Any of you Sup Forums faggots think you can refute the KCA today? (Hint: It is still not the composition fallacy...

Any of you Sup Forums faggots think you can refute the KCA today? (Hint: It is still not the composition fallacy. Try something else.)

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:

wired.com/2014/04/quantum-theory-flow-time/
steve-patterson.com/the-logic-of-the-infinite-regress/
youtube.com/watch?v=eQ3x2NSasg4
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Defend premise 1. Show that for something to exist it must have a cause.

...

What's Bill Nye up to now?

>Defend premise 1. Show that for something to exist it must have a cause.

Your proposition should be "Show that for something to begin to exist it must have a cause."

If this was not true, then we could not have science. Science itself relies on the metaphysical truth that something cannot come from nothing.

You can defeat the claim by showing something that began to exist without a cause.

>be op
>have absolutely no comprehension of quantum mechanics
>shit post on /b about an evolutionary biologist
>an evolutionary biologist who has stated countless times evolution doesn’t explain how life began, simply how life becomes diversified

Kill yourself

>What's Bill Nye up to now?
Probably "settling" some science somewhere.

>>have absolutely no comprehension of quantum mechanics
Please show how quantum mechanics allows something to begin to exist without a cause.

You are a silly person.

>>shit post on /b about an evolutionary biologist

Dawkins is one of the world's worst philosophers. I can prove it. :)

nah the argument is true, this is universe is obviously part of a multiverse and a conscious creation with conscious beings operating behind it. you can rend the veil with spirituality if you are 'lucky'

Interesting.

>nah the argument is true,
Probably so.

>this is universe is obviously part of a multiverse

Not true. Show evidence for multiverse

>a conscious creation with conscious beings operating behind it

Probably true.

>you can rend the veil with spirituality if you are 'lucky'

Probably true.

>Not true. Show evidence for multiverse
Well. The fact that there is has to exist the next universe up (the one running this universe) means there literally exists a multiverse. Of course there are more universes than just these two: this one is likely one of the mortal universes where people like us first start out on our existence and then the next universe up is one of the immortal universes where they run these billion-year-old mortal universes without themselves dying. I'll find out soon if my theory is correct kek

>there is has
there has*
Sorry

you confirm cause as in what caused it to exist and cause as in purpose

you confuse cause as in what caused it to exist and cause as in purpose

>Well. The fact that there is has to exist the next universe up (the one running this universe) means there literally exists a multiverse.

Seem incoherent to me. A being that can create the universe logically can exist outside of timespace therefor an additional universe is not required. Occam's razor.

Good try though.

You break your own logic with "God" that will always be your problem.

You can say good try condescendingly to me at this point, but once you die you'll learn that this universe was created by mankind and that there are only humans.

ah nice, so you can pick-and-choose what you like. sounds like someone doesn't actually want their beliefs challenged.

>Show evidence for multiverse

Not this dumb shit again.

>you confirm cause as in what caused it to exist and cause as in purpose
>you confuse cause as in what caused it to exist and cause as in purpose

It's pretty simple induction. Everything known to begin to exist had a cause. To think otherwise is worse than magic. The metaphysical truth of it allows science to work. This is one of the metaphysical truths that science relies on.

Can you provide a defeater for the axiom?

>You break your own logic with "God" that will always be your problem.

How so? Show how the concept of "God" is incoherent.

>but once you die you'll learn that this universe was created by mankind and that there are only humans.

All you have to do is present evidence or a coherent argument to support your claim.

You face several problems.
1. even if your argument is true, that doesn not give you any hint at what the ultimate cause of the universe actually is. Could theoretically be "god", could have some freaking unknowable quantum cause. Who knows? Not you, not me, not Dawkins, not anyone.
2. There are things that happen or come into existence by having more than one cause. A confluence of causes, right? Firing a gun will cause a hole in the wall, but firing two guns at each other will cause the bullets to meet in the middle, and then you have a ball of lead on the floor comprised of two bullets. For example, right?
The universe could have more than one cause also.
3. The cause of anything does not have to be important to that thing. Take bullet example. Do you think the two-bullet-ball, if it could think, would necessarily want to know why it came into existence? And even if the ball got its answer, would that answer help it? Would it even be able to understand the answer?
And what if the answer
4 is not one we like, hu? The ultimate answer to the universe could be some Rick-and-Morty-type shit where our life is essentially meaningless, the universe exists as part of a joke, or a fluke, or we were created by accident and there is no reason, etc.
So what the fuck kind of sense does it make to endlessly puzzle over fucking logic problems in a intellectual battle that can have to definitiv winner or loser?

Premise 1 is flawed already. Quantum mechanics showed that there are particles that literally can appear out of nowhere and without any natural reason within the bounds of our understanding of nature.

The answer you are seeking is: We don't know yet.

You don't know, too.

Unfortunately I can't prove anything to you. But maybe try your inner channels? Assuming you'll stick around you'll have plenty of time to, say, evoke Michael et al and pester them with questions about the simulation and these hypothetical people running it. Do that often enough and they'll maybe kick your ass. Remember that this universe is negative. The God Inc. is the evil demiurge

>Whatever begins to exist has a cause

God has no beginning and no end yet somehow has all the super powers and all the knowledge of everything.
If you are a believer in God and a believer in cause and effect , then what created God ?

I like the way you think.

>1. even if your argument is true, that doesn not give you any hint at what the ultimate cause of the universe actually is. Could theoretically be "god", could have some freaking unknowable quantum cause. Who knows? Not you, not me, not Dawkins, not anyone.

I think we can deduce at least some of the properties of this cause.

It must be timeless - there was no time before the universe. It must be spaceless - there was no space. It can't have material because no material existed before the universe. It has to be personal.

>There are things that happen or come into existence by having more than one cause. A confluence of causes, right? Firing a gun will cause a hole in the wall, but firing two guns at each other will cause the bullets to meet in the middle, and then you have a ball of lead on the floor comprised of two bullets. For example, right?

Not sure. Will have to think about this.

>The cause of anything does not have to be important to that thing.

You are right. The cuase of the universe or even "God" may or maynot be important to you.

>is not one we like, hu? The ultimate answer to the universe could be some Rick-and-Morty-type shit where our life is essentially meaningless, the universe exists as part of a joke, or a fluke, or we were created by accident and there is no reason, etc.

Could be. Do you have an argument for such to convence me?

>So what the fuck kind of sense does it make to endlessly puzzle over fucking logic problems in a intellectual battle that can have to definitiv winner or loser?

If it were true, wouldn't you like to know?

>Premise 1 is flawed already. Quantum mechanics showed that there are particles that literally can appear out of nowhere and without any natural reason within the bounds of our understanding of nature.

Simply not true. There are about 10 theories of QM. The preferred one doesn't allow particles to come out of nothing.

Anyone who thinks particles can appear out of nothing doesn't understand what nothing really means -- NO THING.

>The God Inc. is the evil demiurge
What is evil? Can you justify it?

>There are about 10 theories of QM
What? Post them.

>then what created God ?
Ah.... the old Dawkins argument.

I don't have to explain the explanation for the explanation to be true. That would be incoherent. Nothing would ever get explained.

Infinite regress. There has to be a terminator or there would be an infinite regress with impossible and incoherent and contradictory.

>Religion can't provide any evidence or argument as to the existence of God
>Atheists can't disprove God but can provide evidence to think that the likelihood of God or a God's existence is unreasonable.

Case closed niggers, no need to argue over Dawkins or any other atheist or agnostic point of view because the fact will remain. That atheism doesn't claim to know, it claims to use evidence in providing a theory as to the way things are. Religion on the other hand claims to know and as of yet, has not shown any sign of proving anything outside of its members blowing themselves up in jihad, crashing planes into buildings in the name of god (Allah whoever the fuck god they subscribe to), mutilation of children's genitals, the treatment of women as chattel and the disgust and hatred towards gays. If you want to believe in a divine power then I'd suggest you do just that but don't confuse faith with fact and for the love of fuck, don't become a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon or Scientologist, just believe that there's a higher power and fuck off with all the other bullshit in organised religion.

I'm not your professor. But here's one of the "new" ones:

wired.com/2014/04/quantum-theory-flow-time/

>What is evil?
War etc.
>Can you justify it?
After death we probably won't support such an agenda, but in this case the agenda doesn't seem to give af. Maybe this first life is a rite of passage, a test of character, a means to thicken one's skin, or to earn our eternal existence, or whatever. But whatever its reason is, the fact that we are put into this negative world without asking us first means that we wouldn't agree with its point. Sure, the afterlife is prolly nice, after all the same science could create a paradise, and the ones who run this place would out of necessity exist for a long time so their existence would have to be nice just because otherwise it would be too much suffering to them (the other mankind who lives in the next universe up), but this world, our world, is evil and we are suffering in it and as such we are victims and in our minds after death no explanation would be good enough to justify what we just went through which is why this first life takes place before we "die" and learn the truth. No living person - unless a serious magician or philosopher - can learn the truth before death.

Narrow-minded fucktard.

Do you make this stuff up on your own?

>After death we probably won't support such an agenda, but in this case the agenda doesn't seem to give af. Maybe this first life is a rite of passage, a test of character, a means to thicken one's skin, or to earn our eternal existence, or whatever. But whatever its reason is, the fact that we are put into this negative world without asking us first means that we wouldn't agree with its point. Sure, the afterlife is prolly nice, after all the same science could create a paradise, and the ones who run this place would out of necessity exist for a long time so their existence would have to be nice just because otherwise it would be too much suffering to them (the other mankind who lives in the next universe up), but this world, our world, is evil and we are suffering in it and as such we are victims and in our minds after death no explanation would be good enough to justify what we just went through which is why this first life takes place before we "die" and learn the truth. No living person - unless a serious magician or philosopher - can learn the truth before death.

>Do you make this stuff up on your own?
Nope.

>>Do you make this stuff up on your own?
>Nope.

Do share your source.

>Whatever begins to exist has a cause

says who

>>Whatever begins to exist has a cause
>says who

Please provide a defeater. If you can provide a defeater then it would be safe to not believe it.

>Do share your source.
I'd rather not. But I can share this text I wrote that I derive from my source.

Call me what you want cunt but can you disprove that religion seems to turn morally decent people into fucktards who'd like to blow themselves up? Or that genital mutilation is mostly if not entirely a religious idea aka circumcision or when little girls in some fucked Lebanon type country get the clitoris cut off. Or what about scaring children into thinking that if they don't surrender their mind and conform to their religion they'd go to a never-ending pit of torture known as hell which isn't even mentioned in the Old testament, it's actually introduced in the New testament... Anitisemitism is entirely the cause of idiotic religions because they were the ones who supposedly turn down the Jesus of Nazareth and the prophet Muhammad so of course the Muslims are gonna hate the Jews and of course the Christians who take their religion seriously will also hate the jews... Why do you think the Nazi party was so hateful towards the jews, a) Hitler thought that because they were wealthy they were rubbing in the face of the poor Germans and he justified the killing of 6 million on the basis of one verse in a single chapter of St John's Gospel that says the Jews demanded the blood of Jesus onto the heads of themselves and their children. Piss off calling me a narrow-minded fuck when all I'm doing is looking at what is laid out by stupid, irrational belief systems that claim to know how we came to be in this universe.
>All religions are cancer

The article is from 2014 and only says that because of new information about the quantum states, it is supposed to build a new research direction. Nothing was actually added to the current theory.

You promised me 9 other theories of quantum mechanics and posted this. What are the other theories? Where did you read about them?

You just googled "new quantum theory" and posted the first article that looked nice. You don't know shit about quantum mechanics.

>I'd rather not. But I can share this text I wrote that I derive from my source.

That's a shame. You should provide source to allow proper criticism. Do you want analysis?

Stop wasting time on preaching facts to fedoras. They are fucking retarded, and will worship dawkins, hitchens, and pointless universe forever.

Checked. We aren't talking about normal everyday things here so I won't need to share my "source." I don't want an user to lose sleep over my weird stories. But go ahead and analyze.

>You promised me 9 other theories of quantum mechanics and posted this.

Maybe I underestimated.
Chern-Simons model
Chiral model
Gross-Neveu
Kondo model
Lower-dimensional quantum field theory
Minimal model
Nambu-Jona-Lasinio
Noncommutative quantum field theory
Nonlinear sigma model
Phi to the fourth
Quantum chromodynamics
Quantum electrodynamics
Quantum flavordynamics
Quantum Yang-Mills theory
Schwinger model
Sine-Gordon
Standard model
String Theory
Thirring model
Toda field theory
Topological quantum field theory
Wess-Zumino model
Wess-Zumino-Witten model
Yang-Mills
Yang-Mills-Higgs model
Yukawa model

>Stop wasting time on preaching facts to fedoras.
You may be right. I'm hopeful.

>I don't want an user to lose sleep over my weird stories

I've heard plenty of weird stories. One more doesn't frighten me.

>There has to be a terminator
>we'll just place it so I don't have to have an explanation for my fucktarded contradictory beliefs

Fine. I learned everything from things that go bump in the night.

>>There has to be a terminator
>>we'll just place it so I don't have to have an explanation for my fucktarded contradictory beliefs

I gave an explanation. You are just too dumb to understand it.

The explanation is that an infinite regress is contradictory and incoherent. It's a mathematical proof.

No serious philosopher or mathematician would believe in such a thing.

Oh, now there are like 20 and you mixed up models and theories. Most of the models describe the quantum field theory, not quantum mechanics.

You just copied a list you found and I bet my left testicle you don't know anything about this.

>Preaching facts
All of the creation stories in every religion ever are wrong. Is there a god? Maybe. But there isn’t a single religion that can show it’s there’s. Also, read inflation theory papers. Neat stuff. We could just be a closed space bubble in some larger universe. What I just said is a simplified, shitty summary, but you can read up on it if you want.

>You just copied a list you found and I bet my left testicle you don't know anything about this.

I don't know what else you expect. This is Sup Forums...not a thesis. I am not a Quantum physicist and I suspect you are not either. I am familiar with the literature.

It goes like this: There are a number of them. They have different conclusions. They are for the most part mathematically equal. No one knows which theory is the best.

That fact remains: quantum particles do not appear out of NOTHING.

science doesn't rely on the fact that something cannot come from nothing, for example, the axiom of choice is an important axiom in mathematics and it makes no assumptions about that since if everything really did come from nothing then the axiom of choice would still be possible to exist

>To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand my mental gymnastics
k fam

>All of the creation stories in every religion ever are wrong.

It seems you are confusing religious literature with science books. Genesis is the only creation story that I am aware of that claims that the universe has a definite beginning. And will have an end. Genesis is the only creation story that I know of that is coherent based on the science that we have.

>that can show it’s there’s
I would disagree and I can argue the point.

>We could just be a closed space bubble in some larger universe.
Do you have any evidence for such?

how is it impossible to have infinite regress? instead of "impossible" did you mean to say "hard for me to understand"?

>forgetting Genesis is laden with contradictions
NB4
>apologist drivel

>>To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand my mental gymnastics
It's real simple. All you have to do with your high IQ is show how an infinite regress is coherent. Maybe even provide some math if you can to support your claim.

The Greeks figured it out thousands of years ago. I wonder why you are running behind.

it seems like your beliefs are conflicted since earlier you said it was impossible to have an infinite regress and now you're saying that it is possible and you are aware of the evidence

>but mommy I want to move the goal post, they won't let me move the goal post!
keep trying fam

>instead of "impossible" did you mean to say "hard for me to understand"?

No. Impossible.

steve-patterson.com/the-logic-of-the-infinite-regress/

i like this thread

>>forgetting Genesis is laden with contradictions
Really? Like what?

its not impossible, have you heard of achilles and the hare?

>>but mommy I want to move the goal post, they won't let me move the goal post!

Nope. Infinite regress is still impossible. And has been since the beginning of time.

>its not impossible, have you heard of achilles and the hare?

Only faggots who want to avoid "God" think an infinite regress is possible.

the article you posted seems to be arguing against being able to prove that anything is true, including your claim that the universe has a cause to exist, since it's based on an assumption that has no proof and any proof for it would have to rely on a different assumption etc.

is that a no?

Yeah, but i prefer sticking to religion than being lifeless degenerate like tj kirk or jaclynglenn

i dont know who those people are but no one really cares what you believe in, other than to try and manipulate you. you're getting caught up in a meaningless conflict. just stop trying to be right. no one will ever disprove the existence of god because it's the perfect lie and it adapts to any argument against it.

>the article you posted seems to be arguing against being able to prove that anything is true

I think you might not have understood his conclusion:

"While it’s true that an infinite regress is a logical error, not all propositions are contingent truths. Chains of reasoning can be grounded in a bedrock foundation: logical necessity."

"So, you can be sure of inaccurate reasoning whenever you see somebody at peace with an infinite regress."

>is that a no?

"So, you can be sure of inaccurate reasoning whenever you see somebody at peace with an infinite regress."

okay, so show me the solid foundation on which you based your assumption that "whatever begins to exist has a cause"

What is KCA?
It's not for me to refute your assertions it for you to prove them out in the first place you fucking morons.

You're really drawing at straws to gain funding for shit that you haven't proven out.

god caused himself, the universe caused itself, same thing
Explain to me how God is different to the universe

>okay, so show me the solid foundation on which you based your assumption that "whatever begins to exist has a cause"

It is constantly affirmed by science and never disaffirmed. There is nothing known to begin to exist without a cause. Simple induction.

If you can't believe it, then you must believe the opposite.

>tfw googled searched "new quantum theory" and it was the 7th link

also, since /thread,
shameless plug for learning to count to 100 in 11 over 9 and playing complex polyrhythms
youtube.com/watch?v=eQ3x2NSasg4

if the universe is infinitely old, and each event is just one of a chain of events that each caused the following one in succession, then the chain of causality is an infinite regress which means that everything could exist WITHOUT cause, so it looks like for your argument to work you have to prove that the universe is finitely old.

>Explain to me how God is different to the universe

Really? The universe began to exist. By definition, God is eternal. If God is not eternal, then it is not God. God is a maximally great being.

you need to prove that the universe began to exist, and if you could do that, then you would also settle

>if the universe is infinitely old,
Yeah... but that is a false statement. The universe most likely began to exist.

It being possible or impossible doesn't mean anything. God would have to give credence to everything in every universe. God fills the role of being what causes anything to exist. That doesn't tell you anything about god. God is an idea that we have thoughts and feelings to. It's the same as worshipping a volcano or the wind.

That the universe began to exist at one particular point in time is your belief

>you need to prove that the universe began to exist, and if you could do that, then you would also settle

Premise 2: 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."

>That doesn't tell you anything about god
The KCA does tell us something about God:

Whatever caused the universe must be extremely powerful. It must be timeless - there was no time before the universe. It must be spaceless - there was no space. It can't have material because no material existed before the universe. It has to be personal.

>That the universe began to exist at one particular point in time is your belief

See:

God is by definition sui generis, self generating, according to all early modern philosophers steeped in christian thought. Tell me how that's more valid than god coming into existence one day just because

what they are referring to by "universe" is not the same as what i am referring to.

the big bang theory prescribes the universe's beginning to an explosion for a point in space that is inifinitely small, i suppose. since the point is just a point, you can't really measure time, so it would be as if time was standing still. it doesn't prove that there wasn't anything before the big bang, i don't think.

pleb here, I'll flip your initial question. why does the universe have to have been created by something other than itself?
I can't see anything other than "just because, you know, everything can't come from nothing, it like doesn't make sense" or "It's what loads of philosophers I know and love believe"

We don't know if any of those statements are true.
Just replace "universe" with "god" and you will also not agree with yourself.

>Tell me how that's more valid than god coming into existence one day just because
Because that would not be Maximally Great.

sure, maximally just means more than anything else ever possible. Also, is God detached from his creation or does he contain it?

he cant contain it because then he would be material

>what they are referring to by "universe" is not the same as what i am referring to.

What makes the universe you are referring to different than the universe Stephen Hawking refers to?

>for a point in space that is inifinitely small
You mean non-existent. Infinitely small is impossible.

>it doesn't prove that there wasn't anything before the big bang, i don't think.
According to the BGV Theroem -- every universe that is expanding has a beginning.