Any of you faggots what to give a go a refuting the KCA? (hint: There is no composition fallacy in the argument.)
Hope someone smarter comes along than last time.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.
Other urls found in this thread:
There's nothing scientific about what you said. It implies that a causal relationship has always existed but in a situation that occured before time and space, and therefore before causality, there is no reason that the universe needed a reason to come into being. Spontaneous genesis is just as possible as a creator when there isn't the conditions necessary for causality to exist.
What go to give, but though?
That's pretty good.
>It implies that a causal relationship has always existed but in a situation that occured before time and space
Do you have any reason to believe that causality only exits within timespace?
>Spontaneous genesis is just as possible as a creator when there isn't the conditions necessary for causality to exist.
So in your opinion, the chances are 50/50? Again, how do you know what the conditions of causality are?
>1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
nope.
/thread
To bad your argument is the temporal fallacy.
We know it is false because time itself does not cause anything. Time has nothing to do with causality.
>nope.
Another brilliant faggot.
> (hint: There is no composition fallacy in the argument.)
Right, it isn't in the argument itself, it comes up when you try to justify P1.
The simple way of refuting the KCA is to note that P1 isn't justified.
Without opposites, expressions lose their meaning. You could say that the polarity/duality of beginning to exist would be ceasing to exist.
> the cause of the Universe is to cease to exist.
¿What if the universe has existed forever and has no beginning?
>The simple way of refuting the KCA is to note that P1 isn't justified.
The argument is that the principle “everything that begins to exist, everything that comes into being at some point, must have a cause which brings it into existence.” This is rooted in the metaphysical truth that something can't come out of nothing.
P1 cannot be dismissed by the composition fallacy.
>This is rooted in the metaphysical truth that something can't come out of nothing.
Stating that something is true does not make it so. Justify your claim.
>P1 cannot be dismissed by the composition fallacy.
Once you actually attempt to justify P1, I'll likely be able to do just that.
>What if the universe has existed forever and has no beginning?
But all the evidence we have suggest that it did have a beginning.
Stephen Hawking said it well, "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted."
>> the cause of the Universe is to cease to exist.
Incoherent.
Also, a seemingly minor point that could become important, we aren't talking about something "coming out of nothing". We are talking about something potentially beginning to exist without cause. You would need to show these two things to be equivalent.
I find this thread shallow and pedantic.
Welcome to arguments for the existence of God (which, amusingly enough, the KCA isn't).
You lack the physics background to understand what that actually means. Have fun with your pseudointellectual curcle jerk.
I'm pretty sure I've been farting a universe into existence after eating some high-fiber cereal.
>time itself does not cause anything
You fail to understand the temporal fallacy, which you imply that user used (he didn't). Post hoc fallacy is when someone assumes an event caused another just because it came before.
And you fail to understand that time doesn't exist by itself. The properties of spacetime cause a lot of things just by itself (eg. gravity). Us humans just take time by itself because it's sufficient to lead our (cosmologically) insignificant lifes.
Heisenberg actually rustled a lot of jimmies with his Uncertainty Principle, which also makes it impossible for us to confirm P1 of the KCA.
>Once you actually attempt to justify P1, I'll likely be able to do just that.
Interesting. Do you know of anything that has a beginning that doesn't have a cause? If it were true that things can come into existence without a cause, then an elephant could just appear anywhere.
This principle is constantly confirmed in our experience. And never disconfirmed.
Let's presume your argument is correct, how does this prove God?
That seems the most convoluted of all possibilities. It requires then explaining the origins of a deific anomaly. You are left with the same question, but you strapped Santa clause to it.
Show your work.
>You lack the physics background to understand what that actually means.
It seems that you make a lot of assumptions. Just like you assume a universe can begin without a cause.
Particle pairs just appear out of the quantum foam all the time for no reason.
>Do you know of anything that has a beginning that doesn't have a cause?
I don't need to. You are the one making the claim, it's on you to justify that all things that have a beginning must have a cause.
>If it were true that things can come into existence without a cause, then an elephant could just appear anywhere.
That does not follow. It could be the case that only some things can come into existence without a cause, and it could be the case it was once possible for things to come into existence without a cause but no longer.
>This principle is constantly confirmed in our experience.
Everything in our experience is part of the universe. You are trying to apply what we observe to be true of the parts to say that it is true of the whole. Classic fallacy of composition.
Particles spontaneously pop into existence all the time. Typically they do this in pairs and then instantly collide and destroy one another.
>The properties of spacetime cause a lot of things just by itself (eg. gravity).
That's interesting. Can you support your claim that "properties" of anything can cause anything?
The temporal fallacy for the KCA is well documented.
He started with a Heisenberg quote, but he's also gonna ignore any physically literate posts.
>The universe has a cause.
Yes it did. Bit of a leap to presume that's god though, and an even more of a leap to presume its YOUR particular god, if that's your inclination.
>how does this prove God?
Nice observations. Well, I'd say that the KCA doesn't exactly "prove" God. I'd say that it increases the probability of God based on the logical conclusions if P1 and P2 are true.
Basically, we get to the logical conclusion that whatever caused the universe has to be very powerful, outside of time and space, and immaterial.
They do this ONLY, and if i have not made it clear yet: ONLY rarely, and then also in the form of say positron/electron pairs that immediately destroy one another (the schwarzschild/hawking theory aside), this is also only possible because the total energy of this system would be zero, thus its as if nothing happened.
Were you on the other hand to create or corral enough energy in a limited space you would see spontaneous shifts from one state to the other.
>Particle pairs just appear out of the quantum foam all the time for no reason.
Sure. But we know this quantum foam is made up of quantum energy and most likely the cause.
If assuming god had no creator isn't stupid then neither is assuming that the universe has no creator or specific cause
I've seen the argument that attempts to get from "the universe has a cause" to "therefore God exists." It basically reads as a list of assumptions that the author means for the reader to not think about too critically.
The problem with this argument is that there is no evidence that 1 is true.
>Particles spontaneously pop into existence all the time.
Sure but not from nothing.
Does nothing exist?
No, the conclusion we arrive at is whatever caused it was most likely a cataclysmic event without order or reason that occurred outside the realm of observable space. Your argument is identical to that of early tribes worshipping volcanos. Of all the possibilities you can conceivably attribute the origins of the universe to, God remains so remote a possibility as to be statistically nil.
>presume that's god though
Not at all. Think about the kind of properties a cause of the universe would need.
>a leap to presume its YOUR particular god
Yes it would be. The KCA is a generic argument that doesn't get to any particular God.
Due to the vastness of the cosmos, i assure you, enough of those paticle pairs have destroyed themselves as to equal the mass of our sun in the time i typed this sentence. You clearly don't have a firm grasp on scale.
philosophy =/= physics
OP == FAGGOT
>It basically reads as a list of assumptions that the author means for the reader to not think about too critically.
Not at all. This thread has mostly been about P1. The evidence for P2 is very strong and not based on an assumption at all.
So, my theory is that the universe exists as a singularity in a black hole. All that exists in the universe was pulled from the parent. Every black hole in this universe has a singularity which contains another universe. We are not the original, we could be thousands of universes deep.
Our existence is pure accident.
youtube.com
The answer is at the end.
You really feel the need to argue semantics on this? Nothing is an amusingly pliable term in physics.
I wasn't talking about the KCA here. I'm talking about the other argument you need in order to get from the conclusion of the KCA (the universe has a cause) to "God exists".
Why do you put properties in quotes? Do you have a problem with semantics? In any case, have a look at dictionary.com:
property: 6. an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing
Could mean momentum of a fist, for example. In case that fist collides with your teeth, structural damage to your grin would be a direct cause of a property.
>logical conclusion that whatever caused the universe has to be very powerful, outside of time and space, and immaterial
That is not a logical conclusion in any way, but who would be surprised. You still spout "time and space" as if these things are seperable.
Fails to explain universal expansion.
>No, the conclusion we arrive at is whatever caused it was most likely a cataclysmic event without order or reason that occurred outside the realm of observable space.
That's silly. We know that space began along with time.
>Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Unsubstantiated contentious claim
> The universe has a cause.
It's called the big bang.
Do you honestly think you're clever OP?
It's not supposed to be scientific
>Do you know of anything that has a beginning that doesn't have a cause?
Argument from ignorance fallacy.
Uh, sure it can. You just haven't explored all of the rammifications of such an assumption.
>yes there are things that come into existence with no cause
>BUT that doesn't disprove the statement that everything that exists has a cause!
what did he mean by this?
>Nothing is an amusingly pliable term in physics
Not semantics at all. Nothing means the absents of anything or NO THING.
Yes the universe has a cause and it is very simple. To love and keep that energy growing.
I believe that the universe's creation is limitless, timeless energy within different life forms to teach us how to use it, and to then return to its source.
So if we presume it was created by a god, where can we presume that god came from? If god is just inherent and ever present, can't we just take one step back and say the universe is inherent and ever present?
We have no examples of "no thing."
No, a better assumption would be to assume that God was created by an even cooler god.
That wasn't a proper argument. Try again and I'll give you a real response. Until then, ponder the allegory of the cave and try to view this impartially.
Really? Explain then.
God damn, I had an ex who thought like that. At one point she got cancer, when modern medicine fixed her up she thanked the 'universal love' for healing her.
Laughable.
>property: 6. an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing
You must not understand that it is not the momentum that collides with teeth, but the fist.
>You still spout "time and space" as if these things are seperable.
I've made to claim to such. You make a lot of assumptions.
>That is not a logical conclusion in any way, but who would be surprised.
It seems my logic is better than yours.
Do you have a response to , or do you concede that you are unable to justify P1?
>can't we just take one step back and say the universe is inherent and ever present?
no it doesn't work like that because then religious fags have to accept the idea that their speshul God isn't a unique concept
The higgs boson was nothing until very recently. Dark matter effectively still is. Air was once nothing, as was electricity. My argument is that we lack understanding.
As others mentioned, P1 should be way more justified. For the sake of objectivity, I'd say it needs to be stated more precisely so we can argue about it.
But more importantly, there isn't any justification for P2. It's an assumption which isn't trivial at all. This single sentence has a fuckton of consequences on the very nature of time and the universe, and I'm pretty sure we don't know that much yet. For instance, it completely rule out the possibility that the universe has always existed. Or maybe we're going to discover that "existence" can't really be defined for the universe as a whole. There's a lot of well proven results in physics that are completely counter intuitive, or even depressing, because they'll break things typically like P2 ( somebody already mentioned the uncertainty principle, but you can also look up the "no-go theorems" page on Wikipedia, and also Gödel's incompleteness theorem).
consider the singularity as a balloon. As more matter gets sucked into the singularity, the larger the balloon gets. In the parent, it's still a singularity, but the child is a larger and larger space.
If time and space are inseparable, why bother referring to both? Treat it as shorthand and hold your opponent to the coals when he espouses ignorance.
The problem is that there is no inherent truth to your first statement, but you present it as absolute fact.
You are founding your entire argument on an assumption. Justify yourself
>Argument from ignorance fallacy.
Seriously? It's a rhetorical question, not an argument. If you read a little further you would have found the argument. All you have to do is provide a defeater.
Your existence comes to mind
It's the momentum that causes the damage, the momentum is a property of the fist in motion. It's very obvious that you are trolling.
>We have no examples of "no thing."
Exactly.
Which is a problem for the statement "something cannot come from nothing"
The issue with that is that the expansion would be caused by the matter, the space between would have a terminus beyond which uniformity would be enforced. I'm not trying to insult you, i salute your thought on the matter. I'm simply offering you directions so you aren't trapped in a flawed assumption.
legit hilarious when someone uses "no" as an argument then refutes opposing "no's" with more "no"
the amount of pompous fuckery in this thread is amazing.
Some people are forever children. They are at our mercy and we should treat them with kindness.
>assumption
>assumption
>assumption derived from two assumptions
You know Craig wrote this to fuck with people like you, right?
relevant pic.
/thread
Uh huh. I think you are missing the point.
It is ok to play with flawed assumptions, because its an entertaining thought exercise.
Who knows, it might help you discover flaws with your current worldview.
Do yourself a favor and go look up how the expansion actually works. Ignorance is forgivable, willful ignorance disgusts me.
>Time has nothing to do with causality
The thing we call "time" is a physical phenomenon that is bound by the laws of physics.
Oh mah... It must be super cool to be that far up your own ass.
Some nice argumentation. But I'd say you are setting up a strawman.
Sometimes the whole does possess the property of its parts. If every piece of the floor is brown then the whole floor is brown. That seems obviously true. So sometimes the whole will have the property of its parts. Other times it won't.
Agnostic master race reporting in.
>The higgs boson was nothing until very recently.
Just because we had no evidence of it doesn't mean it was nothing.
>Dark matter effectively still is
To early to tell.
>Air was once nothing,
Never was nothing.
>My argument is that we lack understanding.
Not a good argument.
But in your case the whole only possesses the property of its parts if every part possesses that property. It implies a perfect knowledge of all of the constituent parts and an observable universally constant property. Neat thought experiment, but not really provable.
>Some people are forever children
yes
>They are at our mercy
not even close
so many kill on their own
or pawn-up to mass-kill
wakey wakey
>there isn't any justification for P2.
Stephen Hawking said it well, "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted."
Part of the evidence Stephen Hawking uses (plus additional):
1. General theory of relativity (Einstein)
2. Second Law of Thermodynamics
We get additional information from:
3. The Big Bang Theory which is supported by
4. The Red Shift (Hubble)
And there is
5. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem
Alexander Vilenkin (speaking on the BGV) goes on to say: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."
>but you present it as absolute fact.
I present it as probably true. You are welcome to provide a defeater.
>is accused of willful ignorance
>deflects caling the oponent wilfully ignorant
Big bang theory doesn't necessitate the universe coming out of nothing, just that the universe expanded from a single point.
>It's the momentum that causes the damage, the momentum is a property of the fist in motion.
It seems that might not be able to think clearly. Momentum can't bust teeth. It is only the fist that can. "Properties" alone can't do anything.
Yeah, people don't like being called out on the fact that they are purposefully stupid. Usually makes them resort to character attacks.
It's the basis of science. Whether you like it is irrelevant.
doesn't think kind of ignore the possibility that our universe is only a part of some bigger "structure"?
>But I'd say you are setting up a strawman.
You can say that, but I'm not.
>Sometimes the whole does possess the property of its parts
This is true. The fallacy is trying to say that the whole possesses a property because the parts have the property, which is what you've done. I am not saying that the universe does or does not have a cause. I am saying that you have failed to show that it must.
Thats true.
The goal is to get you to step back for a moment and get you to realize that we're not having a scholarly debate. We never were. I don't care what you think.
The goal of the thought exercise is not to find the truth, but to exercise your reasoning, to entertain new ideas, to avoid getting trapped into the silly belief that you are right.