Are we now agreed?

[Robbie]

Oliphant - ignore. Lunchtime.

[BeRational]

There you go again rant...and no demonstration.

Demonstrate how I am contradicting myself. In other words show that everything has a beginning.

I ought to tell you that I'm not married to the universe having a beginning because philosophy has envisaged Other cosmological formulations which budget for a Hoyle type universe.

Given that times arrow looks for the moment unnecessary for cause and effect.....from both quantum entanglement and a seeming inability to make the case against.....it looks like Kalam Craig Lane is back on the table.

I thought times arrow was entropy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought times arrow was entropy

An exercise link the change from order to disorder to the regular ticking of the clock.....or not as the case may be.

How does order decrease in a proton?

[jeremyp]

An exercise link the change from order to disorder to the regular ticking of the clock.....or not as the case may be.

How does order decrease in a proton?

At the subatomic scale, there is no cause and effect, there is only interactions between fundamental particles. Time's arrow doesn't really have any meaning at that scale.

[bluehillside Retd.]

If I may, the question in the OP was:

As it’s all gone a bit quiet round here recently are we now agreed that while anyone is of course free to believe in whichever god or gods suit, no-one here has a logically coherent argument for their theistic beliefs to be true for other people too?

I'm not hearing a "no" from the theists here. Should I take the silence then as a "yes" - ie, that the proposition is in fact agreed?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If I may, the question in the OP was:

As it’s all gone a bit quiet round here recently are we now agreed that while anyone is of course free to believe in whichever god or gods suit, no-one here has a logically coherent argument for their theistic beliefs to be true for other people too?

I'm not hearing a "no" from the theists here. Should I take the silence then as a "yes" - ie, that the proposition is in fact agreed?

I think the most recent posts suggest that the so called complete demolition of Kalam and Lane Craig or however Nearly Sane phrased it was not vouchsafed.

I did ask you to expound what you mean by a "true for me" considering you don't believe experiences of God as genuine, but that explanation hasn't been forthcoming.

So I guess several factors are holding up agreement.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just to bring us back on track for a mo, the kalam cosmological argument fails for reasons to do with the various assumptions and special pleading on which it relies, but it's irrelevant in any case - the question concerns arguments for a theistic god. Even if kalam held together it's just an argument for deism, not theism - it tells you nothing whatever about the characteristics of a supposed god, just that he would have started it all.

So are we now agreed that no-one here has an argument worthy of the name for a theistic god that would make it true for anyone else, however sincerely they happen to believe in this god as a personal faith belief?  

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to bring us back on track for a mo, the kalam cosmological argument fails for reasons to do with the various assumptions and special pleading on which it relies, but it's irrelevant in any case - the question concerns arguments for a theistic god. Even if kalam held together it's just an argument for deism, not theism - it tells you nothing whatever about the characteristics of a supposed god, just that he would have started it all.

So are we now agreed that no-one here has an argument worthy of the name for a theistic god that would make it true for anyone else, however sincerely they happen to believe in this god as a personal faith belief? 

What do you mean by "true for me"
What do you understand by deism?

I ask this because I wonder what it is that would prevent a creator God from intervening in its creation?

Finally regarding first cause. I think youll find an infinite regression of contingency doesnt actually produce the goods.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to bring us back on track for a mo, the kalam cosmological argument fails for reasons to do with the various assumptions and special pleading on which it relies,

Go on then.

[jeremyp]

Go on then.

Ok “everything that begins to exist has a cause”. Does it?

The first premise is an unjustified assertion. The whole thing immediately collapses.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ok “everything that begins to exist has a cause”. Does it?

The first premise is an unjustified assertion. The whole thing immediately collapses.

Why is it unjustified?

[jeremyp]

Why is it unjustified?

Well how do you know it is true?

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

Well how do you know it is true?

It's Vlad - he's never understood the burden of proof. That the answer to "why is it unjustified?" is "because no-one has justified it" just confirms that.

Either that or he's jus baiting his hook again and hoping for a bite.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well how do you know it is true?

You have a point however has anything been observed to have popped out of nowhere?
Whereas cause and effect, beginning and explanation seems to be fundamental to the universe We work entirely on reason.

However if you invoke the popping out of nothing then you accept the necessity of something in this case the universe. The question then is, is the universe necessary when everything in it seems to be contingent.

Secondly there is the idea of popping out of nothing is that justified? Well we can not be sur that today virtual particles are not accounted for i.e. Pop out of nothing since they might come from somewhere else and have a reason for doing so. You would then be trying to demonstrate that something is unjustified by means of something that is unjustified

I think that that is at least enough the to say that something must be necessary. You are saying that that must be nature, but there are many arguments why that is not so.

Declaring the premise not justified then is itself not justified for we cannot say it is not true.

[jeremyp]

You have a point however has anything been observed to have popped out of nowhere?

Yes. Photons do it all the time.

Whereas cause and effect and explanation seems to be fundamental. We work entirely on reason.

All this "seems to be" stuff seems pretty wishy washy to me. You're trying to make a deductive argument, if the premises can't be shown to be true, your argument fails.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

Me:

It's Vlad - he's never understood the burden of proof.

Vlad:

Declaring the premise not justified then is itself not justified for we cannot say it is not true.

QED

[Walt Zingmatilder]

jeremy,

It's Vlad - he's never understood the burden of proof. That the answer to "why is it unjustified?" is "because no-one has justified it" just confirms that.

Either that or he's jus baiting his hook again and hoping for a bite.

Burden of proof? What are you saying the default position is here? Justification is on whether it is true not whether it can be shown to be true.
How do you know that no one has justified it.

[jeremyp]

Declaring the premise not justified then is itself not justified

Yes it is. Nobody's justified it, so it is not justified.

[jeremyp]

How do you know that no one has justified it.

Because when we ask you to provide the justification, you don't provide it. Instead you start spewing bullshit and try to shift the burden of proof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because when we ask you to provide the justification, you don't provide it. Instead you start spewing bullshit and try to shift the burden of proof.

Are you saying then that it is unreasonable to suggest the universe has a reason for it?

[Spud]

Indeed. Cause and effect, at best questionable, break down in any idea of something that is the first cause existing. So the Kalam is built on an argument that it then contradicts. It is a logical Indian rope trick. I am not sure that we can get beyond the statement ' There is something'.

There is also purpose.

[Maeght]

There is also purpose.

Where?

[jeremyp]

Are you saying then that it is unreasonable to suggest the universe has a reason for it?

No. I'm saying that no justification has been provided for the truth of the statement "everything that begins to exist has a cause".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. I'm saying that no justification has been provided for the truth of the statement "everything that begins to exist has a cause".

And you can absolutely justify that remark?

I'm flattered that you look to me for any justification or lack of it.

I'm glad you find the first premise in my and probably others version of the Kalam cosmological business not unreasonable.

Is it more reasonable then than saying there is no reason for the universe particularly when reason seems to be a fundenental aspect of the universe?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

There is also purpose.

Do you have an argument to validate that remarkable claim?