Chance as a sole-product of the Universe

mike the wiz You still run afoul of things here mike. Is stating that something always existed not the same as saying that it never had a beginning?
If God never had a beginning then how can he be said to exist?If he is outside of time then you cannot use the word exist since that is a time dependent phrase.

Sorry if I haven't responded to your posts enough. God himself doesn't require a purpose because he is God. He has no cause because he never wasn't. Think about it. God, never was not.What I mean by formal causes present in the designer, is a very specific logical point I have not expounded on. I shall now explain;I mentioned that things such as time, planets, stars, friction, vacuum, etc.. all have an observable purpose.Name the formal cause of each thing of itself. Example;a house, the formal cause is the idea/design of the house.BUT, the problem is, if the universe is atheist, then where does the formal causes of the major laws come from?Let's now name one law, such as time. The formal cause of time, according to Aristotle's four causes, would be the plan/intention for events to unfold.Now here's the philosophical/logical problem for atheism: if the formal causes can be found for such things as time and friction, gravity etc, then we have a formal cause, but if the universe is atheist, then there shouldn't be a formal cause present in any component of the universe.If the universe was random, then there shouldn't be any formal cause for a thing. But there is for every thing.Unless there was a cause preceding the universe, WHICH KNEW THE FORMAL CAUSES. This is very exciting philosophically, because it almost gurantees that the Big Bang was planned.I am very excited by this.

When considering parsimony "entities" means "assumptions". "God" includes a whole host of assumptions, which are not necessary to explain our universe. Thus it is not parsimonious at all.

quote:

---

From reading your post, I would say that you don't see many things, including all of the points I was making.

---

No, what I saw were unsupported assertions.

quote:

---

. If the universe requires an explanation then so does God for the same reasons.

​

Fallacious. Only atheism shifts the cause. God is the eternal prime mover.

---

No, it is entirely correct. The universe is supposed to require an explanation (which need not be a cause) because it is complex and ordered God is more complex and more ordered and thus also requires an explanation. And to say that "atheism shifts the cause" is simply to beg the question.

quote:

---

Let's say the big bangs happen in a place that has chance.

---

If you want to - just remember that it is your assumption.

quote:

---

chance -> place of BBs -> chance -> universe -> chance, and so on. All you do is shift the problem and find no ultimate cause. God in fact answers the problem because he doesn't need a cause.

---

Why do I have to use "chance" as the explanation for your "place" ? Because you say so ? That's a strawman.

quote:

---

The problem in hand is the universe, BECAUSE it hasn't always existed

---

Are you sure ? I certainly don't know if there was any time before our universe or even if the concept is meaningful. So far as I know it is possible that our universe has existed for all time.

quote:

---

Something that has always existed (God), by definition, requires no explanatory causes

---

As I said previously "explanation" is not the smae as "cause". I am asking for the former, not the latter.

quote:

---

I see no point in continuing this debate with you. I'd rather have a productive discussion with someone else.

---

It would be productive if you allowed it to be. I am better-informed on these issues than you and I've probably put more thought into my position. If you really care about honing your arguments then you really should be listening to what I say.

Hi Mike, Both of these statements are rather naive and redundant these days with a current understanding of space and time. Time is not the absolute yardstick that was imagined when such arguments were put forward.An infinite universe requires as much or as little cause as a finite one. Similarly with God. God requires no explanatory cause as we define him as that entity which has no prior cause. It has nothing to do with him "always existing" which is a fairly meaningless statement with regard to our concept of time.

No. Many atheist beleive in a multiple big bang scenario. That and chance are the only answer for the somewhat tuned nature of the universe.If you don't take the position, then there is no plausable scenario for atheism. It's that simple.Answer yes or no. Do you believe the universe came about randomly?If yes, fair enough. If no, there is no intellectual reason to be atheist because it is then unreasonable to dogmatically disbeleive in entities.It's soooo funny that you apparently won't admitt to the one thing that makes all the theories co-exist happily with atheism. Lol.I see that it's an ego-contest with you, as usual, rather than a search for a reasonable position.

mike the wiz That is a circular statement mike. We cannot use a premise as a conclusion. You state that the God does not need a purpose. This is special pleading because you thereby eliminate, without logical process, the same strictures you insist on to those who say that the world came about naturally.

Hi. That's what I said, the prime mover.He doesn't need a cause or an explanation. This doesn't mean Theists don't try and explain why God exists anyway. Nor is it wrong to not have an explanation . God's character means that he is the ultimate meaning of Himself.The difference is that a conscious being explains a great deal of things in a superior way to a string of endless natural causes, which is a none-explanation because you could just move the goal posts forever.Anyone with an intellectual inkling can see that a conscious entity would explain the formal causes present in the major laws. Only big numbers working from chance, could be another explanation of why this is so, and that requires many more extra assumptions/entities. Call it what you like. You can call it extra pudding. Whatever it is, it requires more pudding than the prime mover-explanation.

But God can not have a purpose and it wouldn't matter. You try to get me to then explain God, but what is required is that I explain the universe.God didn't have a cause, therefore, by definition he could have no purpose and what? So what! it wouldn't even matter. it's just an attempt to say "so if you can explain the cause explain the cause of the cause".No! There is no cause. He is the answer. It is a misunderstanding.Likewise, you're in the same boat. Your atheist answer is what exactly? What caused the cause? If it is an eternal atheist universe, why is it?If God is eternal, we have a reason, because he is an entity. No person needs an extra reason to be special. If I met you, because you are a person, you are already special. if you are a random happening, then why would you exist?I know why entities exist. I have no reason to think that things would just randomly exist. How silly, when everything has a formal cause except for the causer!Get thee down, thou cannot refute the irrefutable one. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I am not aware of any "multiple Big Bang scenario" which fits your description. If you are I suggest you provide a reference. And certainly it does not represent my views.

quote:

---

If you don't take the position, then there is no plausable scenario for atheism. It's that simple.

---

What's wrong with my suggestion of a simple first cause ? It doesn't involve an infinite regress. It doesn't assume a God. So what's wrong with it ?

quote:

---

I see that it's an ego-contest with you, as usual, rather than a search for a reasonable position

---

It's only a contest if you make it one. I simply stated a fact.

ADDENDUM: This topic isn't about what caused God. Mike is too clever to get dragged into having to explain why God exists. No, you are the ones who must explain, according to the O.P., why the formal causes exist, and why I should assume chance could have created the universe. That is the topic in hand! It is you who must answer. I shall now reiterate on the topic theme;I've tried some more formal causes of things;Time: An intention for events to unfold. (which then means that events are one of the intentions of the designer)Gravity: the plan is that it should hold things downFriction: so that things won't slide infinitely. the vacuum of space: the plan is that a vacuum radiates heat, so that lifeforms won't be burnt so that planets can orbit at a correct path, so that water isn't boiled.Light/star: The plan would be to give energy and heat to life.Since time shows that it's only reason is for events to unfold, then it is reasonable to make the leap to say that these other laws will work for events to unfold. Even so, without making this leap anybody can see that these statements are true.Now for each thing one would have to say that every single formal cause is a coincidence. LOl!Why do that when the clear logical inference is to say that these formal causes show an intention. It is highly unreasonable to pass off every single thing's formal cause as some kind of freak coincidence. The major laws cannot be disputed. For I have stated a fact when I says such things as, "time is that events should unfold". If that is not what you see, and you disagree that gravity holds things down and that the sun isn't energy etc..then that is a crazy thing to suggest.TH ONLY other thing that could provide a universe which shows this order, would be chance creating multiple big bangs. OTHERWISE there would be no explanation as to why the formal causes are present.The formal cause is also watertight because a formal cause doesn't have to be a designer. LINKSo you can see, it cannot be argues that I am arguing that there is a desing to all things, because a formal cause can be a natural design aswell. So as far as I know, this is pretty much watertight stuff.

mike the wiz I am not asking you to explain God. I am asking you to critically examine your arguement.You have brought God into this in the notion of a designer. But you cannot conclude a designer when you will not use the same criterias to examine the notion of the designer with the same that you use to examine a natural origin to the universe.

No Paul, it was an attempt to claim superiority. That wouldn't be a valid logical reason to listen to someone as that doesn't prove the person correct anyway. Why surely you knew that? Since I have a good knowledge of reasoning and argumentation, and haven't made any errors, then I fail to see why I should listen to you. but that assumes I am interested in "honing" my arguments."Honing" is defined as perfecting. That assumes that my arguments need perfecting, Watson.

You have to remember that it is not my choice that makes God transcend the universe, and all it's possibilities.The natural universe isn't equivalent to a supernatural being.The natural universe can make logical sense. I would suggest it is futile to explain a supernatural reality. I really must request that you make a new thread on it, at this stage.

So you don't think that you can learn anything from people who are better-informed by you. I'd say that that attitude is a significant barrier to productive discussion.

quote:

---

Since I have a good knowledge of reasoning and argumentation, and haven't made any errors, then I fail to see why I should listen to you

---

Since you have made a lot of errors - far more than good arguemnts in this thread (if there are any) - it seems that you have rather a lot to learn

Try the 'cyclical universe' .. also known as the 'Ekpyrotic Universe'The Big Bang: What Really Happened at Our Universe's Birth? | SpaceThen, of course, there is the 'Big Rip'.Endless Void or Big Crunch: How Will the Universe End? | Space