A simple challenge for atheists

[Esquilax]

How do you know?

An infinite number of anything is mathematically impossible. Any finite quantity plus one more will always be a finite quantity.

Infinity is a conceptual label, essentially detailing the process of adding one more to a finite quantity, and then never stopping. You certainly haven't demonstrated that that is impossible.

[SteveII]

There's a subtlety to the finite universe positions that theists often miss, even in the theorems that creationists use as evidence for their position, which is why cosmologists don't think the universe was past infinite: at a certain point in those models our normative understanding of causation breaks down. Essentially, there's a point on the graph past which we're unable to accurately predict what goes on, and that is the point at which our linear understanding of time stops being a thing. This is why, even if you read the work of cosmologists who advocate for a past-finite universe, you'll see at least one passage detailing this, along with an admission of ignorance regarding what goes on beyond that point. It's not the "universe must have a cause," case that you think it is.

"Begins to exist" is the special pleading: you're asserting one category for everything else, and a special category exempt from the rules for your god, and providing no evidence for the existence of the latter category. In that way, it's also kind of begging the question.

Not knowing what was before T=0 in no way avoids the causal chain. Even before the current laws of nature existed, the concept of cause and effect still applies. These are not scientific concepts that can be voided with a "we don't know". These are metaphysical concepts that would transcend T=0.

You are pointing out that if the term "begins to exist" is used, God is excluded. Since the Kalam has nothing to do with God, I am confused how that invalidate that specific argument with special pleading.

[The Valkyrie]

Bob96, I have a question. Is your argument that the universe has a cause and/or that the best explanation of the cause is God? Arguments about Jesus, morality or evolution don't seem to apply to this thread. Just a suggestion, keep to your topic or the conversation gets unwieldy and it is difficult to make a point when everyone goes pursues their favorite objection to Christianity.

@Beccs Arguments like what caused God creates an infinite regression. Within the definition of God is the property of aseity. God just is or we would not be talking about God.

Regarding the initial topic, can someone give me an answer why the popular Kalam cosmological argument does not prevail--that the universe has a cause (leaving God out of if for now). Hawkings seems to need to change the definition of time and quantum theories all seem to have the same problem: quantum fields etc. are not "nothing" and therefore need a cause.

Odin just is or we wouldn't talk about him.

Osiris just is or we wouldn't talk about him.

Quetzalcoatl just is or we wouldn't talk about him.

Applying such an argument about one deity opens up applying the same argument to any other god or, indeed, any being.

Gandalf just is or we wouldn't talk about him.

[The Grand Nudger]

Even before the current laws of nature existed, the concept of cause and effect still applies.

What does "before" mean in that context? Whats before the beginning Steve? With no time how do we determine a causal relationship, or the direction in which that relationship flows, without all of this..wtf is a causal relationship at all? That's quite the demand you've placed, don't you think?

Again...even if it did, even if this was true, because our ability to reason is based on the behavior of -this- when/where, we can't trust the conclusions it generates some otherwhere/when. See how insidious this whole bit is? Done, full stop, fin....the rules cant be trusted, it's not the claims themselves "before the before" - the issue is fundamental..or maybe it isn't....lol (there's nowhere to go, it all collapses into contradiction or uncertainty - no statements can be made that aren't self refuting, not even this statement).

This is the terminus of knowledge for us by any means we have yet discovered or invented in order to model or predict -anything-. You can certainly make the demand, as you've done, but once you demand that these rules apply before the before they apply to whatever was in the before the before...and that includes the god you want to smuggle in - and if they don't apply to this god business, then why do they apply to the universe? If the set of things that "doesnt begin to exist" includes only "god"...or the set of things that "begin to exist" excludes only "god" then the words chosen are a smokescreen. I can rephrase your argument to directly refer to the concept which you are concealing. At which point....the statements turn into complete gibberish.

[SteveII]

It's turtles all the way down.

The real answer is we don't know what caused universes, but then science does not have all the answers yet.

I think it's because you want to crowbar in the idea of the god you want to believe in.

Science ain't finished yet, religion is.

Are you saying that science will figure out what came before the big bang?? Is that even possible given that everything we know is predicated on understanding our laws of nature that would not have existed before the big bang?

[downbeatplumb]

Not knowing what was before T=0 in no way avoids the causal chain. Even before the current laws of nature existed, the concept of cause and effect still applies.

You haven't proved this.

These are not scientific concepts that can be voided with a "we don't know". These are metaphysical concepts that would transcend T=0.

You need evidence to support that this is true in all cases.

Until we know the mechanism that produced the universe everything we say is guess work.
Evidence and a working theory is what is required.
There are quite a few proposed by scientists.
"Magic man done it" doesn't even get a look in because it's not supported by evidence and lets face it, its a bit silly.

[Esquilax]

Not knowing what was before T=0 in no way avoids the causal chain. Even before the current laws of nature existed, the concept of cause and effect still applies.

Whoa, not to be picky, but could I have some evidence with that assertion?

These are not scientific concepts that can be voided with a "we don't know". These are metaphysical concepts that would transcend T=0.

Do you actually think that just demanding that certain things are metaphysical means we're bound to accept that too? I know it's a convenient little term that lets you accomplish whatever you need to at any given moment while meaning nothing at all, but we'll need something a little more firm than "I said it's metaphysical, therefore it's still a problem for you but not for me!" to proceed with this.

You are pointing out that if the term "begins to exist" is used, God is excluded. Since the Kalam has nothing to do with God, I am confused how that invalidate that specific argument with special pleading.

Come on, man. Let's not be dishonest here. The Kalam argument has nothing to do with god? That must be why it's a slightly edited version of the cosmological argument for the existence of god, then. You know, the one most earliest proposed by islamic and christian philosophers to prove the existence of their specific gods.

Gee, I don't know why I ever thought that a cosmological argument for the existence of god, referred to god.

[dyresand]

It's turtles all the way down.

The real answer is we don't know what caused universes, but then science does not have all the answers yet.

I think it's because you want to crowbar in the idea of the god you want to believe in.

Science ain't finished yet, religion is.

Are you saying that science will figure out what came before the big bang?? Is that even possible given that everything we know is predicated on understanding our laws of nature that would not have existed before the big bang?

Science even though it takes time to get a answer you are still guaranteed to get one despite how long it will take. Religion on one hand cannot give you answers but only more baseless questions. Take god for example from a logical perspective one would say he cannot be alpha nor omega because god when you break it down is not simple he is complex so there for he would need a creator and so on so fourth. Where as nature on the other hand is naturally always getting complex since it is always getting complex the system of entropy get higher.

[SteveII]

You need evidence to support that this is true in all cases.

Until we know the mechanism that produced the universe everything we say is guess work.
Evidence and a working theory is what is required.
There are quite a few proposed by scientists.
"Magic man done it" doesn't even get a look in because it's not supported by evidence and lets face it, its a bit silly.

Logic, numbers, and other metaphysical necessities do not cease to exist. Are you saying that in another possible universe 2+2 could equal 5

How could we every have a theory of what was before the universe where there was no time and the laws of nature were non-existent?

[robvalue]

I am not seeing the argument "failing hard". I agree, it only proves that something caused the universe.

That is failing hard for someone who is trying to prove a "god" exists, and even more so if they want to prove their personal favourite. I don't know of any theists (except maybe deists) who would stop after the Kalam and just say, "See! Something." Because it has nothing to do with their point, even if the argument was valid, which it is not.

God is a useless word. It's entirely imaginary. No one, as far as I know, has ever given a meaningful definition of such a thing, so that we'd know it even if we somehow had some experience of it. Presuming that anything that "created" a reality also has to have maximum possible power is a huge non-sequitur.

The whole thing is an argument from ignorance. Science doesn't yet have the answers, so the cause must be "something", and what else could it be than "god". Not very good.

No one believes in god because of crappy arguments like this, they are rationalizations of already held (probably emotional) beliefs.

Science doesn't try to describe what happened "before time" because it is nonsensical. Unless further evidence is found, we are stuck not knowing if it even means anything. And that is fine. Making up answers does not help.