Am I a Deist? Cosmological Argument seems reasonable to me.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Quantum stuff? Or would that be both true and false?

[Whateverist]

3: The universe coming into existance expontaneously (or uncaused) makes no sense to me, so the cosmological argument seem very compelling and the classic refutations of it don't really hold ihmo (maybe i'm too ignorant to grasp them, but that's why i'm here anyways)

So I tend (for now) to think its reasonable to believe there might be  a first cause, and that cause would need be somewhat different from what we do know, outside of time, (because time its "a thing" of our universe) and thinking of this stuff makes my head hurt, because while I do think that the universe needing a cause its reasonable enough, we also can't really have it because it can't be anything prior to time, due to time itself being part of what makes a cause what it is.

So yeah, I have no idea.

What I do know tho its that the cosmological argument doesn't really point to anything like a personal god, it only talks about causality and how our universe usualy works and predicts that something would be "the first cause" and that cause would be somehow special, to avoid infinite regression of causes, anyways i'm not a theist, thats for sure.

And I think we can't really know if there's really a necessity for a first cause, because its not something we can really confirm so I might be agnostic on that sense, since agnostic its a position about "you think that it can be known?"

But I still find it very hard to believe that the universe (or the quantum fluctuations that might have caused the big bang, or whatever you want it to be your first cause) be an uncaused cause, unless it is something different from everything we know (maybe this is argument from incredulity, but to me it really wouldn't make any sense to have a natural uncaused first cause while everything else has a cause prior, including time itself, so the only way to stop the regression of causes its coming to a "special" cause)

A first cause makes no sense to me without imagining something far more mysterious having always existed without the need of a prior cause which has the ability to whip shit up out of nothing in a manner we can't fathom.  If natural causes can't get us to a big bang, how much less reason is there to think some omni-powerful creator came into being without ever having been created itself?  The idea of such a thing existing seems far more preposterous than that stuff has always existed in some form or other and somehow transforms by natural processes -not all of which we understand.   

Everything we can detect and everything we can reasonably infer based on that does indeed seem to stem from one big bang event.  But to just assume that time itself and all locations began and will end there .. seems as naive as all the other earth centric assumptions our species has always held.  If you believe as I do in a multiverse cosmos then the clock for the universe associated with our local bang needn't have been started in a vacuum.  Whether we ever have the ability to confirm this, it is still far easier to believe than that eternally existent capricious beings magically throw out first causes when they feel like it.

[GrandizerII]

Also, the cosmological argument is self-defeating. If a god can exist without a prior cause, then why can't the universe?

This is one of the classic refutations that I just don't think it holds.

A god could come to existance without a prior cause because he would be able to do godlike shit like creating himself or some other magical and non-sensical stuff that natural things just can't do (or at least wouldn't be reasonable to expect they would)

While an universe coming into existance without a prior cause doesn't really make sense (not saying its impossible but I just don't think it would make any sense for it do suddenly come into existance)

So you permit that God can do the illogical? So why appeal to logic at all? He's like the comicbook Superman (pre-crisis, especially). He'll do even the impossible.

[_Velvet_]

This is one of the classic refutations that I just don't think it holds.

A god could come to existance without a prior cause because he would be able to do godlike shit like creating himself or some other magical and non-sensical stuff that natural things just can't do (or at least wouldn't be reasonable to expect they would)

You're excuse is magic. Non-sensical magic. Operating on a preexisting temporal plane. Orchestrated by a disembodied humanoid mind.

While an universe coming into existance without a prior cause doesn't really make sense (not saying its impossible but I just don't think it would make any sense for it do suddenly come into existance)

You're thinking of the origins of the universe in linear terms, in terms you as a resident of the universe naturally gravitate to. That you think of a god as inherently temporal (engaging in self-creation etc.) speaks to this. There was no 'prior' to the universe, the universe didn't pop out of some previous state of non-existence because non-existence doesn't exist.
The laws of cause and effect apply to the universe, they don't apply to nothingness because nothing applies to nothingness because nothing doesn't exist.
If you were to travel back in time, the big bang is as far as you could ever possibly go.

1: You're excuse is magic. Non-sensical magic. Operating on a preexisting temporal plane. Orchestrated by a disembodied humanoid mind.

Yes it is, as to me the only reasonable explanation I could come with its to think that something exists that is different from everything else because this thing can, somehow, be non-sensical, to reconcile non-sensical things phenomena like something having no cause or having a "cause" concept without time aplying to it.

2: I can't reallly tell if you are right about the way i'm thinking, i'm not sure.

But i'm not commited to a way of thinking about it, I'm just favoring the ideas that seem to be more reasonable to me, and yeah I think (not completely linearly as I know that we don't have time before time, but I think the we might have things happening prior to the start of time, on that (as you said) preexinting temporal plane.

[Whateverist]

I'm getting apologist readings off the chart. I doubt if rational arguments will work here.

[_Velvet_]

Quantum stuff? Or would that be both true and false?

No, that would be a good example of something that exists and makes no sense or something that exists but we haven't yet make sense of it.

[Arkilogue]

Time is dependent on void space for things to move through. Without space and movement, there is no time....but there can still be duration.

This would be the state of the singularity of matter prior to inflation. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the Big Bang Theory does not assert that matter was created at that instant...only space and therefor time.

The law of energy conservation lends to the same idea that matter/energy is not created only transformed.... it has no beginning.

Also, ever time you have been shown the singularity on a science show, you've been lied to. There is no black space around it, it is not infinitesimally small. It has no border, the singularity of mass is infinite and occupies all space forever in all directions.

That would be the "God", an almighty, absolute, all consuming fire.
A universe would be a voided space brought about by acoustic cavitation (expression of self existence), vibration creating space and form. There are infinite universes.

[GrandizerII]

You're excuse is magic. Non-sensical magic. Operating on a preexisting temporal plane. Orchestrated by a disembodied humanoid mind.


You're thinking of the origins of the universe in linear terms, in terms you as a resident of the universe naturally gravitate to. That you think of a god as inherently temporal (engaging in self-creation etc.) speaks to this. There was no 'prior' to the universe, the universe didn't pop out of some previous state of non-existence because non-existence doesn't exist.
The laws of cause and effect apply to the universe, they don't apply to nothingness because nothing applies to nothingness because nothing doesn't exist.
If you were to travel back in time, the big bang is as far as you could ever possibly go.

1: You're excuse is magic. Non-sensical magic. Operating on a preexisting temporal plane. Operating on a preexisting temporal plane. Orchestrated by a disembodied humanoid mind.

Yes it is, as to me the only reasonable explanation I could come with its to think that something exists that is different from everything else because this thing can, somehow, be non-sensical, to reconcile non-sensical things phenomena like something having no cause or having a "cause" concept without time aplying to it.

2: I can't reallly tell if you are right about the way i'm thinking, i'm not sure.

But i'm not commited to a way of thinking about it, I'm just favoring the ideas that seem to be more reasonable to me, and yeah I think (not completely linearly as I know that we don't have time before time, but I think the we might have things happening prior to the start of time, on that (as you said) preexinting temporal plane.

What if time is not at all linear? What if time is a dimension of infinite space? Then infinite regression is no longer a problem.

[_Velvet_]

So you permit that God can do the illogical? So why appeal to logic at all? He's like the comicbook Superman (pre-crisis, especially). He'll do even the impossible.

Well i'm not favoring putting God in there tbh, I just think that something that can do the illogical fits well the problem of being a cause when there's no time to be a cause.

[ApeNotKillApe]

You're excuse is magic. Non-sensical magic. Operating on a preexisting temporal plane. Orchestrated by a disembodied humanoid mind.


You're thinking of the origins of the universe in linear terms, in terms you as a resident of the universe naturally gravitate to. That you think of a god as inherently temporal (engaging in self-creation etc.) speaks to this. There was no 'prior' to the universe, the universe didn't pop out of some previous state of non-existence because non-existence doesn't exist.
The laws of cause and effect apply to the universe, they don't apply to nothingness because nothing applies to nothingness because nothing doesn't exist.
If you were to travel back in time, the big bang is as far as you could ever possibly go.

1: You're excuse is magic. Non-sensical magic. Operating on a preexisting temporal plane. Operating on a preexisting temporal plane. Orchestrated by a disembodied humanoid mind.

Yes it is, as to me the only reasonable explanation I could come with its to think that something exists that is different from everything else because this thing can, somehow, be non-sensical, to reconcile non-sensical things phenomena like something having no cause or having a "cause" concept without time aplying to it

Great. A wizard did it.

2: I can't reallly tell if you are right about the way i'm thinking, i'm not sure.

But i'm not commited to a way of thinking about it, I'm just favoring the ideas that seem to be more reasonable to me, and yeah I think (not completely linearly as I know that we don't have time before time, but I think the we might have things happening prior to the start of time, on that (as you said) preexinting temporal plane.

Now I know you're fucking with me.