Cosmological argument.

[Link]

The traditional reply by atheist philosophers, is that you are applying the parts to the whole (all parts need a cause, so the whole thing needs a cause), in case of infinite regression. However, another way to think of it, is not in this way (parts to the whole) but through induction. If you see through induction, that infinite regression would still need a cause, then it's not applying parts to the whole.

As for the inductions, it's to see the pattern, will remain in a infinite from the finite case. And this is true. No matter how long the line (even of infinite size), they are all effects, and hence need a cause. It's through induction, and not saying, because the whole thing is effects, it requires a cause.

It's subtle, but if you see infinite regression requiring a first cause through induction, it's a solid and there is no refutation. If you see it through parts to the whole, it's a unproven reason, and unproven proof.

[Minimalist]

Link, allah is as silly as Zeus and Quetzalcoatl.

Glad to see you are still okay.

[Link]

Glad to see you are still okay.

Thanks, and likewise glad to see you still kicking it.

Back the topic:

Another way to think of it, is mathematically, infinity divided by two remains infinity. There degrees of infinity according to set theory, for example, infinite more real numbers then integers.


If you divide the universe in 3 in an infinite chain, 2 of them will have a previous cause, but then you make an except for the first of the three? The question is why, inductively, it is wrong, it requires a cause. So now I showed a way to reduce the problem and simplify it. Infinite chain of effects can be split, and they would all require previous cause.

This simplifies the problem and shows definitely it requires a first uncaused cause.

[Minimalist]

Actually, what it says is that theists insist that everything requires a cause except whatever they want to be "uncaused."

It's silly sophistry.

[Bucky Ball]

Before you claim that any system of logic is valid (in this case with respect to the gods) you must demonstrate that the logical system (there are many) actually applies to your subject at hand, and say how it is you have determined that. Some of the many logic systems are perfectly consistent, yet do not obtain in reality. You can't do that for anything you can't test, and all you know about is a very tiny subset of the reality in this universe, (maybe 5 %). (See Dr. Sean Carroll - CalTech school William L. Craig on the topic in their debate). How do you know that logic you think applies to the tiny subset of the universe you know about, applies to what wold not be *in* this universe. You don't. You're whistling in the dark, making up shit.

Common rookie error.

[trdsf]

The traditional reply by atheist philosophers, is that you are applying the parts to the whole (all parts need a cause, so the whole thing needs a cause), in case of infinite regression.

Actually, at the quantum level, no they don't.  Things happen by statistics there, not by deterministic rules -- it's perfectly legitimate to get from point A to point C not via point B, but via point Q, point 37, point φ, or all of them at the same time, or none of them at all.

Infinite regress is a problem for theistic beginnings of the universe; if there was a creator, it had to come from somewhere, and if you want to say the creator self-created, then you are giving away the whole game because if the creator can self-create, so can the universe.


As for me, I'm not even near the point of infinite regress.  The cause of the Big Bang is an active area of research, no more, no less, and the lack of a generally accepted explanation now doesn't mean there will never be one.

[SYZ]

The traditional reply by atheist philosophers, is that you are applying the parts to the whole... blah, blah, blah...

Who rattled your fucking cage mate?  I was hoping we'd never see your ugly face
polluting this forum ever again.      

[Gwaithmir]

The traditional reply by atheist philosophers, is that you are applying the parts to the whole (all parts need a cause, so the whole thing needs a cause), in case of infinite regression. However, another way to think of it, is not in this way (parts to the whole) but through induction. If you see through induction, that infinite regression would still need a cause, then it's not applying parts to the whole.

As for the inductions, it's to see the pattern, will remain in a infinite from the finite case. And this is true. No matter how long the line (even of infinite size), they are all effects, and hence need a cause. It's through induction, and not saying, because the whole thing is effects, it requires a cause.

It's subtle, but if you see infinite regression requiring a first cause through induction, it's a solid and there is no refutation. If you see it through parts to the whole, it's a unproven reason, and unproven proof.

From what we presently know about the universe, time did not exist before the Big Bang, so the Infinite Regression argument is invalid.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/5312/1/B...OfTime.pdf

[Bucky Ball]

The traditional reply by atheist philosophers, is that you are applying the parts to the whole (all parts need a cause, so the whole thing needs a cause), in case of infinite regression.

You made that up. I've never ever seen any philosopher make that argument, much less, atheist philosophers.

[Astreja]

The instant you postulate a "first cause" for a god using philosophy rather than testable scientific data, you commit the logical fallacy of special pleading.

The only appropriate response is to laugh, point and roll one's eyes. "Wot, this shit again?"

[Bucky Ball]

The traditional reply by atheist philosophers, is that you are applying the parts to the whole (all parts need a cause, so the whole thing needs a cause), in case of infinite regression. However, another way to think of it, is not in this way (parts to the whole) but through induction. If you see through induction, that infinite regression would still need a cause, then it's not applying parts to the whole.

As for the inductions, it's to see the pattern, will remain in a infinite from the finite case. And this is true. No matter how long the line (even of infinite size), they are all effects, and hence need a cause. It's through induction, and not saying, because the whole thing is effects, it requires a cause.

It's subtle, but if you see infinite regression requiring a first cause through induction, it's a solid and there is no refutation. If you see it through parts to the whole, it's a unproven reason, and unproven proof.

From what we presently know about the universe, time did not exist before the Big Bang, so the Infinite Regression argument is invalid.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/5312/1/B...OfTime.pdf

The Big Bang Theory says nothing about a beginning, thus nothing regarding "causes" is even implied, or necessary.
Religious right-wing fundies tried to hijack the theory, dishonestly, and tried to make it say what is not there.
What was at very high temperature and high density is not even addressed in the theory.
No theist can say what was at high temperture and density. "Nothing" is not at high temperture and high density.
Nothing about infinite regressions is even implied in the theory. Roger Penrose, (Hawking's friend) wrote a book called "Cycles of Time" in which he postulated that there were cycles of bangs and re-bangs. There are YouTubes about this, (but they are hard to follow, I think).

[Astreja]

...No theist can say what was at high temperature and density. "Nothing" is not at high temperature and high density.

This.  Theists strawman the BBT all the time by saying "You think nothing exploded and created everything?  Har har har!"

Um, no.  It would be more accurate to say "An immense amount of [already-in-existence] highly compressed matter-energy expanded rapidly to form our current universe."  Rather than an explosion of nothing, it's closer to being an expansion of everything.

In other words, there's a good chance that matter/energy has always existed in some form, and that there was never a need for a creator-god to invent it.  Furthermore, because of the equivalence of matter and energy, if a god was capable of any action at all, that would imply that matter/energy already existed; otherwise the god would have no energy to create anything.  This is why I believe that divine creation ex nihilo is a contradiction in terms and an absurdity.

[Minimalist]

I think it is less that they strawman it and more that they are too stupid to comprehend something like the BBT.

Religitards like things simple.  You know.  Goddidit.

[jerry mcmasters]

The traditional reply by atheist philosophers, is that you are applying the parts to the whole (all parts need a cause, so the whole thing needs a cause), in case of infinite regression. However, another way to think of it, is not in this way (parts to the whole) but through induction. If you see through induction, that infinite regression would still need a cause, then it's not applying parts to the whole.

As for the inductions, it's to see the pattern, will remain in a infinite from the finite case. And this is true. No matter how long the line (even of infinite size), they are all effects, and hence need a cause. It's through induction, and not saying, because the whole thing is effects, it requires a cause.

It's subtle, but if you see infinite regression requiring a first cause through induction, it's a solid and there is no refutation. If you see it through parts to the whole, it's a unproven reason, and unproven proof.

You lost me at "The" but hope you are doing well Link.  Take care.

[Reltzik]

......

Oh.  Goodie.  Someone.  Using.  Math.  For.  Apologetics.


*siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh*

Yes, inductions need a starting point for the pattern to be induced upon.  No, not all infinite cycles need be generated through induction.  (Sine waves, for example, repeat infinitely based on a geometric pattern that need not be induced.)  It's neither irrefutable nor solid to simply assume that a given progression can only be generated inductively.  And even the ones that are defined inductively can often be generated backwards towards negative infinity as well as forwards towards positive infinity, which we might say is analogous to Last-Thursdayism.  Or they can generate outwards to a multidimensional infinity.  The universe does seem to have had some manner of beginning (depending on how you define "begin"), but analogies to mathematics that most people do not understand well (a fact which you are here either exemplifying or attempting to exploit) will not prove it, regardless of whether it is true.  Similarly, these analogies will not prove the existence of a god, whether or not a god exists.

What's more, proving a beginning to this universe would not prove that the beginning was a god.  Proving that it was a god would not prove that it was YOUR god.  Proving that it was your god would not demonstrate that what your religion's specific prophets, scribes, judges, etc said when they codified your religion was correct, while all the other competitors were not.

That last point's what you need to demonstrate to get someone to believe in your religion.  Get all the other points and you will not have done enough to demonstrate that one.  Demonstrate that one, and all the others come in with it.  Might as well address that point first, and then never need to address the rest after it.

Instead, you're doing everything backwards.

[Cavebear]

...No theist can say what was at high temperature and density. "Nothing" is not at high temperature and high density.

This.  Theists strawman the BBT all the time by saying "You think nothing exploded and created everything?  Har har har!"

Um, no.  It would be more accurate to say "An immense amount of [already-in-existence] highly compressed matter-energy expanded rapidly to form our current universe."  Rather than an explosion of nothing, it's closer to being an expansion of everything.

In other words, there's a good chance that matter/energy has always existed in some form, and that there was never a need for a creator-god to invent it.  Furthermore, because of the equivalence of matter and energy, if a god was capable of any action at all, that would imply that matter/energy already existed; otherwise the god would have no energy to create anything.  This is why I believe that divine creation ex nihilo is a contradiction in terms and an absurdity.

Nothing comes from nothing.  The question is actually how dense the "something" was that preceeded The Big Bang. Not that it existed ,but what is was like before and what caused the expansion..

[OakTree500]

Worth noting as well that as Atheists we are very happy to say "we don't know".

We know through the evidence we have that the Big Bang seems to be the most likely cause of the creation of the universe, as we know it, but as to the "how" the before stuff works......we simply don't know. That doesn't mean a god is needed for that, but we're not saying we know for sure either way - that is something the religious crowd really need to pick up on.

The main differences are Atheists say "we know this part, and will work on the rest as we go" while Theists say "this is how it happened, because my book says so" - which is super dense to be totally honest.

[Gwaithmir]

“Reason, observation and experience──the Holy Trinity of science──have taught us that happiness is the only good; that the time to be happy is now, and the way to be happy is to make others so. This is enough for us. In this belief we are content to live and die. If by any possibility the existence of a power superior to, and independent of Nature shall be demonstrated, there will be time enough to kneel. Until then, let us stand erect.” (Robert G. Ingersoll, The Gods) 

[Cypher44]

Hey Link buddy, how you been man?

The Cosmological Argument? Really my dude?

That falls apart at the first hurdle if we’re being honest and you and I both know that, the simple issue, logically speaking, all things/objects have a cause right, so the divine creator is a thing yes?

So what caused the Almighty themselves to exist?

There are many other issues too, the fallacy of composition being one that comes to mind plus the rebuttal that why does it have to be your god anyway?

Why should we explain the universe anyway man? It’s just there innit.

It exists, that is all.

Hope you’re all good my guy

[Paleophyte]

The traditional reply by atheist philosophers, is that you are applying the parts to the whole (all parts need a cause, so the whole thing needs a cause), in case of infinite regression. However, another way to think of it, is not in this way (parts to the whole) but through induction. If you see through induction, that infinite regression would still need a cause, then it's not applying parts to the whole.

Sorry, but this doesn't help anything. You're still taking attributes of the parts and applying it to the whole. The only causality that you've ever observed has been with events within the universe. Nobody has ever observed a universe being caused so we have no idea how or even if it needs a cause, much less what that cause would be like.

And that's just one of the cosmological argument's problems.

I'm tickled by the cosmological argument though as it forces believers to acknowledge that we learned more about our origins from Hubble, Einstein, and Hawking than we ever did from scripture.

[Lion IRC]

...if there was a creator, it had to come from somewhere

Why? 
In a forum which routinely accuses theists of making up stuff, what is the basis of your quasi-religious belief that there has to be a 'somewhere' (over the rainbow) from whence a Creator must have come?
I'm not criticising your metaphysical imaginings...Im asking you to embrace them and tell us more.

and if you want to say the creator self-created, then you are giving away the whole game because if the creator can self-create, so can the universe.

Biblical theism / Abrahamic monotheism doesn't claim that the capital "C" Creator had a beginning. Do you need a refresher course on the Cosmological Argument?

[Free]

The traditional reply by atheist philosophers, is that you are applying the parts to the whole (all parts need a cause, so the whole thing needs a cause), in case of infinite regression. However, another way to think of it, is not in this way (parts to the whole) but through induction. If you see through induction, that infinite regression would still need a cause, then it's not applying parts to the whole.

As for the inductions, it's to see the pattern, will remain in a infinite from the finite case. And this is true. No matter how long the line (even of infinite size), they are all effects, and hence need a cause. It's through induction, and not saying, because the whole thing is effects, it requires a cause.

It's subtle, but if you see infinite regression requiring a first cause through induction, it's a solid and there is no refutation. If you see it through parts to the whole, it's a unproven reason, and unproven proof.

And if you accept that more likely explanation that nothing was ever created, and instead everything is in a constant dynamic state of flux from energy to matter, from matter to energy- while understanding that since energy cannot be created nor destroyed (indicating eternal-ism)- then perhaps you just might arrive at the conclusion that the very reason for existence is quite simply that it is impossible for one single atom to be added or substracted from existence.

So what does that mean?

We don't need any god to explain anything. Everything that is, has always been.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Biblical theism / Abrahamic monotheism doesn't claim that the capital "C" Creator had a beginning. Do you need a refresher course on the Cosmological Argument?

An uncreated creator is special pleading. If your creator can be uncreated, why not the universe?

[Deesse23]

...if there was a creator, it had to come from somewhere

Why? 
In a forum which routinely accuses theists of making up stuff, what is the basis of your quasi-religious belief that there has to be a 'somewhere' (over the rainbow) from whence a Creator must have come?
I'm not criticising your metaphysical imaginings...Im asking you to embrace them and tell us more.

Trdsf never claimed that "there has to be a 'somewhere' (over the rainbow) from whence a Creator must have come". He says explicitly in his post that "we dont know" beyond the Big Bang. The "there has to be a 'somewhere' (over the rainbow) from whence the universe (multiverse) must have come " is part of the theist claim.

But nice try to shift the burden of proof, really nice.

[SYZ]

In a forum which routinely accuses theists of making up stuff, what is the basis of your quasi-religious belief that there has to be a 'somewhere' (over the rainbow) from whence a Creator must have come...

We accuse theists of making up stuff, simply because they blindly accept the non-scientific
fantasies that are presented in their holy book as possible, factual, and believable—with no
empirical supporting evidence.  Ergo, talking animals and trees, burning bushes, unicorns,
900-year-old and 10-feet tall men, bats being birds and dolphins as fish, walking on water,
water becoming wine, God creating rainbows, the Moon giving off its own light, the earth
being flat, there are three heavens etc.    I could list 100 more biblical absurdities.

And your claim that theism is a "quasi" religion is ludicrously ill-advised.  I'm hoping you're
not stupid enough to actually believe that?  Although I guess that it's entirely possible for
someone who accepts the absurd notions of paranormal phenomena and supernatural entities.