Did the universe pop out of nowhere and nothing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Energy is, at least in our universe, and it seems to conform to the law of conservation of energy.  If this is a broader facet of reality at large then our universe's possible eternal nature is simply an expression of that, possibly cyclic possibly not.

O.

But surely energy is contingent in the sense that it's form and the magnitude and location of it are contingent on other things.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who said that, as regards the universe, necessity was an emergent property?

I just put it up to keep you guys on the straight and narrow. We still have to find out, if Jeremy is saying that contingent things are part of the universe, what the other presumably non contingent things are.

[Outrider]

He is necessity itself and not an abstract one at that.

Again, based on what?

O.

[Gordon]

I just put it up to keep you guys on the straight and narrow. We still have to find out, if Jeremy is saying that contingent things are part of the universe, what the other presumably non contingent things are.

So, and leaving aside your natural playfulness, what non-contingent things would you envisage Jeremy (or indeed anyone else) might advise you of?

[Outrider]

But surely energy is contingent in the sense that it's form and the magnitude and location of it are contingent on other things.

Energy is.  Whether it's contingent, and what it might be contingent upon, aren't relevant if you're looking for an explanation of how the universe could be eternal without an external input.  Energy is mutable, but not destructible, and therefore could viably have been forever.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again, based on what?

O.

Based on the ultimate necessary being non contingent. You have put forward that energy might fulfil this, that all is dependent on it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, and leaving aside your natural playfulness, what non-contingent things would you envisage Jeremy (or indeed anyone else) might advise you of?

Having ''dismissed'' God we are still looking for the necessary so I don't know. But then we can hypothesise possibilities Outrider has put forward energy. We know that we don't know because as yet it is unobservable. Is that because it is far away? or does it suffuse everything or because it once existed and now doesn't. Is it by reasons that technically because it should be unchangeable it is obscured from physics? I think we need to explore this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Based on the ultimate necessary being non contingent. You have put forward that energy might fulfil this, that all is dependent on it.

The “ultimate necessity” as you put it for the universe might be itself if the quantum borrowing hypothesis is correct, or it might be some other but currently unknown process. Calling the answer “god” is just relocating the problem somewhere else (what was necessary for this god?), and special pleading this god to be exempt from the problem (“basically, “it’s magic innit”) is no answer at all. That’s why the cosmological argument you’re trying to sneak in always fails.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Energy is.  Whether it's contingent, and what it might be contingent upon, aren't relevant if you're looking for an explanation of how the universe could be eternal without an external input.  Energy is mutable, but not destructible, and therefore could viably have been forever.

O.

Yes that's possible that energy has been around forever.
The problem is though energy would have to change itself for the universe to be realised if energy is the necessary...…..or there is a changer. A particle perhaps. A changion which is unchanged itself perhaps?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

The “ultimate necessity” as you put it for the universe might be itself if the quantum borrowing hypothesis is correct, or it might be some other but currently unknown process. Calling the answer “god” is just relocating the problem somewhere else (what was necessary for this god?), and special pleading this god to be exempt from the problem (“basically, “it’s magic innit”) is no answer at all. That’s why the cosmological argument you’re trying to sneak in always fails.

I thought we had for the purposes of discussion dismissed God and yet here you are dragging the G word in.
I think you have deep trouble with God and this is affecting your behaviour.

[Outrider]

Based on the ultimate necessary being non contingent. You have put forward that energy might fulfil this, that all is dependent on it.

Why presume there is an ultimate necessary - why is an infinite reality not viable?

For clarity, I've not posited energy as an 'ultimate necessary', merely as an explanation for how can envision an eternal universe - we don't even know if the concept of energy, as we understand it in our four-dimensional backwater of reality is a viable concept outside of our universe.

O.

[Outrider]

Yes that's possible that energy has been around forever. The problem is though energy would have to change itself for the universe to be realised if energy is the necessary...…..or there is a changer. A particle perhaps. A changion which is unchanged itself perhaps?

Why would it?  Energy hits plants (condensed energy) and gets converted from sunlight and component parts to a chemical compound in which biologically accessible energy is stored... it's all energy, nothing outside of energy involved.  Why is that not an example of what could be a larger (perhaps more complex, but perhaps not) system of energy interactions which resulted in a universe?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

The “ultimate necessity” as you put it for the universe might be itself if the quantum borrowing hypothesis is correct, or it might be some other but currently unknown process. Calling the answer “god” is just relocating the problem somewhere else (what was necessary for this god?), and special pleading this god to be exempt from the problem (“basically, “it’s magic innit”) is no answer at all. That’s why the cosmological argument you’re trying to sneak in always fails.

Iseem to remember a time when you thought the Kalam Cosmological argument was the only cosmological argument.
How I laughed at that one.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I thought we had for the purposes of discussion dismissed God and yet here you are dragging the G word in.
I think you have deep trouble with God and this is affecting your behaviour.

Like rats in the sewer, your faux seriousness here doesn’t hide what you’re trying to sneak in. Even if every answer to the origin of the universe question is “don’t know”, the cosmological argument is still a crock. Give it up. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Iseem to remember a time when you thought the Kalam Cosmological argument was the only cosmological argument.
How I laughed at that one.

No you don't, and all variants of the cosmological arguments suffer the same logical flaws that hole them below the water line.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Like rats in the sewer, your faux seriousness here doesn’t hide what you’re trying to sneak in. Even if every answer to the origin of the universe question is “don’t know”, the cosmological argument is still a crock. Give it up.

If you think it is a crock demonstrate it is one.....hint. The Kalam cosmological argument is not the only one but it would be nice to just once see you demolish it.

Not holding ma breath though.

Nuther hint.

I don't know, but it ain't God is nota very good look.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No you don't, and all variants of the cosmological arguments suffer the same logical flaws that hole them below the water line.

Feel free to demonstrate.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you think it is a crock demonstrate it is one.....hint. The Kalam cosmological argument is not the only one but it would be nice to just once see you demolish it.

Not holding ma breath though.

You know full well the flaws with cosmological argument (and its variants) because they’ve been explained to you many times before now albeit that you either ignore or misrepresent the explanations. Now we’ve smoked out what you’re really up to though, to varying degrees:

1. It’s an argument from personal incredulity fallacy: “I can’t imagine how the universe happened, therefore god”.

2. It’s a god of the gaps fallacy: “No-one can answer my question, therefore god”.

3. It just assumes that determinism within the universe must also be necessary for there to be a universe.

4. It ignores (or is ignorant of) various competing hypotheses that could answer the origin of the universe question.

5. It just transfers the problem of causation somewhere else, then relies on magic to get that something else off the same hook.
 
6. At best it’s an argument for a causal agent, but not for a necessarily deistic one.

7. Even if you could find a way to argue for a deistic cause that tells you nothing about which deity – ie, it’d be an argument for deism but not for theism.   

Just for fun, imagine a Norseman said, “OK, explain thunder then” and was given:

1. A complete scientific explanation; or

2. A partial explanation but with some gaps; or

3. No explanation at all.

Which of these would provide a rationale for Thor would you say?

Is it sinking in yet? Anything? 

Nuther hint.

I don't know, but it ain't God is nota very good look.

No, it probably wouldn’t be if anyone ever actually said that. As it’s one of your favourite straw men though, here’s its rebuttal once again: "no good reason to think it’s god" is NOT the same thing as "it isn’t god".

Now write that down 1,000 times, or at least as many times as it takes for you to stop lying about it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Feel free to demonstrate.

I just did.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1. It’s an argument from personal incredulity fallacy: “I can’t imagine how the universe happened, therefore god”. THIS ISN'T A COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

2. It’s a god of the gaps fallacy: “No-one can answer my question, therefore god”. NEITHER IS THIS

3. It just assumes that determinism within the universe must also be necessary for there to be a universe.GIBBERISH

4. It ignores (or is ignorant of) various competing hypotheses that could answer the origin of the universe question. COMPETING ARGUMENTS OFTEN DO THAT. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CALLED COMPETING ARGUMENTS. I THINK YOU ARE CONFLATING THEORISTS FOR THEORIES HERE.

5. It just transfers the problem of causation somewhere else, then relies on magic to get that something else off the same hook. Magic is a world where you have contingency without Necessity.
 
6. At best it’s an argument for a causal agent, but not for a necessarily deistic one.

7. Even if you could find a way to argue for a deistic cause that tells you nothing about which deity – ie

IF YOU ADMIT THAT A DEISTIC DEITY MIGHT BE A CAUSAL AGENCY AND YOU DO BY SAYING IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ONE THEN YOU'VE Grudgingly accepted that THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT is not fallacious. The cosmological argument......Which never appeared once in your failed demolition of it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

2. It’s a god of the gaps fallacy: “No-one can answer my question, therefore god”.

How can it be a ''God of the Gaps argument'' when it seeks to explain the whole universe!!!!!!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....God of the Gaps argument indeed.

[Gordon]

Having ''dismissed'' God we are still looking for the necessary so I don't know. But then we can hypothesise possibilities Outrider has put forward energy. We know that we don't know because as yet it is unobservable. Is that because it is far away? or does it suffuse everything or because it once existed and now doesn't. Is it by reasons that technically because it should be unchangeable it is obscured from physics? I think we need to explore this.

So, as regards necessary agents, the universe, and everything else, you don't know - join the club.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

http://www.religiouseducation.co.uk/school/alevel/philosophy/cosmological/Kalam_summary.htm

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I see that you edited out the “…to varying degrees” before the list. The cosmological argument and its variants touches on each of these rebuttals but I didn’t say that each (or any) of them WAS the cosmological argument.

THIS ISN'T A COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

In part it is.

NEITHER IS THIS

In part it is.

GIBBERISH

Which part of the perfectly clear statement “It just assumes that determinism within the universe must also be necessary for there to be a universe” is confusing you?

COMPETING ARGUMENTS OFTEN DO THAT. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CALLED COMPETING ARGUMENTS. I THINK YOU ARE CONFLATING THEORISTS FOR THEORIES HERE.

I’ve already explained to you the difference between hypotheses and white noise. Why have you just ignored that?

Magic is a world where you have contingency without Necessity.

“Magic” is just the BS the cosmological argument to relies on to get god(s) off the hook of itself not requiring a prior cause.

IF YOU ADMIT THAT A DEISTIC DEITY MIGHT BE A CAUSAL AGENCY…

No-one denies a “might be” – deities and leprechauns alike. What was actually being explained was that, even if you could overcome all the previous problems, there’s no reason to arrive at a deity as the causal agent.     

AND YOU DO BY SAYING IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ONE THEN YOU@VE AGREED WITH THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.

Bullshit. The cosmological argument is an argument for a god, not for something else. Moreoever, you’ve conveniently excised the part about overcoming the prior problems with it – you haven’t managed to do that though so you’ve yet to arrive at a first cause of any type. 

…ever appeared once in your failed demolition of it.

Demolitions don’t fail just because you ignore or straw man their content.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, as regards necessary agents, the universe, and everything else, you don't know - join the club.

I cannot demonstrate scientifically. Shockingly though none of the alternatives is particularly ''natural''. But I think the moral panic amongst some atheists is to preserve the unconsciousness of whatever done it.