Originally posted by secretasianman
It seems clear that if one claims that there was no beginning to the universe, then this is equivalent to saying that there have been an actual infinite number of past events in the history of the universe.
What the word Universe means becomes somewhat confused when dealing with these topics. Traditionally, the Universe included everything... infinite and without boundaries. The concept of a 'closed' Universe and something beyond it is rather new. One needs to be specific in identifying whether one is discussing conditions within our MST continuum, that which lies beyond it, or both. As applies here you are specifically including that which is hypothesized to exist outside of our MST.
Conditions beyond our MST are purely hypothetical. Conventions of temporal relativity and causality are merely assumptions and in many cases are not at all applicable. What happened 'outside' of time is not constrained by temporal logic. i.e. If time does not exist outside of our Universe conditions such as 'before' and 'after' have no meaning.
Does it really make sense to say that there are as many black books in the library as there are red and black books together? Furthermore, I could withdraw all the black books and not change the total holdings in the library. In this way, actual infinity, if it exists in the real world, implies unreasonable consequences.
This is simply a poor understanding of infinity. There are larger and smaller infinities. This is a well accepted in mathematics.
e.g. The infinite number of odd integers is less than the infinite number of all integers (even and odd). While both numbers are infinite they are not equal.
If we claim that there was no beginning to the universe, then this is equivalent to saying that the beginning of the universe was at negative infinity. But if that were the case, then the past could never have been exhaustively traversed to reach the present.
This, of course assumes that time and causality exist beyond the Universe. Which brings up an interesting hypocrisy in this argument; it assumes that scientific explanations must adhere to temporal and causal constraints but the God hypothesis does not. Please defend this position.
in the real world, we can always approach infinity, but never reach it
One can never "approach" infinity... no matter how far one "travels" there will always be an infinite "distance" left to go. Geometrically: On an infinite line
every point is the center.
Most remarkable of all is the fact that in science, as in the Bible, the world begins with an act of creation."
No, according to science the Universe simply occurred. The phrase 'act of creation' assumes a creator. Science does not. One must be aware of the hidden assumptions in language.
Another scientific theory is actually a law, the second law of thermodynamics, involving a concept known as entropy. It is one of the fundamental, best-established laws of science. The second law states that the universe is irreversibly moving toward a state of maximum disorder and minimum energy.
Only in a static or expanding Universe. If there is enough matter in the Universe for gravity to cause it to collapse again universal entropy will reverse. Current evidence seems to indicate that there is just enough to cause this collapse. Additionally, 'minimum energy' is misleading there is no dissipation of energy from the Universe only a dispersion throughout.
But since a state of maximum entropy has not yet been reached, the universe has not been here forever.
This is a straw-man argument. No one is suggesting that the universe has existed in a static or expanding state for an infinite amount of time.
The principle that something does not come from nothing without cause is a reasonable one.
Actually this is contradicted by empirical evidence. Research 'virtual particles'. Quantum physics violates many 'common sense' notions.
By contrast, God does not need a cause, since he is neither an event nor a contingent being.
...
He is a necessary Being and such a being does not need a cause. In fact, it is a categorical fallacy to ask for a cause for God since this is really asking for a cause for the Being from which the first event arose.
God is only thus by definition, there is no empirical evidence upon which to base this assumption. It is a much simpler solution that the Universe itself is an uncaused cause; necessary rather than contingent. There is no need to introduce God here at all.
However, the fundamental forces of physics do fit this 'requirement'. They are neither events nor are they contingent upon anything.
(namely God coming into being)
This statement indicates that there was a point at which God did not exist. You thereby run into the same infinite reduction you were so set against above. Which is it to be? Has God always existed or did he 'self-create'? Please remember to explain the apparent logical contradictions within whichever position you take.
But since it was established that the universe does have a beginning, we must accept the fact that there is such a thing as the "first event." And this event, by the very nature of events, must have been caused. And this cause, since it is the cause of time and the universe, must have existed outside of time and the universe.
Of course, even accepting this argument, there is no evidence that this cause must be God.
One can possibly think that it was the Laws of Nature (impersonal laws of physics or math) that somehow caused the first event, for that is the only impersonal, immaterial thing that could have existed prior to the first event. However, the vague idea that laws of nature can cause events is faulty.
Hilarious!!!!! Please show me one single event, ever, in the entire history of the Universe that was not caused by the laws and forces of nature.
The law of physics decree that when one billiard ball (A) sets another billiard ball (B) in motion, the momentum lost by A exactly equals the momentum gained by B. This is a law. That is, this the pattern to which the movement of the two billiard balls must conform - provided, of course, that something set ball A in motion. And here comes the snag. The law won't set it in motion.
Ah... here's the problem. The author is excluding the fundamental forces of nature. Forces, such as gravity, do indeed set the 'balls' in motion. No 'shooter' is needed; the 'balls' move of their own accord. Incidentally, you might wish to progress beyond classical Newtonian physics.
And however far we trace the story back we would never find the Laws of Nature causing anything. The obvious conclusion is this: in the whole history of the universe the Laws of Nature have never produced a single event.
And here the fallacy is apparent. Every single scrap of verifiable evidence indicates that the fundamental forces of physics are responsible for everything that has happened. The laws of physics simply describe how these forces interact.
In the world, persons or agents spontaneously act to bring about events (which poses a huge problem to the whole idea that humans are nothing more than conglomerations of molecules in motion, but we won't get into that here).
How convenient that you refuse to get into that here and simply take this as a given. I reject the premise that beings act spontaneously. Until it is proven you have no argument. Please demonstrate the uncaused (spontaneous) origination of 'will'.
In summary, it is most reasonable to believe that the universe had a beginning which was caused by a timeless, personal agent.
Sorry, no. Thus far you have given nothing that supports the existence, much less the necessity of such an entity. Your argument has been based upon layers of assumption and logical fallacies. Your conclusion is based upon a false dilemma to begin with and to support that conclusion you 'refuted' a rather poor and anemic variation of scientific theories and hypothesis without giving them a proper representation. You'll have to try again.
The Moral Argument
The fact that there seems to be some kind of an agreed-upon law - which seems deply embedded in our conscience and has a say in what we ought to do - cannot be denied, assuming that we have not become dangerously deranged beyond hope.
It certainly can be denied. Further, attacks ad hominem do not constitute a proper argument (like calling people dangerously deranged and beyond hope).
If you're proposing a universal morality then you must explain why it is not universal. Please note that "free will" is not a defense. A universal law is just that. Though I have free will I am still constrained by the force of gravity... why is "God's" moral law different?
One of the prevalent alternatives to believing in an absolute, objective morality is to believe that morality is determined by each person according to her (and his - is this necessary) own tastes and cultural background.
There are alternatives which you, of course, proceed to ignore.
Such as that one's ethics are indeed defined upon social context but certain universals can be defined based upon universal human attributes and needs.
But surely it does not follow that the multiplication table is simply a human convention, something human beings have made up for themselves and might have made differently if they had liked?
Quite wrong. The Babylonian, Sumerian, and Akkadian civilizations used a base 60 (as opposed to our base 10) system of mathematics.
There are things that we learn (such as driving on the right side of the road) that are mere conventions, and there are others, like mathematics, that are objective truths.
Mathematics is a formal symbolic system. Not an objective truth.
Another problem with this relativistic view is that there could never be no moral progress.
How about the relative freedom for each individual to follow their own moral codes? That wasn't so hard.
in other words being unselfish (for "society" after all only means "other people"), is one of the things decent behavior consists of; all you are really saying is that decent behavior is decent behavior.
No, that is what
you are saying. I believe there is a very logical and human explanation.
Still others adopt the view that morality is somehow coded into our genes through evolution to preserve the species. Let us imagine a situation where a healthy young man is given the task of murdering an innocent elderly woman, or else he will lose his own life. Now in such a situation, if we were to adopt the view that morality is determined by whatever benefits the species, then we would have to say that it's morally "right" for the young man to eliminate the old woman.
Its illuminating that you specify 'benefits the species' then prescribe action for the individual. What's best for the individual is not always what's best for the species and vice-versa. In actually, there are very good mathematical and evolutionary arguments for altruism (research game theory and the prisoners dilemma).
In other words, when we are dealing with humans, something else comes in and beyond the actual facts. It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality;
I have seen no argument that leads me to accept this. Where did you found the premise for this inhuman source? Oh that's right... you're relying on another false dilemma.
in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men's behavior, and yet quite definitely real - a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us.
Please show evidence of this as applies to Jeffrey Dhamer, Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy, and Adolf Hitler.
2. If there is an objective moral law, then what is its most probable origin?
Those universal attributes and needs I mentioned earlier.
But as we observe ourselves from the inside, we find a strange influence or command trying to get us to behave in a certain way.
Argument from ignorance. You "find a strange influence or command" and attribute it to God? What about Bugs the friendly telepath? Maybe he's the one inserting morality into your brain. Maybe he even has an evil twin, Sgub, that inserts bad thoughts into peoples brains.
We have to assume it is more likely to be a mind than it is anything else we know - because after all the only thing we know is matter, and you hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions.
Care to give evidence of anything that is not made of matter giving instructions? I thought not.
This mind-like Being, apparently is intensely interested in right conduct - in fair lay, unselfishness, courage, good faith, honesty, and truthfulness.
But apparently not enough to make it mandatory or make us well enough to perform up to it's expectations.
But at that precise moment when we realize this, we find reasons to be uneasy, because if this absolute "goodness" were impersonal, like the multiplication table, then there may be no sense in asking it to make allowances for us or let us off. We would be in the wrong.
Weren't you arguing
against relativistic morality a little while ago? Make up your mind.
Although it's not sufficient proof, it's notable to recognize that the God of the Bible specifically addresses this human predicament.
Oh yea, proving his moral superiority by offering an eternity of punishment for transitory violations.
Argument from authority is not a solid foundation upon which to base a set of ethics.
~Raithere
