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.

It's not a question of being comfortable with the idea of an eternal uncaused universe (I'm not sure how you bring "all-powerful:" into it). It's more a matter of being comfortable with the fact that the ultimate origin of the unverse remains, for the time being, something that is not known or understood, and therefore not feeling compelled to fabricate answers like "God did it" that aren't really answers at all.

ughaibu wrote:

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.

Regarding the common usage of the phrase "spatio-temporal universe":

"Google and ye shall find". It works in Japan too or so I'm told. I wonder what the Japanese translation of that phrase is?

Regarding Teuton:

Please don't bring T. into the argument. It takes me hours sometimes to understand what he writes. Not that I find doing so makes the effort required an unprofitable enterprise. Usually. Doesn't matter what it exactly means as he uses it anyway. For my purposes in this enterprise. I just hate it for the way it's usually used.

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.

You don't get the point! If there are extraspatiotemporal spiritual or abstract things, then the spatiotemporal universe is only a (proper) part of the universe simpliciter.

Simpliciter?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/simpliciter

still no wiser. The word is just a synonym of "simple". Or I could be mistaken. Need to think.........

It could mean the "universe simpliciter" as in all things and I mean all things. Like all Universe"s" past, present future, off on some weird imaginary time tangent or whatever. Absolutely everything even in places you wouldn't or couldn't for that matter imagine or produce an equation for. Is that what you mean?

Remember the "mirror universe" episode on Star Trek? Wouldn't wanna go there. Especially since as explained in the Star Trek-The Next Generation paperback novel entitled "Dark Mirror" by Diane Duane it had an alternate version of Deanna Troi in it. Oh she was a BAD girl. I remember reading it in anticipation and guessing what would happen when she made an appearance.....grisly things. All in the mind...

simpliciter in this sense would mean "without qualifications"
As in "spatio-temporal universe", "spatio-temporal" would be a qualification.

Teuton wrote:You don't get the point! If there are extraspatiotemporal spiritual or abstract things, then the spatiotemporal universe is only a (proper) part of the universe simpliciter.

I get the point entirely. If there are woos that you can wibble about, you can obfuscate to your heart's content. You know what you can do with that, at least until you can demonstrate that 'extraspatiotemporal' has any basis in anything other than umbilical lint. We might just as well discuss the bloody jabberwocky, which is at least entertaining.

mark1961 wrote:Simpliciter?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/simpliciter

still no wiser. The word is just a synonym of "simple". Or I could be mistaken. Need to think.........

"simpliciter <philosophical terminology> Latin for 'simply' or naturally' (in contrast with secundum quid). Hence, what anything is when considered absolutely or without qualification."

(http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/fol ... impliciter)

mizvekov wrote:simpliciter in this sense would mean "without qualifications"
As in "spatio-temporal universe", "spatio-temporal" would be a qualification.

Good then I got it. Thanks to you both for the confirmation.

hackenslash wrote:
I get the point entirely. If there are woos that you can wibble about, you can obfuscate to your heart's content. You know what you can do with that, at least until you can demonstrate that 'extraspatiotemporal' has any basis in anything other than umbilical lint. We might just as well discuss the bloody jabberwocky, which is at least entertaining.

Do you think it's a conceptually or metaphysically necessary truth that all existence is spatiotemporal existence?

"Secundum quid". Well that's me off on a Wikipedia expedition for an hour or few.....

Teuton wrote:

hackenslash wrote:
I get the point entirely. If there are woos that you can wibble about, you can obfuscate to your heart's content. You know what you can do with that, at least until you can demonstrate that 'extraspatiotemporal' has any basis in anything other than umbilical lint. We might just as well discuss the bloody jabberwocky, which is at least entertaining.

Do you think it's a conceptually or metaphysically necessary truth that all existence is spatiotemporal existence?

I don't think anything is metaphysically necessary, because I don't think that metaphysics has any utility. I certainly don't think there's any justification for positing anything outside of time, or even that outside of time is remotely coherent. As for space, well, our understanding of the dimensional manifold is insufficient to erect any assertions, but there is at least the very strong suggestion that the minimum extent any dimension can have is Planck length, which would certainly suggest that all of existence is spatio-temporal, but the simple fact is that we don't know, and no amount of wibbling about it will get us any nearer to the truth, if there even is such a thing as truth in this regard.

Ultimately it's all bollocks, and you know that this is my position, so why even bother asking the question. It isn't like I'm suddenly going to see any value in mistaking having one's head up one's anus for thought any time soon, is it?

Mick wrote:

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

everything that began to exist, sure.

If the 1st law of thermodynamics holds nothing ever began to exist, as in whatever energy/matter anything is composed of has always existed.

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.

Nothing has ever began to exist in the sense that Craig uses the phrase. Craig/the Kalama argument are talking about the creation of matter and energy, not forms of matter and energy like you and I.

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.

I did. When exactly do you think that you began to exist? Was it when your father's sperm cell hit your mothers ovum. Or when enough cells had divided to produce a brain? Or did you begin to exist at birth? Maybe you began to exist where your first memory is?

This began to exist is just a fucked up notion that is confusing types of things with everything. Craig and the Kalam argument are not talking about types of things. They are talking about everything. Everything from absolutely nothing. This is what violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

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.

They are not my natural laws. I did not make them up. They just are, and if you want to disprove the 1st law of thermodynamics knock yourself out.

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.

Then what the fuck are you arguing about?

Oldskeptic wrote:If the 1st law of thermodynamics holds nothing ever began to exist, as in whatever energy/matter anything is composed of has always existed.

Quit using the word 'nothing'. That law says no such thing. It talks about energy; it says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It says nothing about whether new things composed of energy and matter can come to exist-that's a philosophical statement.

Nothing has ever began to exist in the sense that Craig uses the phrase. Craig/the Kalama argument are talking about the creation of matter and energy, not forms of matter and energy like you and I.

Again, you stated that it cannot be demonstrated that anything began to exist---a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g.

I did. When exactly do you think that you began to exist?[Was it when your father's sperm cell hit your mothers ovum. Or when enough cells had divided to produce a brain? Or did you begin to exist at birth? Maybe you began to exist where your first memory is?

Irrelevant. What matters is that I did begin to exist.

This began to exist is just a fucked up notion that is confusing types of things with everything. Craig and the Kalam argument are not talking about types of things. They are talking about everything. Everything from absolutely nothing. This is what violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

I dont think it does. These laws, even the laws of gravity itself, came into being following the BB or perhaps at the same instance, according to the model Craig is working with.

They are not my natural laws. I did not make them up. They just are, and if you want to disprove the 1st law of thermodynamics knock yourself out.

Noting that something supernatural could -or even did- 'break' a a natural law isnt a disproof of that law. It's a natural law.

Then what the fuck are you arguing about?

Your rather silly statements.

Oldskeptic wrote:If the 1st law of thermodynamics holds nothing ever began to exist, as in whatever energy/matter anything is composed of has always existed.

Quit using the word 'nothing'. That law says no such thing. It talks about energy; it says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It says nothing about whether new things composed of energy and matter can come to exist-that's a philosophical statement.

Nothing has ever began to exist in the sense that Craig uses the phrase. Craig/the Kalama argument are talking about the creation of matter and energy, not forms of matter and energy like you and I.

Again, you stated that it has not been demonstrated that anything began to exist---a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g.

I did. When exactly do you think that you began to exist?[Was it when your father's sperm cell hit your mothers ovum. Or when enough cells had divided to produce a brain? Or did you begin to exist at birth? Maybe you began to exist where your first memory is?

Irrelevant. What matters is that I did begin to exist.

This began to exist is just a fucked up notion that is confusing types of things with everything. Craig and the Kalam argument are not talking about types of things. They are talking about everything. Everything from absolutely nothing. This is what violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

I dont think it does. These laws, even the laws of gravity itself, came into being following the BB or perhaps at the same instance, according to the model Craig is working with.

They are not my natural laws. I did not make them up. They just are, and if you want to disprove the 1st law of thermodynamics knock yourself out.

Noting that something supernatural could -or even did- 'break' a a natural law isnt a disproof of that law. It's a natural law.

Then what the fuck are you arguing about?

Your rather silly statements.

Oldskeptic wrote:This began to exist is just a fucked up notion that is confusing types of things with everything. Craig and the Kalam argument are not talking about types of things. They are talking about everything. Everything from absolutely nothing. This is what violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

If God exists, he created both matter and its laws.

Mick wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:If the 1st law of thermodynamics holds nothing ever began to exist, as in whatever energy/matter anything is composed of has always existed.

Quit using the word 'nothing'. That law says no such thing. It talks about energy; it says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It says nothing about whether new things composed of energy and matter can come to exist-that's a philosophical statement.

Sorry, Mick. At best this "creatio ex materia" is a conversion, not a creation, forming different arrangements that pop up within a set. Does "Explom", a particular form in a set of synchronized swimming begin to exist?

Nothing has ever began to exist in the sense that Craig uses the phrase. Craig/the Kalama argument are talking about the creation of matter and energy, not forms of matter and energy like you and I.

Again, you stated that it has not been demonstrated that anything began to exist---a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g.

I did. When exactly do you think that you began to exist?[Was it when your father's sperm cell hit your mothers ovum. Or when enough cells had divided to produce a brain? Or did you begin to exist at birth? Maybe you began to exist where your first memory is?

Irrelevant. What matters is that I did begin to exist.

and what are you A label assigned to a form. When did you begin to exist? When the sperm met the egg? when your mother's egg formed? when the father's sperm was produced? Without this how can it be that it is a "beginning" than a "conversion"?

This began to exist is just a fucked up notion that is confusing types of things with everything. Craig and the Kalam argument are not talking about types of things. They are talking about everything. Everything from absolutely nothing. This is what violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

I dont think it does. These laws, even the laws of gravity itself, came into being following the BB or perhaps at the same instance, according to the model Craig is working with.

Of course neither you nor craig can substantiate this claim.

They are not my natural laws. I did not make them up. They just are, and if you want to disprove the 1st law of thermodynamics knock yourself out.

Noting that something supernatural could -or even did- 'break' a a natural law isnt a disproof of that law. It's a natural law.

Then what the fuck are you arguing about?

Your rather silly statements.

The irony of you calling the arguments you are objecting to "silly" is astounding.

Teuton wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:This began to exist is just a fucked up notion that is confusing types of things with everything. Craig and the Kalam argument are not talking about types of things. They are talking about everything. Everything from absolutely nothing. This is what violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

If God exists, he created both matter and its laws.

Circular arguments tend to go around in circles.

Teuton wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:This began to exist is just a fucked up notion that is confusing types of things with everything. Craig and the Kalam argument are not talking about types of things. They are talking about everything. Everything from absolutely nothing. This is what violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

If God exists, he created both matter and its laws.

Which is precisely the point. God doesn't exist. That doesn't preclude the existence of some other deity other than Yahweh, but that one's dead in the water.

Mick wrote:These laws, even the laws of gravity itself, came into being following the BB or perhaps at the same instance, according to the model Craig is working with.

Kraig isn't working with a model, he's working with a rectally extracted blind assertion, and one that is not supported by cosmologists.

Oh, and how many laws of gravity are there?

Mick wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:If the 1st law of thermodynamics holds nothing ever began to exist, as in whatever energy/matter anything is composed of has always existed.

Quit using the word 'nothing'. That law says no such thing. It talks about energy; it says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It says nothing about whether new things composed of energy and matter can come to exist-that's a philosophical statement.

It follows from the first law of thermodynamics that if matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed only change forms then nothing has ever been created. Everything has always existed only in different forms.

When Craig talks about the beginning of the "universe" he is talking about the beginning of everything from an absolute nothing caused by a formless/immaterial being that does not exist in space and is not affected by time. If it was in fact possible for this to happen it would apparently be a one off occurrence where the 1st law of thermodynamics did not apply, but now it does.

It is far simpler to accept the 1st law of thermodynamics and the premise that everything has always existed than to posit that there was a point in time where absolutely nothing existed and a formless/immaterial being that does not exist in space and is not affected by time created everything has exists out of absolutely nothing.

I am fully aware that some people claim that God can do anything, so this is not a problem, but Craig's Kalam argument is supposed to be an argument for the existence of his creator god. Presupposing the existence of this god to support the argument is a logical no-no.

Mick wrote:
Again, you stated that it has not been demonstrated that anything began to exist---a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g.

Oldskeptic wrote:
I did. When exactly do you think that you began to exist?[Was it when your father's sperm cell hit your mothers ovum. Or when enough cells had divided to produce a brain? Or did you begin to exist at birth? Maybe you began to exist where your first memory is?

Mick wrote:
Irrelevant. What matters is that I did begin to exist.

When? Pinpoint the beginning of your existence if you can.

Oldskeptic wrote:
This began to exist is just a fucked up notion that is confusing types of things with everything. Craig and the Kalam argument are not talking about types of things. They are talking about everything. Everything from absolutely nothing. This is what violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Mick wrote:
I dont think it does. These laws, even the laws of gravity itself, came into being following the BB or perhaps at the same instance, according to the model Craig is working with.

Craig is working with his own God model that was constructed to support his argument. Perhaps he should consult cosmologists and find out if his assumptions are in any way valid?

Oldskeptic wrote:
They are not my natural laws. I did not make them up. They just are, and if you want to disprove the 1st law of thermodynamics knock yourself out.

Mick wrote:
Noting that something supernatural could -or even did- 'break' a a natural law isnt a disproof of that law. It's a natural law.

Oldskeptic wrote:
Then what the fuck are you arguing about?

Mick wrote:
Your rather silly statements.

OK, we need to go back to the beginning and note that the argument is about proving the existence of this "something supernatural" and neither you or Craig gets to make claims of what this "something supernatural" can do until you provide good fucking evidence that it does exist.

Premise 1 is wrong because it treats the "universe" like unicycle.

Premise 2 is wrong because it is flat fucking wrong to say that the universe began to exist.