Creation and so forth

[BackAgain]

Ringtone says: “Ultimately, he's confounding the problem of existence, in and of itself, with the existence of the universe.”

The amusing thing here is that ringtone seems to believe that there is a micron’s worth of meaningful difference (as in any genuine distinction) between “existence, in and of itself” and the “existence of the universe.”

There is not.

 

[Ringtone]

No. What’s clear is that you have come to a conclusion and beyond that your mind is shut.

For reals, homes, you be talkin' outside your mind, serious wack straight outta Looneytoonville.

 

[BackAgain]

For reals, homes, you be talkin' outside your mind, serious wack straight outta Looneytoonville.

You are a crashing bore. Numbsjulls like you don’t even recognize that liking AN argument type in the whole ongoing discussion about the Cosmological Argument doesn’t mean that YOUR line of reasoning is correct. I mean. Sure. You’re arrogant and vain; but there’s no basis for it. In reality, you are exceptionally plodding and uninformed and sadly dim-witted.

If you were even slightly more open-minded and maybe a whole lot more intelligent, you wouldn’t be so defensive in making your assertions. Your very petty little mind doesn’t even entertain the probability that there are facets of this discussion which you simply are unequipped to even grasp.

The reason I am asking questions is because I don’t pretend to know. By contrast, you pretend to know. Aquinas and Bertrand Russell made formal arguments with principles of logic. They (unlike you) may have reached some tentative conclusions; but they at least realized that the arguments they made might be subject to counter arguments and further analysis.

 

[BackAgain]

All USMB members with the username of “ringtone” are assholes

“ringtone” uses the username “ringtone” at USMB.

Therefore, USMB member ringtone is an asshole.

The foregoing “argument” is perfectly valid.

I wonder if ringtone has the wit to acknowledge that a formally valid argument is not necessarily “true” despite being valid in form?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Existence, in and of itself, is the issue, not what exists, and logic resolves that issue.

1. Something does exist rather than nothing!
2. Hence, something has always existed.
3. Because an infinite regression of causation (or an actual infinite) is an absurdity and nonexistence is an absurdity, that which has always existed cannot be the spacetime continuum of matter and energy.
4 Hence, the necessary eternal existent is immaterial mind, namely, God.

I agree through 3. I could elaborate upon why "spacetime" generally strikes me as an absurd abstraction, but I'll just move on to 4. since agreeing about things seems comparatively uninteresting.

Firstly, I disagree with appeals to "mind" and "God" because both anthropomorphize the issue, intentionally or not, disturbingly similar to how practically every religion's doctrine has. Regardless of how many billions of years before humans existed, "God" supposedly "created" everything with us in "mind" often including "His" own image. Too suggestive of all the crap like that. Though I always add that if one equates "God" with nature, then fine, but if one desires to be clear or unambiguous why not just say "Nature"?

Here's where I've arrived. The Aether suffices. No god or mind need apply. It is the ultimate "Prime Mover" and ubiquitous. Though its force (pressure, influence) varies in vicinities of mass, it appears vastly uniform otherwise, thus our measured consistency of c. So why are we here? What's the point? No, I mean how did we arrive here?

I don't presume any beginning to matter and energy. I agree that matter couldn't exist locally at the moment of the Big Bang. Locally, meaning not within possibly billions of light years of "our universe" which, at the time, was a fraction of peanut in size according to most physicists. Point being, we have no logical reason to believe the actual Universe isn't much the same beyond what we're able to observe.

To the contrary, the harder we look the more the galaxies appear to go on forever. Simpler to presume a local void of matter existed, likely due to being vacuumed up by an enormous black hole billions of years prior. Given the reported expansion and accelerated expansion of our universe, the furthest already disappearing beyond our ability to ever observe them again, why simply speculate that nothing was already out there prior to the Bang?

Well obviously, the cosmological background radiation, says ding. Sorry, no. That can only inform us about what existed right here back to 400,000 years or so after the Bang. All that knowledge tells us is that, prior to the Bang, the (teensy) portion of the Universe we're able to observe didn't exist (materially / spatially).

Energy is another cans of worms because of counterspace, which again I'll spare you the elaboration upon for now. Also the larger Universe could only seem to be expanding while it actually just recycles itself, forming new galaxies as fast as the old ones disappear.

 

[Ringtone]

I agree through 3. I could elaborate upon why "spacetime" generally strikes me as an absurd abstraction, but I'll just move on to 4. since agreeing about things seems comparatively uninteresting.

Firstly, I disagree with appeals to "mind" and "God" because both anthropomorphize the issue, intentionally or not, disturbingly similar to how practically every religion's doctrine has. Regardless of how many billions of years before humans existed, "God" supposedly "created" everything with us in "mind" often including "His" own image. Too suggestive of all the crap like that. Though I always add that if one equates "God" with nature, then fine, but if one desires to be clear or unambiguous why not just say "Nature"?

Here's where I've arrived. The Aether suffices. No god or mind need apply. It is the ultimate "Prime Mover" and ubiquitous. Though its force (pressure, influence) varies in vicinities of mass, it appears vastly uniform otherwise, thus our measured consistency of c. So why are we here? What's the point? No, I mean how did we arrive here?

I don't presume any beginning to matter and energy. I agree that matter couldn't exist locally at the moment of the Big Bang. Locally, meaning not within possibly billions of light years of "our universe" which, at the time, was a fraction of peanut in size according to most physicists. Point being, we have no logical reason to believe the actual Universe isn't much the same beyond what we're able to observe.

To the contrary, the harder we look the more the galaxies appear to go on forever. Simpler to presume a local void of matter existed, likely due to being vacuumed up by an enormous black hole billions of years prior. Given the reported expansion and accelerated expansion of our universe, the furthest already disappearing beyond our ability to ever observe them again, why simply speculate that nothing was already out there prior to the Bang?

Well obviously, the cosmological background radiation, says ding. Sorry, no. That can only inform us about what existed right here back to 400,000 years or so after the Bang. All that knowledge tells us is that, prior to the Bang, the (teensy) portion of the Universe we're able to observe didn't exist (materially / spatially).

Energy is another cans of worms because of counterspace, which again I'll spare you the elaboration upon for now. Also the larger Universe could only seem to be expanding while it actually just recycles itself, forming new galaxies as fast as the old ones disappear.

Well, I don't know what ding believes about the cosmological order relative to the Big Bang, but there's no logical or scientific reason to assume that our universe is the first and only to have ever existed. Notwithstanding, logic tells us that the material realm of being cannot be eternal. The cosmological order, material existence, regardless the history of its configuration, began to exist in the finite past.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Notwithstanding, logic tells us that the material realm of being cannot be eternal. The cosmological order, material existence, regardless the history of its configuration, began to exist in the finite past.

Logic obviously suggests some things based upon limited, unverifiable evidence. But what logic really tells us is that "the finite past" is an illogical construct. Cosmological arguments tend to presume a Big Bang beginning which renders them wishful and circular. "Eternity," being equally immune to thorough scientific inspection, is therefore equally illogical. We simply can't know what we'll never be able to see, measure, test, or otherwise conclusively verify. And that's fine by me. I'll take "I don't know" any day over appeals to magic and pure speculation.

 

[Ringtone]

Logic obviously suggests some things based upon limited, unverifiable evidence. But what logic really tells us is that "the finite past" is an illogical construct. Cosmological arguments tend to presume a Big Bang beginning which renders them wishful and circular. "Eternity," being equally immune to thorough scientific inspection, is therefore equally illogical. We simply can't know what we'll never be able to see or measure. And that's fine by me. I'll take "I don't know" any day over appeals to magic and pure speculation.

The Big Bang theory, ultimately, has nothing to do with the cosmological argument. The notion that it does is a common and unfortunate misunderstanding.

Once again, the problem of existence is metaphysical, not scientific, and the imperatives of logic, mathematics and ontology precede and have primacy over science. An infinite regress of causation in time or being cannot be traversed to the present, and an actual infinite is an absurdity. The material realm of being began to exist in the finite past.

Excerpt from an article I wrote some years ago:

Islamic philosophers seized on Aristotle's terminology and related it to the eternally self-subsistent and wholly transcendent Creator of all other things that exist. They developed two distinct lines of the cosmological argument: (1) the impossibility of an infinite regress of causation, albeit in terms of contingency (the argument of a necessary existent) and (2) the impossibility of an infinite regress in time (the argument from the absurdities of an actual infinite). These are also referred to as the vertical and horizontal versions of the cosmological, respectively, and the ontological justification for both is the logical necessity of eternalism.

Ibn Sina (also known as Avicenna, 980–1037 A.D.) extrapolated the argument from contingency, which was further developed by Aquinas (1225–1274 A.D.).

The Christian theologian and early empiricist philosopher John Philoponus of the 5th Century was actually the first to argue from the impossibility of an infinite regress in Against Aristotle wherein he not only refuted a temporally infinite universe but the credibility of Aristotelian cosmology concerning the composition of the lower heavens and celestial spheres. Following the arguments of Philoponus, Al-Kindi (801–873 A.D.) composed the first formal version of the horizontal cosmological: "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning."

(I don't remember when exactly, but I encountered an article written by someone who wrongfully attributes this formulation to Al-Ghazali. Al-Ghazali uses it, but it didn't originate with him.) Aristotle himself understood that an actual infinity is impossible; i.e., the physical universe couldn't be spatially infinite. Philoponus and Al-Kindi argued that precisely because the universe is divisible magnitude as Aristotle points out, nothing about the universe could be infinite. An infinite past would be an actual infinity. Absurdity! Hence, the universe necessarily began to exist in the finite past. Philoponus and Al-Kindi's primary interest was to evince why no divisible entity could possibly be the necessary existent and invited one to conclude that only an indivisible and, therefore, timelessly immaterial entity could be the necessary existent.

While Al-Ghazali (1058–1111 A.D.) wholeheartedly agreed, he was dissatisfied with the unnecessary ambiguity of the argument. Like Philoponus and Al-Kindi before him, he argued that the universe is composed of temporal phenomena preceded by other temporally-ordered phenomena, and given that an actual infinite is impossible, such a series of temporal phenomena cannot continue to infinity. Then Al-Ghazali brilliantly observed that not only must the universe have a timeless cause of its existence, but this timeless cause must be a personal free agent; for if the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical. This would mean that the cause could never exist sans its effect, as from eternity the sufficient causal conditions for the effect to occur are given.

As explained by Craig:

The only way for the cause to be timeless but for its effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without any antecedent determining conditions. Philosophers call this type of causation 'agent causation,' and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. . . . Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to a Personal Creator.

Hence, Al-Ghazali appends the syllogism per his ontological analysis of the properties of the cause. Known today as the Kalam, it's this version of the argument that came to the medieval Christian tradition through Bonaventure (1221–74 A.D.), and it's this version that's championed by Craig et al. today with the very same philosophical supports for the second (or pivotal) premise, albeit, as decisively supplemented by Al-Ghazali's personal-impersonal distinction. Craig et al. have since mathematically and analogously elaborated on the philosophical supports and formulated a syllogistic expression of Al-Ghazali's ontological analysis.

Note that neither of the main premises were ever changed. Of course, they were never changed! Alex's notion is conceptually absurd, and his chronology regarding the historical development of the Kalam is nonsensical. Only the philosophical support for the second premise, deduced from the first principles of metaphysics, was revised, and the first premise is a metaphysical axiom! Axioms don't require additional proof. They are proofs (or logical necessities) in and of themselves.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I appreciate the effort expended in compiling that history lesson. Still no sale regarding where we disagreed previously. My dad used to read to us for at least half an hour every night from the Great Books at the dinner table fifty to sixty years ago. I recall being quite interested in much, bored to not at all captivated with the balance. We were forced to just sit and be quiet but that never really bothered me much. My interest in Aristotle and Plato was mixed. No recall of the other philosophers. Since then I've grown to despise such formal argument, especially after experiencing the drudgery of college Philosophy 101 and Political Science. I've succumbed to peer pressure and adopted other's metaphysical proposals at times in the past, but no more. To me, it all amounts the same sort of wishful, circular, mental masturbation I described before. I don't despise or blame anyone for engaging themselves with such stuff. It just strikes me personally as a waste of time.

 

[Ringtone]

I appreciate the effort expended in compiling that history lesson. Still no sale regarding where we disagreed previously. My dad used to read to us for at least half an hour every night from the Great Books at the dinner table fifty to sixty years ago. I recall being quite interested in much, bored to not at all captivated with the balance. We were forced to just sit and be quiet but that never really bothered me much. My interest in Aristotle and Plato was mixed. No recall of the other philosophers. Since then I've grown to despise such formal argument, especially after experiencing the drudgery of college Philosophy 101 and Political Science. I've succumbed to peer pressure and adopted other's metaphysical proposals at times in the past, but no more. To me, it all amounts the same sort of wishful, circular, mental masturbation I described before. I don't despise or blame anyone for engaging themselves with such stuff. It just strikes me personally as a waste of time.

There's absolutely nothing circular about the cosmological argument. That's total bullshit. The cosmological argument is strictly linear.

Something exists rather than nothing.
Something has necessarily always existed; existence sure as hell did not arise from nonexistence.

How the hell could the material realm of being possibly be the eternal existent? Kiss my ass circular.

An actual infinite is possible?! An infinite regress of causation/temporality is possible?!

Really? Since when?

Naturalists and atheists are damn fools.

The material realm cannot be the eternal existent.

The eternal existent is immaterial.

End of discussion.

 

[Grumblenuts]

There's absolutely nothing circular about the cosmological argument. That's total bullshit. The cosmological argument is strictly linear.

Something exists rather than nothing.
Something has necessarily always existed; existence sure as hell did not arise from nonexistence.

How the hell could the material realm of being possibly be the eternal existent? Kiss my ass circular.

An actual infinite is possible?! An infinite regress of causation/temporality is possible?!

Really? Since when?

Naturalists and atheists are damn fools.

The material realm cannot be the eternal existent.

The eternal existent is immaterial.

End of discussion.

Congratulations,

A winner always digs deep to sport just that sort of warm, calm demeanor every time!

 

[ding]

Well obviously, the cosmological background radiation, says ding. Sorry, no. That can only inform us about what existed right here back to 400,000 years or so after the Bang. All that knowledge tells us is that, prior to the Bang, the (teensy) portion of the Universe we're able to observe didn't exist (materially / spatially).

You don't know what you are talking about. The radiation era lasted ~50,000 years. When the universe cooled enough, radiation decoupled from matter which occurred after ~380,000 years.

And the Cosmic Background Radiation informs us of the massive matter / anti-matter annihilations which dominated the radiation era.

The Early Universe

 

[ding]

I don't presume any beginning to matter and energy.

There are only two choices; the universe began or the universe has always existed.

The science is overwhelmingly in favor of the universe beginning.

 

[ding]

Well, I don't know what ding believes about the cosmological order relative to the Big Bang, but there's no logical or scientific reason to assume that our universe is the first and only to have ever existed. Notwithstanding, logic tells us that the material realm of being cannot be eternal. The cosmological order, material existence, regardless the history of its configuration, began to exist in the finite past.

He was trying to say cosmic background radiation.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dogs and cats are both self aware intelligent mammals. Neither have the ability to understand physics and chemistry. We are intelligent self aware mammals. I do believe that there are aspects of this universe that our present intellect is incapable of understanding. Therefore, I have no trouble in saying for some things, I just don't know, and may not be capable of knowing. And that definitely includes the origin of this universe as we know it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You don't know what you are talking about. The radiation era lasted ~50,000 years. When the universe cooled enough, radiation decoupled from matter which occurred after ~380,000 years.

And the Cosmic Background Radiation informs us of the massive matter / anti-matter annihilations which dominated the radiation era.

The Early Universe

Yes, dingbat. If "The science" could say "the operative word being local" then that's what "The science" would say, since as 9 out of 10 current cosmologists would readily agree, we can only observe (know anything about) what lies within our light cone. But "The science" can't really talk and would really have no interest in doing so if "The science" could because that is simply not what "The science" was ever designed for or intended to do. Quite the opposite, bozo. Be quiet. "Science" literally just means "to study." Sssshush!

 

[ding]

Yes, dingbat. If "The science" could say "the operative word being local" then that's what "The science" would say, since as 9 out of 10 current cosmologists would readily agree, we can only observe (know anything about) what lies within our light cone. But "The science" can't really talk and would really have no interest in doing so if "The science" could because that is simply not what "The science" was ever designed for or intended to do. Quite the opposite, bozo. Be quiet. "Science" literally just means "to study." Sssshush!

Apparently you will make any argument - no matter how ridiculous - to deny that the cosmic background radiation is proof that the universe was created from nothing, There is literally no other explanation for it.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature. Saying the Cosmic Background Radiation informs us of the massive matter / anti-matter annihilations which dominated the radiation era does not mean it spoke to us, dummy.

So I will say to you again... you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Ringtone]

He was trying to say cosmic background radiation.

Ah!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

Thanks for that desperate dingbat dictionary definition.

Whoa, OMG, I mistakenly said "cosmological" instead of "cosmic" at one point. Horrors. What's really apparent is that you are both woefully unfit to seriously address the actual point of contention. Pretending to somehow not be a "materialist" in this world is always truly sad. You should really get a room together and protect yourselves from exposure to broader perspectives.

 

[Ringtone]

Dogs and cats are both self aware intelligent mammals. Neither have the ability to understand physics and chemistry. We are intelligent self aware mammals. I do believe that there are aspects of this universe that our present intellect is incapable of understanding. Therefore, I have no trouble in saying for some things, I just don't know, and may not be capable of knowing. And that definitely includes the origin of this universe as we know it.

Nonsense. The imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics tell us the universe, regardless of its past manifestations if any, began to exist in the finite past. Men who think, have known this obvious truth for centuries. Further, the scientific discoveries of the Twentieth Century in cosmology and physics affirm what the former have always told us.