Quote unquote skepticism

[IAmZamzam]

The beginning of the universe was the Big Bang and we've known this for quite some time now. I think what the non-muslims are disagreeing about is what came before the Big Bang. Our ideas of time and causality cannot be used to reason about the conditions before the big bang since causality and time, as we know them, might not have existed before the big bang.

Time may not have existed at the time, huh? This is the kind of desperate nonsense I'm talking about.

There you go with that "beginning of time and what was before it", and "time existing before itself", and all those other impossible farragos of words. None of which has anything to do with what any of us have said. Certainly not with what I have said, which is that since an uncaused physical cosmos, a physical cosmos with an infinite regression of events behind it, and a physical cosmos that caused itself are all equally logically impossible, therefore there must have been a cause for the physical cosmos outside itself and therefore outside its confines of spacetime (and, as a corrolary, further causation).

 

[Pygoscelis]

there must have been a cause for the physical cosmos outside itself and therefore outside its confines of spacetime (and, as a corrolary, further causation).

And of course were this to be the case, it would still in no way suggest deity.

 

[M.I.A.]

i could totally agree with the concept of an infinite universe but the definition of "time" in this context is not properly defined.
you could go with seconds, minutes, hours. rotations of the moon and sun, changing of the seasons etc etc.
or something else.

what was before man and what was before that etc etc. but in the beggining there was only the creator of the heavens and the earth and all things in between.

 

[Pygoscelis]

It's obedience to something or other no matter what that something is, even if it's just the laws themselves. But it is not a requisite that you know that it is from a higher moral lawgiver in order to be following it anyway, and if you do then just because you are being obedient to said power doesn't mean that it's just a display.

In regard to a "higher moral lawgiver", what does "higher" mean? Does it just mean more powerful than yourself or is there some other meaning you have in mind?

 

[IAmZamzam]

And of course were this to be the case, it would still in no way suggest deity.

Not necessarily, perhaps, but that would have to be the subject of another thread, as there is much to be said on it. As is, we're still not past all this.

 

[IAmZamzam]

In regard to a "higher moral lawgiver", what does "higher" mean? Does it just mean more powerful than yourself or is there some other meaning you have in mind?

You can disregard the word altogether. The imporant thing is the rest.

Actually, no it isn't, since the whole issue is just a sidetracking of a few stray words I made in passing while talking about something else altogether:

A lot of atheists suppress, and even scorn, this natural inclination by claiming (without providing evidence, of course) that our brains are hardwired to have an overabundant sense or need for purpose, and I think that's what he's probably doing. Of course, they also use natural instinct as an excuse for how or why we can be moral without the existence of a higher moral lawgiver. Once again, it's whatever suits them at the moment.

In fact, that post itself was sort of a sidetrack too, I now realize.

 

[Lynx]

Time may not have existed at the time, huh? This is the kind of desperate nonsense I'm talking about.

There you go with that "beginning of time and what was before it", and "time existing before itself", and all those other impossible farragos of words.

I don't know what is exactly confusing about anything I have said, maybe the source of your confusion is wherever you pulled out 'time existing before itself' quote from. In any case the message you should take away from this is that time is a physical property of the universe; it does not necessarily exist before the big bang. the time @ the big bang = 0

None of which has anything to do with what any of us have said.

I can't help you with that

I have said, which is that since an uncaused physical cosmos, a physical cosmos with an infinite regression of events behind it, and a physical cosmos that caused itself are all equally logically impossible,

There is nothing logically impossible about things coming into existence spontaneously and without a prior cause. The only reason you think it's impossible is because our experience has never produced (with the excpetion of quantum physics) things that are causeless but this is a matter of inductive experience which is hardly proof of logical impossibility.

Furthermore, your statement 'an infinite regression of events' can only come from 2 things: 1) you deny the big bang theory or 2) you think there was time before the big bang. The big bang means time started at a certain point so there is no 'infinite regress'. If it's the latter then you need to realize you can't compare how our universe operates with how things were before the big bang. in other words,if you imagine our universe is a-b-c in some temporal order, it does not give you reason to think that's how it was before the big bang.

therefore there must have been a cause for the physical cosmos outside itself and therefore outside its confines of spacetime (and, as a corrolary, further causation).

since the alternatives you dismissed are far from impossible this conclusion does not follow. as others pointed out, even if this was the only possibility, the last thing i'd conclude would be that this outside cause is anything like the God of Islam Christianity or Judaism.

Just want to point out that no matter how theists tinker with the cosmological argument, it can never get around the central objections that have caused its demise in the past. when will people learn?

 

[M.I.A.]

I don't know what is exactly confusing about anything I have said, maybe the source of your confusion is wherever you pulled out 'time existing before itself' quote from. In any case the message you should take away from this is that time is a physical property of the universe; it does not necessarily exist before the big bang. the time @ the big bang = 0



I can't help you with that



There is nothing logically impossible about things coming into existence spontaneously and without a prior cause. The only reason you think it's impossible is because our experience has never produced (with the excpetion of quantum physics) things that are causeless but this is a matter of inductive experience which is hardly proof of logical impossibility.

Furthermore, your statement 'an infinite regression of events' can only come from 2 things: 1) you deny the big bang theory or 2) you think there was time before the big bang. The big bang means time started at a certain point so there is no 'infinite regress'. If it's the latter then you need to realize you can't compare how our universe operates with how things were before the big bang. in other words,if you imagine our universe is a-b-c in some temporal order, it does not give you reason to think that's how it was before the big bang.




since the alternatives you dismissed are far from impossible this conclusion does not follow. as others pointed out, even if this was the only possibility, the last thing i'd conclude would be that this outside cause is anything like the God of Islam Christianity or Judaism.

Just want to point out that no matter how theists tinker with the cosmological argument, it can never get around the central objections that have caused its demise in the past. when will people learn?

im sure you know that the quran teaches us that. if i have to abandon all logic and reasoning for something beyond belief, then i have done.
unfortunately my beliefs do not negate reality or the laws that govern it.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Perhaps we'll "learn", Lynx, when dissenters like you will stop treating us like bruha-stick-waving cavemen with our "obsolescent", "dead", etc. arguments, all of which is just another way of saying "disagreed with by us". The snobbery is unbearable.

Time itself could not have started anymore than the very dimension of height itself can have a tallest point, or hemp itself can have a beginning and end just because ropes are made out of it which do. I am sick to death of trying to explain this to people. As with any of this other stuff, it's equally of no use.

 

[IAmZamzam]

This is getting way too depressing. I can't go on. From now on I'm just going to have to keep myself from clicking on the very link to this thread at all, lest I get drawn back into it again. I seem to be no less capable of getting through to ANYONE about ANYTHING AT ALL when I'm not around at all as when I'm present.

Continue the pointless debate if you like. None of you are accomplishing anything either. GOOD RIDDANCE.

 

[Trumble]

A lot of atheists suppress, and even scorn, this natural inclination by claiming (without providing evidence, of course) that our brains are hardwired to have an overabundant sense or need for purpose, and I think that's what he's probably doing. Of course, they also use natural instinct as an excuse for how or why we can be moral without the existence of a higher moral lawgiver. Once again, it's whatever suits them at the moment.

The principal reason both how and why we can be moral without the existence of such a higher moral lawgiver is simply that human society functions better, and hence individuals overall fare better if a moral code is (generally) followed. The particulars of such codes vary widely, of course as one would expect in widely diverging cultures. They also evolved over a considerable period of time, starting long before 'civilization' as we understand it.

 

[Ramadhan]

No, that is not correct.

Creation does not have to be from a sentient being.

For example the Earth creates volcanoes, or the Sun creates heat, so atheists do not see the existence of volcanoes or any other natural phenomenon as proof or evidence of a God. Or of aliens.

I see.

So for atheists, the universe is created/caused/uncaused by/from anything, as long as it is not God.

Is my understanding correct?

 

[Lynx]

Perhaps we'll "learn", Lynx, when dissenters like you will stop treating us like bruha-stick-waving cavemen with our "obsolescent", "dead", etc. arguments, all of which is just another way of saying "disagreed with by us". The snobbery is unbearable.

This is getting way too depressing. I can't go on. From now on I'm just going to have to keep myself from clicking on the very link to this thread at all, lest I get drawn back into it again. I seem to be no less capable of getting through to ANYONE about ANYTHING AT ALL when I'm not around at all as when I'm present.

Continue the pointless debate if you like. None of you are accomplishing anything either. GOOD RIDDANCE.

You've got some issues.

Time itself could not have started anymore than the very dimension of height itself can have a tallest point, or hemp itself can have a beginning and end just because ropes are made out of it which do. I am sick to death of trying to explain this to people. As with any of this other stuff, it's equally of no use.

Your analogies are way off the mark. Read more on the topic please.

 

[Ramadhan]

First, titus said this:

No, that is not correct

And then you are saying this:

That is correct.

Even when it is clear that you atheists are in confusion or disagremeent as to what to believe/disbelieve, I can now satisfactorily conclude that the unifying trait among atheists is that atheists are allergic to God, either in name or in concept.

 

[titus]

So for atheists, the universe is created by/from anything, as long as it is not God.

No, your understanding is not correct.

I don't start with the premise that there is no God and try to prove it, as you indicate with what you said. I simply see no evidence of a God therefore do not believe in one.

 

[Ramadhan]

I don't pretend to know if the universe had a beginning or has always been. We have observed that it is expanding at an ever increasing rate. But perhaps it oscilates and a big bang is followed by expansion and then by compression and then a big crunch. Perhaps our universe is a spin off from another pre-existing universe. Perhaps our universe is the creation of a super intelligent alien species, or an accident by them. I simply don't know and I don't see any reason to pretend to know.

Can I ask you what you think of the Islamic concept of God?
Or what do you find is wrong with the Islamic concept of God?

 

[titus]

Even when it is clear that you atheists are in confusion or disagremeent as to what to believe/disbelieve, I can now satisfactorily conclude that the unifying trait among atheists is that atheists are allergic to God, either in name or in concept.

Atheists are like Muslims in that they don't all agree on everything. If you read my previous post I am not "allergic" to God, I simply don't believe in him. The only unifying trait among atheists is that they don't believe in God.

Give me evidence and I would change my mind.

 

[Beardo]

Atheists are like Muslims in that they don't all agree on everything.

That's every religion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Hence, everyone is unique. No two people, not even identical twins, can have the same philosophy on everything. Or most things, for that matter.

 

[titus]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, titus. The "spear" thing you mention would just be confusing magnification of a finite amount of existing space with an infinite abundance of new space between the spear and its target. The proper analogy would be that we have been stabbed by a spear that has crossed an infinite number of yards in reaching us. Can't happen, can it?

Using that logic then God must have a beginning also, otherwise he could not exist.

Your mind can almost grasp the concept of timeless infinity going forward, but not going backwards. If one exists then so can the other.

But then most religious people will fall back, again, on the argument that the rules don't apply to God. It is like most arguments for the existence of God in that it is circular.

 

[titus]

First, titus said this:
No, that is not correct
And then you are saying this:

Quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis View Post
That is correct.
Even when it is clear that you atheists are in confusion or disagremeent as to what to believe/disbelieve, I can now satisfactorily conclude that the unifying trait among atheists is that atheists are allergic to God, either in name or in concept.

One more comment on this. Me and Pygoscelis agree pretty much on this, we just phrased it differently. Pygo's point was simply that, by definition, an atheist does not believe that God created by the universe and that by definition that does not preclude aliens from having done so.

Pygo was debating the semantics where I was debating more of the sentiment of the poster of the question.