(November 20, 2019 at 5:52 pm)LastPoet Wrote:

(November 20, 2019 at 5:20 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Otangelo, two questions.

1. You claim that everything that exists must have a beginning. Is that correct?

2. You claim that god exists. Is that correct?

I'll save his trouble, god is special, it always existed

Meh heard this canard so many times....

Yep, special pleading fallacy. It is a rather tired old argument. Premise 1 of the Kalam used to be that everything that exists has a cause. When it was pointed out that this therefore implies that if a god exists, then he/she/it/housecat must also have a cause, no? And thus was born the modified Kalam argument. Let the special pleading commence. What annoys is that no justification is proffered, merely excuses.

If being cannot come from non being, that means gods don't exist. If a god can exist, that has no origin, then other things can too. You shouldn't try to have special pleading, saying "everything that exists must have a cause, so you have to believe in my god, who defies the argument I just tried to make about everything that exists must have a cause". It's a self defeating argument.

(November 20, 2019 at 6:33 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(November 20, 2019 at 5:52 pm)LastPoet Wrote: I'll save his trouble, god is special, it always existed

Meh heard this canard so many times....

Yep, special pleading fallacy. It is a rather tired old argument. Premise 1 of the Kalam used to be that everything that exists has a cause. When it was pointed out that this therefore implies that if a god exists, then he/she/it/housecat must also have a cause, no? And thus was born the modified Kalam argument. Let the special pleading commence. What annoys is that no justification is proffered, merely excuses.

See my reply regarding Roger the Eternal Duck who is also conveniently exempt from this rule.

(November 20, 2019 at 12:01 pm)Otangelo Wrote: Being cannot come from Non-being

There is consensus in science that the universe most probably had a beginning. If the cosmos had no beginning, then there would have had to be an infinite series of past events. However, it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. Therefore, the universe cannot be infinitely old. Besides that, If the cosmos was infinitely old, it would have reached maximum entropy a long, long, time ago. Since it has not reached maximum entropy, it cannot be infinitely old without violating the second law of thermodynamics. Although physicists such as Krauss and Hawking talk about "the universe creating itself from nothing," they are using the word "nothing" to mean the vacuum energy, which is not a true nothing. To be more precise, being cannot emerge from non-being.  If the entire cosmos came from something, that thing must transcend our cosmos, that is, it must exist beyond the limits of our space/time continuum. We may call it the First Cause. The creator must be a self-existing power. He is not created; He is eternal.   He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence.  Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material/natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been supernatural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be an eternal spirit.

So many amateur physicists these days!

More an amateur shaman than an amateur physicist. His explanation is a super-ghost.

(November 20, 2019 at 12:01 pm)Otangelo Wrote: There is consensus in science that the universe most probably had a beginning. If the cosmos had no beginning, then there would have had to be an infinite series of past events. However, it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. Therefore, the universe cannot be infinitely old. Besides that, If the cosmos was infinitely old, it would have reached maximum entropy a long, long, time ago. Since it has not reached maximum entropy, it cannot be infinitely old without violating the second law of thermodynamics.

No one claims that the universe is "infinitely old"; that is a misunderstanding of the hypothesis that the universe is eternal. Which is, increasingly, the actual consensus of science. This is not an invitation to simplistically extrapolate backwards under the wrongful assumption that conditions that obtain now have always obtained. Prior the the Big Bang, time itself ceases to be a meaningful construct. If the multiverse hypothesis is correct then this universe may cyclically emerge from another universe, undergoing cyclic expansion and contraction. The basic point is that there are multiple possibilities, and deities are not necessary to explain any of them.

(November 20, 2019 at 12:01 pm)Otangelo Wrote: The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material/natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been supernatural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be an eternal spirit.

False dichotomy. It is not a question of material vs non-material, of natural vs supernatural, being vs non being. These are all incoherent, undefined concepts in any event. They mean whatever you want them to mean. You cannot define or discuss the immaterial, the supernatural, or the non-existent as you don't have access to them and the instant you do, presto, they are material, natural, and existent. Because you posit that which you can't in any way evidence, you must locate it in a realm that can't be seen or explored and which is therefore beyond discussion of any sort.

I didn't even have to post in the thread and still, Otangelo succumbed to FSM's might.

Glory to gob. RAmen

(November 20, 2019 at 11:53 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: I didn't even have to post in the thread and still, Otangelo succumbed to FSM's might.

Glory to gob.  RAmen

the common candards, as usual. All Lemons are citrus, mushrooms are not citrus. Its not special pleading . This isn’t special pleading because there is a category difference. God is not in the same category as the creation. God is in a league of His own. He is… the great I AM.

And no. No false dichotomy. Either there is an eternal creator, or not. How it is rational to claim there isn't, and that the universe sprang up out of nothing, is beyond me.

Who created your god?

(November 20, 2019 at 12:58 pm)Alex K Wrote: OP
How can you talk about causation and temporal processes in general once you leave the spacetime continuum? That sounds pretty nonsensical on the face of it.