Does everything have a start?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
And HOW MANY TIMES ARE PEOPLE GOING TO ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTIONS OVER AND OVER AND OVER???
On, the first point, Please demonstrate actual 'nothing', Please provide an instance of such a thing with evidence to support the notion.
Furthermore, I put it to you, does it not follow that if every single thing in the universe could be understand to have come about by naturalistic phenomena (causation) and that the cause of each phenomena is also natural and comports to laws of nature and realty,
Then surely it is more likely that a first or original cause was also a natural 'event' that again, comports to reality and doesn't require the suspension of the laws of nature/physics and so on.
To invoke God as you have is simply a god of the gaps argument.
I can't demonstrate actual 'nothing' - my contention is that actual 'nothing' never existed so you should not expect me to demonstrate the opposite!
So you want to offer the premise that something cannot come from nothing, and yet you cannot verify the claim.
Some things are axiomatic; self-evident truths. For example, we take for granted that parallel lines never meet; but we cannot ever prove that; its an axiom.
'Can't get something from nothing' is another axiom, or self-evident truth. The only way you can get something from nothing is magic and that is discounted from the physical sciences, so it seems a good axiom. We've been using in for 2000 years:
Its not meant to be a cast iron proof that God exists, rather its a strong argument for some sort of timeless intelligence who was responsible for the Big Bang and time. I’ll recap on my argument and give you related arguments that reach the same conclusion too:
1. If time had no start, it has no middle and end, so we would not be here. Hence time was created and probably by an intelligence
2. If the universe has been around for ever then it should be in thermodynamic equilibrium by now. But the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, so time must have a start. Again that implies an intelligent creator
3. There is the fine-tuning of the multiverse for life which implies an intelligent creator
4. Why is there ‘something rather than nothing?’ Logically there should be nothing. The fact that there is anything at all is amazing and enough to invoke a Deity as a possible solution.
5. Various logical arguments (prime mover / necessary being) point to some sort of intelligent creator
So the above constitutes evidence in favour of the existence of ‘God’ (where God is defined as the creator of the universe ONLY). I’m not aware of any evidence against God (please let me know if you have any).
For each argument I assign a probability that it is evidence for Gods’ existence. This step is a little arbitrary so you will likely have an opinion on the numbers I’m using:
1. 50% chance god exists
2. 25% chance god exists
3. 75% chance god exists
4. 25% chance god exists
5. 25% chance god exists
Starting at 50% chance God exists (always starts at 50% for an unknown boolean proposition), combine the probabilities:
1. 50% + 50% x 50% = 75% chance god exists
2. 75% + 25% x 25% = 81% chance god exists
3. 81% + 19% x 75% = 95% chance god exists
4. 95% + 5% x 25% = 96% chance god exists
5. 96% + 4% x 25% = 97% chance god exists
So going on the available evidence, there is a 97% chance a creator God exists. I’m not claiming that any such God has magic powers like Omniscience, just that he created the universe.
"So going on the available evidence, there is a 97% chance a creator God exists"
No. Nope, "tell him he's dreaming"
Well, Dan, it looks like you’ve thrown some number croutons onto your word salad.
Really, you seem reasonably intelligent. What stake do you have in trying to cogitate this deity of yours into existence? What does it provide you? Do you get everlasting life out of the deal? Do you get some sort of comfort from it? Are you terribly distracted by not having answers to everything so make them up? What would happen to you and your world if you let go of this notion of a gawd?
[removed by moderator, read it here]
How does this response answer the questions I’ve asked?
More bollocks, and he's still yet to demonstrate any causal link either....
Every post hinges on his incredulity and wheeling out the god of the gaps card.
I would urge you to study eternal inflation, in which the theory demonstrates that inflation occurs infinitely into the past and is stabilized by quantum effect and thus solves the problems of 'time before time'.
Please demonstrate why this is the case in that it should be at equilibrium by now? and why this calls for anything other than a naturalistic explanation?
Whilst there is still order in the universe that may be converted to useful energy, you will never reach that mark of equilibrium.
False, We are fine tuned for this small piece of the universe and not the other way around.
There are many excellent models of self contained multiverse systems, Look up the work of Sean Carroll.
Why should there be nothing? God of the gaps fallacy.
And most of them are terrible, See Alex Malpass on youtube destroy Matt Slicks logical argument,
Sean Carroll also did likewise in one of the most lop sided debates I've witnessed against William Lane Craig.
You've offered no evidence at all, yet demonstrated your personal incredulity in regards to physics and cosmology.
Furthermore, As per a previous post I made, This demonstrates how poor the evidence for a god is, that you have to rely on terrible logical arguments that a formulated by theologians with a conformational bias.
Eternal inflation is impossible because eternal (in time) is impossible. Eternal has no start so cannot exist. If you take away the start, like Monday, then the rest (Tuesday, Wednesday, etc...) cease to exist.
2nd law of thermodynamics says an eternal (in time) universe would be in thermodynamic equilibrium.
IMO there is lots of evidence for fine tuning, but that is a separate debate for a separate thread.
Nothing is a logically consistent state; something is inconsistent in that it requires a first cause to explain it but no such cause is possible (on the face of things).
No-one has put a hole in the prime mover for 2000 years so thats a pretty strong argument.
Again, There are models that support eternal inflation that are self contained and functional.
Nope, again, as long as there is order that can make useful energy we will never get to equilibrium.
Ah, for a separate thread, as always.
And the prime mover argument is not proof of Christianity, or any religion.
No it is not. You start with no evidence on either side at 50%/50% then you alter the odds up/down as you take evidence for/against the proposition...
Only if you are a lunatic.
Well for example, on the toss of a coin you would start at 50%/50% right?
If someone then submitted evidence, like the coin was weighted, you proceed to alter those odds...
In a coin toss we would start at 50/50 because of a symmetry. That symmetry tells us something about the distribution. You said it should be 50/50 without evidence. That will produce crazy results very quickly, it is almost sure to violate unitarity.
Yes so we assume a normal distribution to start with (50%/50%) and then alter the distribution according to the evidence for and against. The procedure is identical for a coin flip as it is for the existence of a creator god.
Note I'm not saying a supernatural creator god. That would be admitting evidence against. My calculations are for a naturalistic God; a supernatural god would need a different calculation.
The coin case involves a symmetry; what symmetry are you using to assign 50/50 in the case of god?
It is a boolean question with a yes/no answer so its symmetrical, and we have not admitted any evidence for/against yet so 50%/50% is the correct starting point...
Again that is crazy talk. Would you be willing to answer a series of simple probability questions?
Why is it crazy? Whatever...
I can show you why it is crazy, if you are willing to answer a short series of simple probability questions. You up for it?
“What stake do you have in trying to cogitate this deity of yours into existence?”
- As pointed out above, the existence of a deity is basically a prerequisite for eternal life (which interests me)
“What does it provide you?”
- A chance of eternal life
“Do you get everlasting life out of the deal?
- A chance of it
“Do you get some sort of comfort from it?”
- Yes I am somewhat comforted by the numbers
“Are you terribly distracted by not having answers to everything so make them up?”
- Which bit did I make up?
“What would happen to you and your world if you let go of this notion of a gawd?”
- Not much I would merely be somewhat less happy
How can anyone possibly claim to know what 'a first cause' could be?
It could be a bloody pot plant for all you know!
Take off your theological tinted glasses and set aside your religious dogma for a moment and explain the chain of causality that leads to an intelligent agent.
How do you get from... life on earth was CREATED by a self replicating cell under the correct conditions(has more evidence to support it then anything else so let's roll with it), Earth was CREATED from the accretion from the solar nebula, regress back to the big bang, which was CREATED by quantum fluctuations and so on...
Everything is and has been created by something within reality, what you propose is that something magical that you cannot prove, test or demonstrate suddenly went all David Blaine and did all this.
If I find a sandwich on the side in the morning, I know how it was made, I know the chain of events... do I then say oh fuck it, the pixies did it!
Or is it more likely that someone or something real, that is part of reality did it.
You have not read the thread. Here is one of the main arguments for you to consider:
1. Something can’t come from nothing
2. So base reality must have always existed
3. If base reality is permanent it must be timeless (to avoid an actual infinity of time)
4. Also something without a start cannot exist so time must have a start
5. God created Time within this permanent, timeless, base reality