Why the Cosmological Argument Fails

[Nous]

Do you have a point with this strange derail of yours?

Post #26 is where I asked @Polymath257 three questions in direct response to his claim about the eternalness of the multiverse. He hasn't responded.

Why don't you try not derailing the topic by similarly responding to something someone has actually said?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Post #26 is where I asked @Polymath257 three questions in direct response to his claim about the eternalness of the multiverse. He hasn't responded.

Why don't you try not derailing the topic by similarly responding to something someone has actually said?

I think that he realizes that your posts are not serious. Perhaps if you debated properly you would get the answers that you desire.

And there was no derailing by me. I answered your questions. You did not appear to understand the answers. At least you avoided responding to the answers given and started the derail.

 

[shunyadragon]

Where did you get that idea? And even if it were true, where have they espoused the idea of the eternalness of the laws of nature?

Read again, I do not spoon feed, but nonetheless . . .

"There are still other possibilities, which are more recondite," Weinberg continued. "Quantum mechanics can be applied to the whole shebang. Because the fundamental quanta in quantum mechanics is not the individual particle or billiard ball but is something called the 'wave function,' which describes all possibilities, it may be that the universe, the comprehensive universe, the whole thing, is some kind of quantum mechanical superposition of different possibilities." (This is Tegmark's Level III.)

 

[shunyadragon]

Post #26 is where I asked @Polymath257 three questions in direct response to his claim about the eternalness of the multiverse. He hasn't responded.

Why don't you try not derailing the topic by similarly responding to something someone has actually said?

My references address this, unless you are going to be perpetually in denial. This does not mean the hypothesis of multiverses is falsified and eternal. It just reflects that is what many physicists and cosmologists support, an eternal endless, and timeless Quantum existence containing possible universes in terms of the existence of a multiverse,

 

[Nous]

I think that he realizes that your posts are not serious.

Then he and you would be wrong. I was entirely serious in my questions.

Perhaps if you debated properly you would get the answers that you desire.

I'll debate you any day of the year if you can come up with a proposition to debate.

I answered your questions.

False. You didn't answer any of these questions, for example:

I don't have a clue as to what you're trying to say about the lack of autonomy of "a multiverse". I quoted the definition of "autonomy," and asked you a couple of questions regarding what you're trying to say, but you didn't answer. Frankly, for all the basis in reality for your claims about "a multiverse," I think you might as well be trying to describe square circles. But I'll just repeat my questions: "Autonomous" means "not subject to control from outside; independent". the definition of autonomous What supposedly controls "the multiverse" from the outside? What outside of itself is "the multiverse" supposedly dependent upon?

 

[Nous]

Read again, I do not spoon feed, but nonetheless . . .

"There are still other possibilities, which are more recondite," Weinberg continued. "Quantum mechanics can be applied to the whole shebang. Because the fundamental quanta in quantum mechanics is not the individual particle or billiard ball but is something called the 'wave function,' which describes all possibilities, it may be that the universe, the comprehensive universe, the whole thing, is some kind of quantum mechanical superposition of different possibilities." (This is Tegmark's Level III.)

You haven't quoted anything here by which to deduce that either Weinberg or Tegmark "are philosophical naturalist humanist in their world view." So, again, where did you get that idea? And even if it were true, where has either of them espoused the idea of the eternalness of the laws of nature?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then he and you would be wrong. I was entirely serious in my questions.

I'll debate you any day of the year if you can come up with a proposition to debate.

False. You didn't answer any of these questions, for example:

I began to ignore you later questions since they were of a trolling nature. If you want to debate you need to be honest first.

 

[Nous]

My references address this

Quote where any scientist has claimed that s/he believes "the multiverse" has no beginning.

 

[Nous]

I began to ignore you later questions since they were of a trolling nature. If you want to debate you need to be honest first.

If you ever come up with a fact that you are able to cite to support one of your junior high school ideas or a proposition that you believe that you can argue, be sure to alert me, like this: @Nous

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you ever come up with a fact that you are able to cite to support one of your junior high school ideas or a proposition that you believe that you can argue, be sure to alert me, like this: @Nous

Oh my, dishonest and insulting. Not a good combination. Your questions were answered. The fact that you did not like the answers does not mean that they were not supplied. And please, when you cannot follow the context and have to rely on equivocation fallacies you can't complain when no one takes you seriously. For the word that you did not understand you might need more than a dictionary definition, they are rather limited after all:

Autonomy - Wikipedia

 

[blü 2]

Well, there's a difference between pragmatically functioning in the real world by utilizing tools that you don't fully understand and asserting truths about the universe as fact by appealing to a branch of science that you know very little about.

In this conversation I repeated conclusions of science that seem to me to be well and consistently documented in the science press, and whose basis and import I understand in outline, and I also offered hypotheses uncongenial to the Cosmo Argument which are not so far rebutted.

Whereas in order to correct, the Cosmo Argument has to be solid all the way through. It must be able to show that all things 'that have a beginning' are caused. I've cited examples from science ─ uncontroversial, so far as I'm aware ─ of phenomena that have no cause as that term is understood in classical physics, and that instead are the result of quantum randomness.

And proponents of the CA must be able to show that time is not a property or incident of mass-energy (or some other thing), ie that such an hypothesis is wrong.

And so on through a great list of possibilities.

So while I'll cheerfully consider any rebuke to my post offered by someone with greater understanding than I have, so far so good.

The Cosmo Argument is a dud, albeit a thought-provoking one. And even if it weren't, it wouldn't be an argument for God, as others have already pointed out. How could it be? God doesn't even have a useful definition in the real world, the realm of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quote where any scientist has claimed that s/he believes "the multiverse" has no beginning.

This is an improper question that shows you either ignored or did not understand the sources supplied and that you have no understanding of how work is done in the sciences at all. In the sciences one answers the questions that one can now. Since we can't even test the existence of a multiverse fully yet the question about whether it had a beginning or not is meaningless. You won't find a proper scientist that has a belief either way. And it is a derail from the failed Kalam argument. The KCA can only argue for a beginning to the universe as we know it at best. It does not even imply a god, though it has been abused by theists to say that it does.

Your question is pointless. The best answer that you can get is based upon what we know now, and that was supplied to you.

 

[Nous]

Oh my, dishonest and insulting. Not a good combination. Your questions were answered. The fact that you did not like the answers does not mean that they were not supplied. And please, when you cannot follow the context and have to rely on equivocation fallacies you can't complain when no one takes you seriously. For the word that you did not understand you might need more than a dictionary definition, they are rather limited after all:

Autonomy - Wikipedia

Again, if you ever come up with a fact that you are able to cite to support one of your junior high school ideas or a proposition that you believe that you can argue, be sure to alert me, like this: @Nous

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, if you ever come up with a fact that you are able to cite to support one of your junior high school ideas or a proposition that you believe that you can argue, be sure to alert me, like this: @Nous

Nah, you have already lost. Now all you can do is to break the rules here. I did support my claims. You have not even asked any proper questions. I tell you what, when you learn how to debate properly then you can contact me.

 

[Nous]

This is an improper question that shows you either ignored or did not understand the sources supplied and that you have no understanding of how work is done in the sciences at all.

Cite the "descriptions" noted here:

In most descriptions, the multiverse doesn't have a beginning.

 

[Nous]

Now all you can do is to break the rules here.

What rule are you referring to?

You still haven't been able to cite a fact that supports one of your junior high school ideas or state a proposition that you are able to argue. Correct?

 

[siti]

That is not true. It posits a first, and therefore preternatural, cause.

That may be correct, but the premises are not about the 'preternatural' they are about the natural (the observed sequence of cause-effect) - so either the conclusion is invalid on the grounds that it invokes a 'realm' of existence not addressed in the premises or it is a refutation of the premise that everything that happens has a cause because there exists a 'preternatural' realm in which this doesn't apply. The argument simply fails either way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What rule are you referring to?

You still haven't been able to cite a fact that supports one of your junior high school ideas or state a proposition that you are able to argue. Correct?

I would check 1, 3 and 9 to begin with:

Rules & Guidelines | Religious Forums

And when you do not understand a reply, which appears to be a major problem not just with my answers, but with those of others, the correct procedure is to ask questions properly and politely. Please note, false assumptions buried in a question makes that an improper question.

Meanwhile, until you learn how to debate you really have no point here.

 

[shunyadragon]

Quote where any scientist has claimed that s/he believes "the multiverse" has no beginning.

Read the references, been there done that. It is fundamental to the concept of the multiverse..You have to read the whole references to and comment specifically on the references. More to follow. . . .

One more version in the following:

From: Hartle–Hawking state - Wikipedia

In theoretical physics, the Hartle–Hawking state, named after James Hartle and Stephen Hawking, is a proposal concerning the state of the universe prior to the Planck epoch.

Hartle and Hawking suggest that if we could travel backward in time toward the beginning of the universe, we would note that quite near what might have otherwise been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time. Beginnings are entities that have to do with time; because time did not exist before the Big Bang, the concept of a beginning of the universe is meaningless. According to the Hartle–Hawking proposal, the universe has no origin as we would understand it: the universe was a singularity in both space and time, pre-Big Bang. Thus, the Hartle–Hawking state universe has no beginning, but it is not the steady state universe of Hoyle; it simply has no initial boundaries in time nor space.

 

[Polymath257]

Wow. Threads can get strange when you have someone on 'ignore'.