/lit/ - Literature

>>14338187
>a question
>an argument
pick one

>>14338193
the question is rhetorical, it is meant as an argument

>>14338187
Ask them to explain how 'something' suggests any kind of "intelligent" being, much less one with the qualities expected of a god, or one that is interested in humans

>>14338187
>"why is there something instead of nothing?"
>"because God created it"
>"why is there a God instead of no God?"
>"UH UH UH.......WELL BECAUSE... UHH..."

>>14338222
>why is there a God instead of no God?
when you accept the premise that there is a God, this question is irrelevant.

>>14338233
if you ask where did the universe come from, and your answer is either god or the big bang, the question becomes where did the big bang/god come from?

>>14338197

It's neither. It is a fallacy that makes a beggar of the question. If there is no something how can there be a nothing?

>>14338233
I hope you're not serious

>>14338187
>idk, doesn’t mean there’s a god lol

>>14338347
This, and it's just more questions after that, turtles all the way down. Absurd.

>>14338233
And I accept a simpler premise, that something exists
Theists btfo

>>14338233
I accept the premise that I have lost my virginity to S.E. Cupp.

The answer for both the atheist and the theist is "idk lol", while a theist may have a layer of abstraction ("because God" - why God? "Idk lol") the answer is the same.
It's a dumb question because the answer is literally unknowable and knowing it would likely in no way change how we live our lives.

>>14338370
that's dodging the question with another question

>>14338187
From what I've seen, the consensus amongst cosmologists is that the question has not been adequately, and may never be; but that does not give theists to shoehorn God into cosmology. I'm saying this as a Christian.
>>14338453
>I have lost my virginity to S.E. Cupp.
Fucking hot.

>>14338187
From what I've seen, the consensus amongst cosmologists is that the question has not been adequately answered, and may never be; but that does not give theists to shoehorn God into cosmology. I'm saying this as a Christian.
>>14338453
>I have lost my virginity to S.E. Cupp.
Fucking hot.

>>14338187
in a quantum vacuum state particles will spontaneously come into existence, it's a thing that's been observed to happen and confuses the hell out of the majority of non-quantum research associates.

>>14338630
Hey Krauss

>>14338630
Krauss BTFO by George Ellis:


>Horgan: Lawrence Krauss, in A Universe from Nothing, claims that physics has basically solved the mystery of why there is something rather than nothing. Do you agree?

>Ellis: Certainly not. He is presenting untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre-existing complex of entities, including variational principles, quantum field theory, specific symmetry groups, a bubbling vacuum, all the components of the standard model of particle physics, and so on. He does not explain in what way these entities could have pre-existed the coming into being of the universe, why they should have existed at all, or why they should have had the form they did. And he gives no experimental or observational process whereby we could test these vivid speculations of the supposed universe-generation mechanism. How indeed can you test what existed before the universe existed? You can’t.

>Thus what he is presenting is not tested science. It’s a philosophical speculation, which he apparently believes is so compelling he does not have to give any specification of evidence that would confirm it is true. Well, you can’t get any evidence about what existed before space and time came into being. Above all he believes that these mathematically based speculations solve thousand year old philosophical conundrums, without seriously engaging those philosophical issues. The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy. As pointed out so well by Eddington in his Gifford lectures, they are partial and incomplete representations of physical, biological, psychological, and social reality.

>And above all Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). Who or what dreamt up symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? He does not begin to answer these questions.

>It’s very ironic when he says philosophy is bunk and then himself engages in this kind of attempt at philosophy. It seems that science education should include some basic modules on Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, and the other great philosophers, as well as writings of more recent philosophers such as Tim Maudlin and David Albert.

>>14338636
Nope, I used to smoke with him back at MIT though

>>14338649
>Tim Maudlin
Maudlin is a retard who doesn't understand neither physics nor philosophy. The regards against Krauss I agree with though.

>>14338187

>>14338667
>Maudlin is a retard who doesn't understand neither physics nor philosophy
Butthurt that he slightly disagrees with the mainstream opinions?

>>14338453
shit taste faggot

>>14338383
He is serious. Like >>14338347 is saying its turtles all the way down. No matter what you subscribe to its a futile effort, if the universe was created by a higher being, youd ask who created the being.
Suppose humanity progressed enough technologically to simulate the universe. Then that same universe possess the same potential to simulate itself. With that in mind, its unlikely that we are the top simulation, and again you have the same situation of cascading turtles.
At some point you just have to accept existance.

>>14338187
>Why do you consider "nothing" as a possibility?

>>14338222
Cringe. Our world is one where things have causes. At least, many people think so. And if you accept that premise it follows that anything that happens in our universe must have a cause. Why is there anything in our universe? Well, it follows from our premise that there must be a cause. OK, so there's a supernatural cause. But what caused the supernatural cause? Well, maybe nothing. Because the cause is not in our universe therefore our premise does not affect it.

>>14338649

>>14338187
why

Holy fuck, how I hate /lit/. I used to come here as a lad hoping to gain knowledge, but the more time I spend here, the more clear it becomes that everyone here is fucking retarded. I fucking hate every single poster in this thread, and hope you all come to understand how worthless you are in the hours before your death.

>>14338222
>>14338233
>>14338347
>>14338422
>>14338444
>>14338481
>>14338630
>>14338772
Amazing how none of you pop-atheists don't seem to be aware of the concept of a Prime Cause - which you would at least know about if you ever read a book or in any way researched the discussion between theists and atheists. It's Babbys First-tier. The very fact that the universe came into being, suggests that the universe is not the First Cause - and whether you believe in one God or many, or one cause or many, you will, if you employ human logic and common sense, arrive at the need for a single, primary cause of everything else.

>>14338213
You would never accept this kind of intellectual dodgeball in any other field. If a product is made, and the product implies that the maker is intelligent, you wouldn't try to hide behind "How can you claim the producer is intelligent?", or "How can you claim the producer cares about their product?".

>>14338370
Because "something" didn't exist eternally, and was in some sense preceded by the nonexistence of "something".

>>14338412
Hang yourself.

>>14338187
>I don't know and neither do you, now quit being a faggot and argue about identity politics

>>14338683
No, I don't mind disagreeing with the mainstream if you've got at least one reason to do so. I've been to several of his lectures and conferences where he was a guest and he seems to be a contrarian just for the sake of it, he attacks people and their looks - not their arguments. The first or second time that I listened to a lecture of his, he was talking about special relativity and made a huge mistake. Even students picked the mistake up and we tried to explain it to him but he couldn't follow. After some time, he just said "I don't know what my mistake is, I don't understand it, but supposing that I'm not wrong, the rest showcases how everything then falls into its place." And he's very rude and unprofessional when someone else gives a talk

>>14340551
>single, primary cause of everything else.
And what caused that? Retard.

>Why is there a god instead of no god.

>>14340551
>Implying the universe "came into being" and wasn't reborn out of a dead universe

>>14338187
Shove a Multiverse up their asses.

>>14338187
there isn't anything.

in the entire history of the universe there has never been a thing.

>>14338187
Theism doesn’t answer the question. Because it presumes something exists without explanation (God) to explain all the rest. That’s just kicking the can down the road. Worse, really, since there’s no evidence for God. So it amounts to positing something for which we have no evidence, to explain everything else, and then declaring victory. That's retarded.

>>14340919
>So it amounts to positing something for which we have no evidence, to explain everything else, and then declaring victory. That's retarded.
No, that's the best anyone can do. At the root of all belief systems lie unproven axioms. That's what theists mean when they say it takes faith to be an atheist. If you want to think, you gotta start from something. Then you adjust your axioms if you run into inconsistencies and so on. The victory declaration is retarded and lacks self awareness though.

>>14338222

Why would there even be a why ?

>>14338649
>David Albert
lol, salt in the wound

>>14338222
>trollface
>2019
You may keep your 80 IQ caveman shitposting to yourself sir.

>>14338193
It isn't?

>>14338481
>idk lol
>he doesn't know about the thing

>>14340551
>On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived.

Christard incel btfo

>>14340818
Prime cause is different from uncaused cause and from non-participant cause. They are all different from one another but the same as well.

>>14341413
The universe is not contained within a temporal succession (only its particular, contingent manifestations are) but it is ontologically posterior to what is Real and all possibilities are potentials within it. The intelligible and the sensible exist in an indissoluble synthesis.

>>14341413
Which is why prime temporal cause is a retarded argument for an ETERNAL God.
An eternal God eternally creates, especially if he is Pure Act.
Which is why eternal theories of existence are indirect evidence for God. Through Ontological contingency.

>>14338597
cosmologist never actually go to nothing
their nothing is always a very small something which is still infinitely apart from nothing
its actually very cringe

>>14341577
>Which is why eternal theories of existence are indirect evidence for God.

>>14341428
this is cope. Inventing a new kind of cause does not do it.

>>14338187
A first cause is just as inconceivable as the point at which Space ends or the moment when Time first began. For every cause is a change, which necessarily obliges us to ask for the preceding change that brought it about, and so on in infinitum, in infinitum! Even a first state of Matter, from which, as it has ceased to be, all following states could have proceeded, is inconceivable. For if this state had in itself been the cause of the following ones, they must like wise have existed from all eternity, and the actual state existing at the present moment could not have only just now come into being. If, on the other hand, that first state only began to be causal at some given period, some thing or other must have changed it, for its inactivity to have ceased; but then something must have occurred, some change must have taken place; and this again obliges us to ask for its cause i.e. a change which preceded it; and here we are once more on the causal ladder, up which we are whipped step by step, higher and higher, in infinitum, in infinitum! The causal law therefore is not so accommodating as to let itself be used like a hired cab, which we dismiss when we have reached our destination.

The general meaning of the Principle of Sufficient Reason may, in the main, be brought back to this: that every thing existing no matter when or where, exists by reason of something else. Now, the Principle of Sufficient Reason is nevertheless a priori in all its forms: that is, it has its root in our intellect, therefore it must not be applied to the totality of existent things, the Universe, including that intellect in which it presents itself. For a world like this, which presents itself in virtue of a priori forms, is just on that account mere phenomenon; consequently that which holds good with reference to it as the result of these forms, cannot be applied to the world itself, i.e. to the thing in itself, representing itself in that world.

Therefore we can not say, "the world and all things in it exist by reason of something else;" and this proposition is precisely the Cosmological Proof.

>>14338444
Checked, theists wrecked.

>>14340561
based

>>14338187
There actually isn't anything. All that exists is empty space and you.

>>14338187
Understand is first

O NO IM GONNA

>>14338187
The problem is the cyclic, tautological nature of the question itself. From a Saussurian (and now I realize Hegelian as well)perspective, it's not possible to understand what something is without understanding nothing, and vice versa. Ontic nothingness and ontic somethingness have to be simultaneously grasped in order to make sense of either of them, and the question.
Just my 2 cents.

This whole thread is BTFO’d by the TAG argument. Read Aristotle East and West by David Bradshaw faggots.

>>14338187
>>/sci/thread/S11117236#p11117534

/thread

>>14338222
brainlet argument >>14345865

>>14340551
holy fuck I hate you stupid shits that understand the holy sciences trying to solve cylic equations with your linear thinking kys psud dweed with an unearned inflated ego like you have any clue wtf you ar talking about with your plebit tier philosophy. Get at me in a few years when you actually understand this, if you ever do

http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

>>14345865
I made an image of some of the most relevant posts but there is a lot more in the convo worth reading

>>14338649
based. How will Krauss ever recover?

>>14340551
>I used to come here as a lad hoping to gain knowledge
>Amazing how none of you pop-atheists don't seem to be aware of the concept of a Prime Cause

amazing how you personally don't understand the concept of cause-and-effect

what caused the prime cause you absolute fucking douche?

>>14346842
>what caused the prime cause you absolute fucking douche?
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling here, or if you're legitimately retarded.

>>14338187
>if God made the universe, WHO MADE GOD?
Is there a more brainlet "argument" than this? Are atheists just a bunch of mental midgets?

>>14346842
What does not have length, area, volume or any other dimensional attribute? That which is suitable to be defined by that criteria, is suitable to express the unmoved mover from a mathematical perspective. See my point?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument uses logic and deductive reasoning to argue for the existence of a First Cause of the universe and all that we perceive. There are different iterations of the argument, but the basic premises are as follows:

>All that begins to exist has a cause outside of itself
>The universe began to exist
>Therefore, the universe has a cause that is outside the universe
The different iterations of the Cosmological Argument build a strong case for theism as a logical, reasonable position to hold - at least more so than atheism. The logical conlusion of the argument is that an omniscient, omnipotent being has to have created the universe, and that this Being is a necessary existence, uncaused, and eternal, if we are to have a coherent understanding of the universe.

This thread was moved to >>>/his/7721577