state that. As I understand it, these natural laws of yours came into being just 'after' the BB, but even if they didn't, so what? It merely point to something supernatural.

The Kalam argument does claim a beginning of all matter and or energy, and for the argument to hold up Craig, as the major proponent of the argument needs to be able to show how this is possible given the 1st law of thermodynamics.

i agree.

mark1961 wrote:I disagree with much of what you've said so far but I agree this is a fair point. The phrase does have an unfortunate tendency to imply the divine without directly saying so. For what else could exist "beyond space and time".

The phrase "spatio-temporal universe" excludes various things, for example, abstract objects, and it specifies the extent of the universe of interest.

ughaibu wrote:

mark1961 wrote:I disagree with much of what you've said so far but I agree this is a fair point. The phrase does have an unfortunate tendency to imply the divine without directly saying so. For what else could exist "beyond space and time".

The phrase "spatio-temporal universe" excludes various things, for example, abstract objects, and it specifies the extent of the universe of interest.

Agreed. My mistake. If I take your meaning exactly and assume it doesn't imply anything more and I ignore any inferences it may provoke.

Then given the lack of response to the first thing I said:

We both agree it's most common use is to imply the divine existing outside the Universe?

I've no problem with people using the word as such but I do have a problem with it's use in religious doublespeak. Having such a sciency looking word to sneakily describe God and Heaven's "relationship" with the Universe. Words are just words I know but I share with "hackenslash" a particular dislike of this combination. For different reasons maybe.

mark1961 wrote:We both agree it's most common use is to imply the divine existing outside the Universe?

I'm a Brit and I live in Japan, so I have hardly ever encountered anybody attempting to imply anything about "the divine", and I'm pretty sure that Teuton wasn't using the term for any reason other than accuracy.

The "begin to exist" of craig amounts only to Ex materia (taking his exemples into account) , if we extend ex materia to the actual knowledge of physics then the conservation of energy is respected in every known case .
He cannot take this "begin to exist" to the ex nihilo he wants for the universe without arbitrarly denying physics and claiming superior knowledge about the big bang .
Btw ,Craig doesn't deny ex nihilo per se ,he only mean that ex nihilo is impossible for anything that is not God .

Lion IRC wrote:I'm always intrigued by the mind which can quite comfortably speculate about an "eternal, all powerful, uncaused" thing called a universe but which struggles with the idea of God.

I find the no-god hypothesis cosmologies very demanding upon my "just have faith" quotient.

Well you know, the thing that strikes me about this is that we do have this big universey thing kicking around the place already, which is kind of hard to miss. Meanwhile, this so called God character seems much more elusive. So I cannot speak for everyone else concerned but for me at least, it is less of a leap to speculate about the unknown aspects of something that clearly, unambiguously does exist, than to speculate about the existence and properties of something that does not.