Hi folks! I’ve been thinking about St Thomas Aquinas and his 5 ways to demonstrate the existence of God (see http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm). I’ve come up with an updated version.
I will show the existence of a Timeless, Non-Material, Powerful, Intelligent, Benevolent First Cause. That is equivalent to God by my definition.
First we have to logically justify the existence of a first cause. We can do so in 6 ways:
1. Can’t get something from nothing so something must have existed ‘always’. IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something has permanent existence. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time, so the ‘something’ must be a timeless first cause.
2. Time stretching back forever forms an infinite regress, which is impossible; an infinite regress has no start so none of it can exist. Even if we have another time, say ‘time2’ and have that create time, we are still in an infinite regress (time3, time4, etc…). So the only way out of this infinite regress is to have a timeless first cause that starts everything else off.
3. There was a start of time (see http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/taking-your-advise). So a timeless first cause must exist that created time
4. The Big Bang theory suggests that spacetime began 13 billion years ago. This would require a timeless first cause (beyond spacetime)
5. The first cause determines the second, the second the third, and so on. In a universe with no first cause, nothing would be determined, so nothing could exist
6. The universe is fine-tuned for life. Must be a fine tuner. But the fine tuner’s environment must also be fine-tuned for life. Implies another fine-tuner. This infinite regress must terminate with a timeless fine tuner who is synonymous with the first cause.
Having established there was a first cause, we can move onto establishing the attributes of the first cause:
[text removed by moderator, read it here.]
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Sorry Dan, we can't get past the first proposition. You state ......
"Can’t get something from nothing"
Maybe that is true, and I admit probable. But we cannot assert that with 100% certainty because we have no way to test it. Asserting that "can’t get something from nothing" can not be proven and demonstrated. We can prove that we can get something from something because we can provide examples of "something", and test that proposition. Since we can not provide an example of "nothing", then we cannot assert that "can't get something from nothing".
Unfortunately Dan, you have stumbled and failed right out of the blocks. Until you can prove your first assertion, then there is no point on moving onto the second proposition.
Energy is conserved. Even quantum fluctuations respect that. So "Can’t get something from nothing" seems sound enough to me. Anything we deduce, we deduce from axioms and I'm not sure there are any axioms more grounded that this one.
Anyhow, it is but one of my 6 ways to demonstrate a first cause...
There is a problem with that idea; but since your whole concept depends heavily on calculus, which you've presumably written off; I can't see any point in going further.
But your proposition(s) 2,3,4, and 5 are built on the first one. Just like building a bridge, if you cannot establish a strong foundation, then anything else is bound to fail.
Deduction and assumptions are valid tools, but they do not prove with 100% certainty. History has many examples of deductions and assumptions later proven incorrect. Until you can provide an example of "nothing", test "can’t get something from nothing", and prove with 100% certainty, we can not move past the first proposition.
You requested logical arguments, but at the first obstacle you have deviated from that. You have wandered into the "argument from ignorance" fallacy.
Propositions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are all independent of each other.
An argument depends on all its propositions being true.
Each proposition is a standalone argument for a first cause.
"Propositions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are all independent of each other."
Proposition 2,3,4, and 5 are referenced by "timeless first cause", and your attempt to prove these propositions was dependent on the first proposition being 100% certain.
No. Each of 1-6 separately demonstrate that there is a a timeless first cause.
Then why have we observed particles coming from nothing and disappearing into nothing. If you cannot get something from nothing, then explain why we can observe something coming from nothing?
You are a plagiarizing liar. Everything in your OP is plagiarized from William Lane Craig. Do some actual research next time instead of plagiarizing your heroes who ain't nothing more than plagiarizers themselves.
Everything in your OP has been completely debunked for over 200 years. Some of it over 500 years. Visit other information outlets besides those apologetic WWW sites.
AND QUIT PLAGIARZING!!
I ain't reading no further. Reason: It is ALL definitely bullshit spewed from a brain so full of it, Dan cannot even realize he has nothing but bullshit in his brain. At least I have some science to go with my bullshit.
Step 1 - tell us an infinite regress is impossible:
Step 2 - appeal to an infinite regress:
What I mean in the 2nd case is that it can't be an infinite regress - it must have a terminator - IE the first cause.
Perhaps you should start by writing what you mean.
WOW! I wish you guys knew how to make one argument at a time.
1. "Can't get something from nothing." Immediately this is an equivocation fallacy. You are attempting to equate a mathematical nothing with a phenomenological nothing. Philosophically / Mathematically we can have a nothing. In the real world no such thing exists. To assert "Something can't come from nothing." You must have nothing that we can observe to demonstrate your point. You must demonstrate that nothing can actually exist. We have no idea what is outside the ever expanding universe. We have no idea whether or not the universe came from anything, nothing, or was eternal. There is nothing you can say about where the universe came from, whether or not it "came from " in the first place. You must demonstrate your assertion,
1b. How did you get from nothingness to timeless. Why can't nothing exist for a period of time? (Assuming there was something called nothing in the first place)
YOU HAVE NOT LOGICALLY JUSTIFIED A FIRST CAUSE.
2. Again you are making inane assumptions about which you can know nothing. Time as we know it began in the big bang. At that moment in time when the universe began to expand. You can not assert that there was time before the Big Bang or even that there was a "Before The Big Bang." All causal relations and time itself break down at Planck Time. You are projecting suppositions and nothing more. You don't get to say there was time. You don't get to say there wasn't time. You get to say nothing BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW. Indeed, if time is a property of the universe, a good argument can be made that there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang.
3. A start to time. Time as we know it appears to be a property of our universe. It seems to have started with the expansion of the universe, at the Big Bang. There is no "Before the Big Bang" that we know of. If there is a before the Big Bang, there is absolutely nothing we can say about it. NOTHING. The physical laws of this universe all break down at Planck Time.
4. The Big Bang theory suggests that spacetime began 13 billion years ago.
This DOES NOT require a timeless first cause (beyond spacetime). AND EVEN IF IT DID IT GETS YOU NO PLACE CLOSE TO GOD. The cause could be natural. It could be blue universe creating bunnies. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT IS AN EMPTY PUFF OF AIR. IT GETS YOU NOWHERE.
5. YOU HAVE NOT GOTTEN TO A FIRST CAUSE.
6, If the universe was fine tuned for life why are we worrying about global warming? We can just live anywhere. This planet is not even fine tuned for life. WTF are you talking about. Any life form that occurred in a specific environment would be fine tuned for that environment. You were not magically made and put into a perfect environment. You evolved from the environment.
FUCK NO! WE ARE NOT MOVING ANYWHERE. ALL YOU HAVE SAID SO FAR IS BULLSHIT. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT GETS YOU NO WHERE NEAR A FIRST CAUSE OR A GOD. WE ARE DONE.
THIS IS SO MUCH BULLSHIT. I SUGGEST YOU POST YOUR POINTS ONE AT A TIME TO GET A THOROUGH TREATMENT OF EACH ONE. THIS BULLSHIT SHOTGUN APPROACH TO ASSERTING YOUR GOD IS REAL IS JUST BULLSHIT. PICK ONE OF YOUR POINTS AND POST IT SO THAT WE ARE NOT ALL WRITING BOOKS. YOUR ARGUMENT FAILED WITH THE VERY FIRST PREMISE. THE END!
1. You are missing my point; I am saying that 'nothing' can never have logically existed. So something must have always existed. Existing always in time is an infinite regress so its impossible. Hence a timeless first cause.
2. But the Big Bang must of had a cause. I know our maths cannot describe it but a cause is logically required and it must be a timeless first cause.
3. It is a good axiom that 'things do not start by themselves'. The start of time must logically have had a cause.
4. The Big Bang is a singleton. Natural events come in pluralities. Hence the Big Bang is supernatural. Its no ordinary explosion - space itself is expanding. And entropy was unnaturally low at the start.
5. Why not?
6. The planet is remarkably resilient considering the things humans do to it.
"The Big Bang is a singleton. Natural events come in pluralities. Hence the Big Bang is supernatural."
For that statement to be 100% correct you must disprove the multiverse proposition. Good luck with that because the physics community has been wrestling with that for a very long time.
If big bangs are natural events, and time is infinite, then there would have been an infinite number of big bangs everywhere and infinite matter density would be reached.
So one Big Bang or a start of time. Take your pick. Both lead to a first cause.
Consider the counter-example: where the number of matter particles is doubling on a long interval of time, and space is doubling on a short interval of time. Then the density might even approach zero, instead of infinity as you suggested.
Space cannot double forever; if we trace back in time far enough, we find a point where space was not expanding. So in the long run (infinite time) it can best be oscillating... leading to infinite density.
Is it though? If you take expanding space and two points A and B, then as you go back further in time, A and B are closer, until eventually they are colocated and no more expansion can take place.
First off, why are you describing a contraction as an expansion?
Additionally, even if we ignore that, it has problems: consider the following:
Consider two points where the distance (between the two points) is d(t) = (1/2)^t; at what time (what value of t) will these two points be co-located?
An expansion is a contraction when you imagine it running in reverse.
Clearly that is wrong since the distance between them at t=0 is 1 unit.
Maybe there are an infinite number of big bangs. We can't see outside our universe, so we have no way of counting how many may have occurred.
Infinite time and naturally occurring big bangs leads to the conclusion of an infinite number of big bangs at each point in space. That would mean infinite matter density. They would all overlap with each other... we would not observe the uniform expansion of the universe.
A big bang does not occur at "a point in space". Space is the *result* of a big bang. Each big bang would create a universe of it's own.
But a bug bang must occur at a point relative to another big bang in 'space' overall. Unless you are suggesting these other big bangs are in different dimensions?
Any big bang, including our own, occurs "outside" our universe. Until we can see "outside" we have no idea what, if anything, is there. I would venture to say that *our* concept of "space", as we understand it from within our universe, doesn't work out there.
Or maybe universes do overlap, but do so at a higher spacial dimension. IE, if 3D objects overlap in a 4th spatial demansion, 3D beings would never be aware of it since it is in a "direction" they have no perception of.
@Dan as @LostLocke says, the Big Bang resulted in the expansion of all space in our universe: it did not occur at any single point. There is no reason to think that our Big Bang was the first, or that reality is not eternal.