My local atheist organization

Whatsisface

Well-known member
I'm not arguing for the existence of God. I simply pointed out the absurdity of atheist worldview.
I pointed out why it's entirely rational.
Everything that comes into existence comes Into assistants by something else, simple cause-and-effect.
This commits the fallacy of composition that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.
If the universe came into existence what is the cause?
It could not be nothing because from nothing comes nothing .Now if you don't know that's fine, but you can't speak for everybody else
One option you havent considered is that the universe is necessary.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You seem to want to drag God into this discussion so we shall discuss it. I said everything that comes into existence owes his existence of something else . Following the Christian narrative God is eternal always existed, so your promise does not apply.
The universe could have always existed too, even with a finite past. 'Always' just means 'at all times' (regardless of whether those times are finite or infinite).

What's the difference between the universe coming into existence in the universe having a beginning?
A beginning just requires a first moment at which something is the case. A 'coming into existence' further requires a prior moment at which that something was not the case. If time began with the universe, then the universe would have a beginning without having come into existence.
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
I pointed out why it's entirely rational.

This commits the fallacy of composition that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.

One option you havent considered is that the universe is necessary.

Do you know of anything that came into existence that did not owe its existence to something else? Now, your comment is possible, Anything is Possible, but it's not reasonable based on the evidence. Lets say the universes is necessary, where did it come from?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Do you know of anything that came into existence that did not owe its existence to something else? Now, your comment is possible, Anything is Possible, but it's not reasonable based on the evidence. Lets say the universes is necessary, where did it come from?
Things that are necessary do not 'come from'. Just as your God didn't 'come from'.
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
The universe could have always existed too, even with a finite past. 'Always' just means 'at all times' (regardless of whether those times are finite or infinite).

Since you bought finite and infinite into the discussion, always means infinite. Always will refer to the greater
A beginning just requires a first moment at which something is the case. A 'coming into existence' further requires a prior moment at which that something was not the case. If time began with the universe, then the universe would have a beginning without having come into existence.
A beginning, coming into existence, beginning to exist, all require a Cause.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Do you know of anything that came into existence that did not owe its existence to something else?
No, but that misses my point. All that i see doing this is already existing matter rearanging itself. That could be a different thing to why there is something rather than nothing, which is why it doesnt follow that you can apply it to the universe as a whole.
Now, your comment is possible, Anything is Possible, but it's not reasonable based on the evidence. Lets say the universes is necessary, where did it come from?
If it was necessary it wouldn't come from.
 
Last edited:

Nouveau

Well-known member
Since you bought finite and infinite into the discussion, always means infinite. Always will refer to the greater
No, 'always' means 'at all times'. But in any case, if the universe existed at all moments of a finite past, then it did not come into existence and does not need a cause - nor could it even have one, as there would be no prior moment from which that cause could operate.

A beginning, coming into existence, beginning to exist, all require a Cause.
Unsupported and false. A beginning without any coming into existence (as I just described it) would preclude any need or possibility of a cause. There would be no prior moment from which any cause could act.
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
No, but that misses my point. All that i see doing this is already existing matter rearanging itself. That could be a different thing to why there is something rather than nothing, which is why it doesnt follow that you can apply it to the universe as a whole.

If it was necessary it wouldn't come from.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature…Stephen Hawking.
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
No, 'always' means 'at all times'. But in any case, if the universe existed at all moments of a finite past, then it did not come into existence and does not need a cause - nor could it even have one, as there would be no prior moment from which that cause could operate.


Unsupported and false. A beginning without any coming into existence (as I just described it) would preclude any need or possibility of a cause. There would be no prior moment from which any cause could act.
instead of debating semantics let's follow the science.
The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. [Stephen Hawking]
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature…Stephen Hawking.
All we really know is that the current state of the universe had a beginning. One problem with discussions of this nature is that we just don't know enough to be able to talk with such authority on what must have been the way of it as you seem to be doing here. The answer to these questions is probably going to be something beyond our current comprehension.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
instead of debating semantics let's follow the science.
The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. [Stephen Hawking]
The semantics matters. I'm granting you a beginning, and pointing out that this doesn't get you a 'coming from' or show any need for a cause. 2LOT is irrelevant to my point.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Try again.
Why? The suggestion was that the universe might be a necessary existent, not that it's a necessary means to some given end.

Semantics matters when communicating ideas. As to the universe beginning to exist that is answered by science, not semantics.
No, the semantics matter here. Your point about 2LOT was not relevant. Again, I'm granting you a beginning, but this doesn't get you a 'coming from' or any need for a cause.
 
Last edited:

Towerwatchman

Active member
Why? The suggestion was that the universe might be a necessary existent, not that it's a necessary means to some given end.
Do you have anything that might support your suggestion that the universe might be a neccesary existent? Are you suggesting the universe is infinite?
No, the semantic matters here. Your point about 2LOT was not relevant. Again, I'm granting you a beginning, but this doesn't get you a 'coming from' or any need for a cause.
OK, you are granting me a beginning, What caused that beginning?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Do you have anything that might support your suggestion that the universe might be a neccesary existent? Are you suggesting the universe is infinite?
It wasn't my suggestion. Ask Whatsisface.

OK, you are granting me a beginning, What caused that beginning?
Unsupported that the beginning was caused. As I already explained, a beginning to time itself cannot be caused, as there would be no prior moment from which any cause could act.
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
Unsupported that the beginning was caused. As I already explained, a beginning to time itself cannot be caused, as there would be no prior moment from which any cause could act.
We know from experience that everything that begins to exist has a cause. According to science and you, the universe and time had a beginning. Both came into existence at the same moment. Explain the cause.

Time does not need to exist for it to be created. What needs to exist is another plane from which the uncaused cause creates the temporal plane.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
We know from experience that everything that begins to exist has a cause. According to science and you, the universe and time had a beginning. Both came into existence at the same moment. Explain the cause.

Time does not need to exist for it to be created. What needs to exist is another plane from which the uncaused cause creates the temporal plane.
Please note that I am NOT saying that time and existence came into existence. I am granting only that they had a beginning.

In my experience, in every instance of causation the cause temporally precedes the effect.

Do you have any experience of this not being the case?
 
Top