Why the Cosmological Argument Fails

[Subduction Zone]

One of us would bow before one who has power over stars and the Earth, and one wouldn't, based on wisdom or lack of wisdom. You might as well ask me if I would be obey the instructions of a five-year-old pointing a live weapon at my head! There's a lot of pride in your response to the cosmic creator IMHO.

Describing your God as a five year old holding a weapon may be accurate, but it seems a bit blasphemous even for you. Personally I would try to talk with the five year old. Kowtowing before him would most likely do no good at all.

 

[Nous]

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.

That has nothing to do with "the multiverse". It applies to our singular current universe that is less than 20 billions years old. The Hartle-Hawking proposal doesn't mean that "everything that exists" (i.e., "universe") has no beginning; it only means that at a certain "granularity" the concept of "spacetime" loses any meaning.

And the Hartle-Hawking proposal certainly doesn't mean that the laws of nature as we know them exist eternally. Quite the contrary.

 

[Nous]

See if you can pinpoint the refutation:

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

With this eternal inflation our universe was (most likely) not the first, it was just one of many and inflation has been going on for a very long time. Inflation would continue forever into the future. New mini-universes would continue to be spawned and settle out from the overall inflation. It appears that eternal inflation is not eternal into the past, however, just into the future (see Guth paper referenced below).

 

[shunyadragon]

That has nothing to do with "the multiverse". It applies to our singular current universe that is less than 20 billions years old. The Hartle-Hawking proposal doesn't mean that "everything that exists" (i.e., "universe") has no beginning; it only means that at a certain "granularity" the concept of "spacetime" loses any meaning.

And the Hartle-Hawking proposal certainly doesn't mean that the laws of nature as we know them exist eternally. Quite the contrary.

I believe they do. To add I know of no physicist nor cosmologist that proposes the laws of nature are not eternal.

Can you cite one.

 

[Nous]

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

Yes, when someone points out one's errors, one has to ignore the other person. Otherwise, one might be learn something from one's errors--horror!

 

[Nous]

I believe they do.

How did you arrive at that belief?

To add I know of no physicist nor cosmologist that proposes the laws of nature are not eternal.

Can you cite one.

I also know of no physicist or cosmologist who has proposed that "the sky is not green."

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, when someone points out one's errors, one has to ignore the other person. Otherwise, one might be learn something from one's errors--horror!

No error here at all. The same models used for the Multiverse are those for universes in the greater cosmos. None of the scientists propose absolute beginnings of anything, natural laws nor our physical existence, to satisfy your religious agenda. Since the Guth and Velinkin proposals based on math and Quantum Mechanics there are other models. some cyclic, without beginnings that fit the existing evidence

As I said before this question can never be answered, because the vastness of the possible physical existence is beyond the reach of human science.

You are grabbing at imaginary straws if you propose there is any falsifiable hypothesis that would successfully falsify your agenda.

Well . . . yes again the cosmologists are correct the sky is not green, unless you include rainbows and some sunsets. Again, no cosmologist proposes that there is an absolute beginning of anything natural laws nor our physical existence. Actually it is impossible for anyone nor scientist to falsify anyway nor the other.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

There is no known reason to think that abiogenesis is impossible. Or perhaps you know of some brand new scientific discovery. Strange attempt to move the goalposts.

Exactly. And Darwin solved a lot by discovering how evolution works. Prior to Darwin, the biggest problem for atheists was explaining the complexity of life, which is now explained by evolution. The remaining problems are actually much less difficult, since the fundamental building blocks of the universe, as well as the "seeds" of life, are much simpler in structure than living organisms.

 

[shunyadragon]

Exactly. And Darwin solved a lot by discovering how evolution works. Prior to Darwin, the biggest problem for atheists was explaining the complexity of life, which is now explained by evolution. The remaining problems are actually much less difficult, since the fundamental building blocks of the universe, as well as the "seeds" of life, are much simpler in structure than living organisms.

Beginning with Charles Darwin 'scientists' began to progressively falsify and verify the science of evolution from the simple to the complex not atheists.

 

[atanu]

Many versions of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God go something like this.

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

.... But, to go from "the universe had a cause" to "the God of Religion X must exist" is a laughably illogical leap. ......

The implication that the cause of the universe is God appears laughable only from a view point based on an assumption. Many proceed from the assumption that the first cause is blind.

But that assumption does not hold up. The first cause of the universe, if there is one, is necessarily 'INTELLIGENT'.

 

[atanu]

Exactly. And Darwin solved a lot by discovering how evolution works. Prior to Darwin, the biggest problem for atheists was explaining the complexity of life, which is now explained by evolution. The remaining problems are actually much less difficult, since the fundamental building blocks of the universe, as well as the "seeds" of life, are much simpler in structure than living organisms.

Darwin did to solve the problem of the origin of life or consciousness.

 

[shunyadragon]

The implication that the cause of the universe is God appears laughable only from a view point based on an assumption. Many proceed from the assumption that the first cause is blind.

Who proceeds with the assumption that the first cause was blind? How foolishly anthropomorphic.

But that assumption does not hold up. The first cause of the universe, if there is one, is necessarily 'INTELLIGENT'.

IF there is a first cause?!?! What we have here is simply a theological assumption without evidence. There is the possibly that there is no first cause of our physical existence nor natural law.

 

[shunyadragon]

Darwin did to solve the problem of the origin of life or consciousness.

Charles Darwin only proposed the basis for the science of evolution based on the evidence, and all the research since has confirmed it. Other than the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance.' and other than there remains unresolved questions, which is normal in science, ;What is the problem?

 

[atanu]

Who proceeds with the assumption that the first cause was blind? How foolishly anthropomorphic..

I think that foolish are those who assume that 'intelligence/consciousness' implies anthropomorphic form.

If the first cause is not blind then the cause is God, whether formed or unformed. And at least a major part of the eastern religions understand God as unformed-uncreated.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think that foolish are those who assume that 'intelligence/consciousness' implies anthropomorphic form.

This would be the advocates of 'Intelligent Design.

If the first cause is not blind then the cause is God, whether formed or unformed. And at least a major part of the eastern religions understand God as unformed-uncreated.

The bold perpetuates and either or of an anthropomorphic concept of what you would consider blind. As far as I know no one advocates the 'first cause is blind,; Where are you getting this?!?!?!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please help me understand. If it is a five-year-old alien kid who made a universe that is at least 46.5 billion light years across, you would not bow before his power, because he's "just a kid"?

You have a perspective issue, not a logic issue. This is the pride the scriptures refer to--I understand you are approaching the syllogism kindly, even generously, but if I meet the "kid" who holds timespace together and makes black holes, quasars and little old Earth, I will be deferent!

Why would this five-year-old alien kid care about what I think?

I would be as insignificant to him as a fungal spore floating in the air is to you or me. Do you bother to check which spores around you are suitably deferent before you decide which ones you should inhale?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Darwin did to solve the problem of the origin of life or consciousness.

No, actually he didn't. You're conflating abiogenesis and evolution.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The implication that the cause of the universe is God appears laughable only from a view point based on an assumption. Many proceed from the assumption that the first cause is blind.

But that assumption does not hold up. The first cause of the universe, if there is one, is necessarily 'INTELLIGENT'.

Why?

 

[atanu]

Why?

Just as any meaningful creation (if a creation is assumed) is an intelligent process -- creation of a car or creation of a dish, for example.

 

[Nous]

No error here at all. The same models used for the Multiverse are those for universes in the greater cosmos. None of the scientists propose absolute beginnings of anything, natural laws nor our physical existence, to satisfy your religious agenda. Since the Guth and Velinkin proposals based on math and Quantum Mechanics there are other models. some cyclic, without beginnings that fit the existing evidence

As I said before this question can never be answered, because the vastness of the possible physical existence is beyond the reach of human science.

You are grabbing at imaginary straws if you propose there is any falsifiable hypothesis that would successfully falsify your agenda.

Well . . . yes again the cosmologists are correct the sky is not green, unless you include rainbows and some sunsets. Again, no cosmologist proposes that there is an absolute beginning of anything natural laws nor our physical existence. Actually it is impossible for anyone nor scientist to falsify anyway nor the other.

So you're not able to cite even a single scientist who has proposed that the laws of nature are eternal?

Obviously you are not able to deduce that proposition from any fact.

And obviously the eternalness of the our universe cannot be deduced from any fact.