Is God the cause of the Universe? Andrew T Loke vs Alex Malpass

Andrew Loke is Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Hong Kong Baptist University and the author of ‘God and Ultimate Origins: A Novel Cosmological Argument’ in which he makes a number of philosophical arguments for God as the cause of the Universe.
Atheist philosopher Alex Malpass engages with Andrew’s take on the cosmological argument for God.
Download the Unbelievable? podcast for weekly faith debates www.premierchristianradio.com...
For updates and bonus content sign up www.premier.org.uk/unbelievab...

[@Kvothe3]

So glad to see Alex on the show. He is a great thinker and conversationalist.

[@andrewloke7]

Due to time difference (I’m in Asia) and busy schedule I am not always available to reply immediately to the new comments and follow up questions. Please give me some time to do so. I appreciate your patience!

[@MidiwaveProductions]

Thank you for an interesting debate, Andrew. I have noticed that the free will argument is gaining in popularity among apologists. I have to agree that it is a very powerful argument in demonstrating 1. that knowledge is impossible on a non-God worldview since there exists only determined or/and random events and no non-determined agents. 2. that the only logically coherent explanation for the existence of Libertarian free will is God. What are your thoughts on the free will argument..?

[@andrewloke7]

@@MidiwaveProductions Thank you for your feedback. Because of time constraints I shall stick to replying to comments and questions that engage with the arguments I presented in my dialogue with Alex; I don’t have time to discuss other arguments here.

[@LogosTheos]

Hello Dr. Loke. I had a question. Is the capacity argument similar to a hierarchical/essentially ordered series in the Thomistic cosmological argument?

[@andrewloke7]

@@LogosTheos There are similarities and differences; I did a detailed comparison in Chapter 3 of my book.

[@andrewloke7]

@Twenty Faces I didn’t say that the First Cause must be a fully actualized, my Cosmological Argument differs from Aquinas’ on this point. The First Cause does not have to have goals that arise out of scarcity, rather He created out of the overflowing desire to bless others. I explained in my dialogue with Alex that the First Cause is initially changeless but that does not mean that He cannot change or that He is essentially changeless. With free will this first cause can indeed change in the sense of existing without the universe timelessly and existing with the universe as He freely brought about the universe and also freely chose to enter into time as a result.

[@andrewloke7]

I enjoyed my discussion with Alex and Justin and have replied to some of the comments below

[@hannahanderson4305]

Sorry but I couldn't make it though your discussion, the rapid speech was hard to listen to.

[@andrewloke7]

@@hannahanderson4305 I hope my written replies to your comments below would be easier for you to follow.

[@alananimus9145]

I find myself disliking what i perceive to be a dishonest use of linguistic trickery. I don't as of yet think it was intentional but many Christians do this. It is nonsense to say that yahweh is timeless or exists outside of time. I can grant that someone or something may exist outside of local spacetime. But no thing can exist outside of spactime unless it is incapable of action. Also your assertion of freewill is highly problematic. Either things are determined or things are not determined. Either way leaves no room for free will.

[@20july1944]

@@alananimus9145 I agree with you on your first point, as a Christian. God has His own timeline of His own experiences and actions.

[@alananimus9145]

@@20july1944 thank you. The claim of yahweh being non temporal drives me nuts. It did even as a Christian. Non temporal arguments hurt christianity far more than they help.

[@CMVMic]

Can you start doing time stamps on these videos please? It would help alot!

[@digipoke12345]

People are being very rude about Dr Loke. I am an atheist myself and am a big fan of Dr Malpass, but many are acting like Dr Loke is incoherent. He speaks very well, and while he may speak quickly, he is perfectly coherent. Perhaps those complaining should do a debate in Cantonese, and see how well they fare.

[@sapago4166]

His elocution doesn't matter much when so many of his arguments are incoherent.

[@ceceroxy2227]

Yes atheists are quite rude, because they dont like where the evidence leads, same reason they are so rude to WLC. Dr. Loke was obviously right in this discussion

[@sapago4166]

@@ceceroxy2227 How much of the discussion were you actually able to follow? Be honest.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@sapago4166 No, Alex is not rude at all. I like Alex. Its atheist commenters that are generally the rude ones.

[@sapago4166]

@@ceceroxy2227 Explain Dr. Loke's modus tollens argument and provide a rational counterargument.

[@andrewloke7]

I just realized today that some of the replies I posted over the last few days did not appear on the internet (even though they appeared on my laptop!) because I included links to other websites. I have removed the links and reposted the replies-sorry for the apparent delay! If I have missed or appeared to have missed any of your replies to me or any substantial objections you have, I would appreciate if you could copy-and-paste them here on this thread and I will respond to them. There are many comments below and I might have missed some important ones, including some replies to me, so copying and pasting them here would make it easier for me to keep track. Thanks!

[@vincentiormetti3048]

Hi Dr. Loke, I'm really enjoying your book, thanks for the discussion! Regarding your argument for agent causation, I find the fact that there seems to be some level of bruteness to libertarian free will problematic. While there are reasons for any one decision, the decision to act on those reasons rather than other reasons seem to be arbitrary. If we allow for this type of bruteness, can't we also posit some impersonal physical object and cite the specific physical part's potential for change as the reason for the first event, cite those same parts potential for changelessness as the reason for a timeless state of affairs, and just call the transition between the two states of affairs a brute fact? Why would this not be analogous to a free agent having reasons for starting a causal chain but not acting on those reasons, then arbitrarily acting on those reasons a finite time ago?

[@andrewloke7]

@@vincentiormetti3048 Hi Vincent you’re welcome. In any worldview there will be brute facts. The question rather is ‘what are the characteristics a brute fact must have’? I have used the cosmological argument to explain that the brute fact must be a First Cause with 1. The capacity to be the originator of the first event in a way that is un-determined by prior event, since the First Cause is the First, and 2. The capacity to prevent itself from changing, for otherwise the First Cause would not have been initially changeless. You asked ‘can't we also posit some impersonal physical object and cite the specific physical part's potential for change as the reason for the first event, cite those same parts potential for changelessness as the reason for a timeless state of affairs, and just call the transition between the two states of affairs a brute fact?’ But the transition itself would require those two capacities I explained, and those two capacities are characteristic of libertarian freedom You wrote ‘While there are reasons for any one decision, the decision to act on those reasons rather than other reasons seem to be arbitrary.’ Arbitrary is defined as ‘based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system’(OED). In the case of God creating the universe, a Christian would say that He created out of love. Love is the reason based on which God created, it is not arbitrary.

[@vincentiormetti3048]

​@@andrewloke7 Would you also say certain philosophical arguments in support of the Kalam relies on causation being fundamental? Is it reasonable to hold to casual finitism while thinking causation is emergent?

[@andrewloke7]

@@vincentiormetti3048 I do think that causation is fundamental (see Christopher Weaver’s Fundamental Causation: Physics, Metaphysics, and the Deep Structure of the World. London: Routledge 2019), but even if causation is emergent, given the arguments against an infinite regress the emergent causal series must still be finite in the past and the Kalam argument would still go through.

[@arist777phi9]

@@andrewloke7 Hello Dr. Loke, sorry if this comment is old, but I wanted to know if you have a blog or website?

[@niko9338]

Usually i listen to these types of talks in 1.75 speed, but the asian guy morphs time-space with his speech

[@abbeytarson7786]

🤦🏾‍♀️

[@andrewloke7]

Over the past year I have been engaging with many listeners following my dialogue with Alex, and there are two issues that keep coming up concerning which I would like to share. The first issue concerns Alex’s response to my analogy that 'a series of stationary train cars would require a train engine in order to begin moving'. Alex's main objection relies on the possibility of the tenseless theory of time. As I explained during our dialogue, even if the tenseless theory of time is true, it is still the case that later events (say my existence in 1975) is dependent on earlier events (say the existence of my parents prior to 1975, because if they did not exist prior to 1975 I would not have begun to exist in 1975). In other words, there are two different senses of ‘always exist’: (1) having no beginning and therefore doesn’t require a cause (2) having a beginning but a tenseless fact at a particular duration. I was talking about the first sense whereas Alex was talking about the second sense, which misses the point of my argument and doesn’t remove the problem of a series of dependent events which require an independent First Cause (Creator of the universe). Thus his objection fails to rebut the conclusion that God (the Creator) exists. The second issue concerns the accusation of special pleading. Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception without justifying the special exception. My argument is not special pleading because it is justified on the basis of the reasons I have explained which entails the conclusion that there must be a First Cause of the universe which is uncaused, beginningless, has libertarian freedom, and enormously powerful, i.e. a Creator of the universe.

[@abel236]

Hey Dr.Loke, do you have a blog or website or something where you post material? I would like to follow you.

[@andrewloke7]

@@abel236 Yes, on academia edu and youtube channel

[@andrewloke7]

@Nick Jones The major issue is that you don’t understand basic logic and therefore fail to understand my argument. This issue has already been demonstrated many times in my previous replies to you in the posts below, and I do not wish to repeat myself again because it would be a waste of time. Just as it would be a waste of time to explain quadratic equations to someone who doesn’t even understand simple multiplication like 2 x 2 = 4 and who refuses to acknowledge that he doesn’t understand. You can continue to say whatever you want but readers can read the earlier posts for themselves.

[@johnjacquard2182]

Philosophically heavier objects must fall faster than lighter smaller objects right? It must work that way right?

[@jasonaus3551]

Scientifically heavy objects fall faster than lighter not philosophically

[@johnjacquard2182]

@@jasonaus3551 yes philosophical watch.( Imagine I from Greek times and make this argument.) 1.heavy objects weigh more than lighter ones 2. Heavy objects pull toward ground more than light ones 3 dropping a large rock of a cliff will fall faster than small stone .

[@johnjacquard2182]

Now in modern times we demonstrated otherwise . However the argument show flaw of just thinking in thoughts during Plato's time. You have to test to see what's true because even things that seem make sense are shown false sometimes.

[@m.robespierre7528]

Keep inviting atheists. This was very cool.

[@Eric-en9hk]

Alex clearly does not understand the concept of an infinite regress. I'll give two explanations for why such a thing is logically incoherent: 1.) If there was an infinite series of events prior to the present event, then the present event would have never arrived. This is because in order for the present event to have arrived, an actual infinite number of events must have already been completed, which is not possible. But because the present event has arrived, there must have been a finite series of events leading up to it which had a first cause. 2.) There cannot be an infinite series of caused causes because every cause in the series has a beginning, which would necessarily require that the series itself be finite. These are two different ways of saying the same thing. This fact seems so undeniable that the only way around it is to appeal to logical absurdities. Andrew's case was logically solid. Alex mentioned the static view of time to explain away Andrew's argument. I would highly recommend reading Time and Eternity by William Lane Craig, in which Craig gives many different arguments against this view.

[@suoutamaki14]

For Andrew, how would you deal with the argument that first law of thermodynamics, and the argument that the law of causality not applying to the universe due to the fallacy of composition?

[@andrewloke7]

Unlike laws of logic, laws of physics such as the first law of thermodynamics are not necessarily true but depend on various conditions. For example, Hawking has suggested that the laws of physics broke down at the Big Bang . Concerning the causal premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause, I offered a deductive argument in chapter 5 of my book which shows that it applies to the universe without committing the fallacy of composition. Here is a brief summary, for details you would have to check out my book: Think about why it is the case that (say) when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, it produces a human cell rather than (say) a dinosaur. The answer is simple: the properties of the cause determines the effect; the human DNA in the sperm and egg makes it the case that it is a human cell rather than a dinosaur that begins to exist. However, if a human cell begins to exist uncaused, then there would not be any cause that would make it the case that only a human cell rather than other kinds of things (e.g. a dinosaur) begin to exist uncaused. Moreover, the properties of a human cell and of other kinds of things (e.g., dinosaur, elephant), which differentiate between them, would be had by them only when they had already begun to exist. This implies that there would be no essential difference between them where beginning to exist uncaused is concerned. Thus, if a human cell begins to exist uncaused, then it cannot be the case that only human cells begins to exist uncaused; in that case, the beginning of dinosaur, elephant, etc. would also be uncaused. Likewise, if the universe itself begins to exist uncaused, then there would not be any cause which would make it the case that only universe rather than other kinds of things/events (e.g., the beginning of a rapid increasing in strength of electric fields around me) begin to exist uncaused. Moreover, the properties of universe and the properties of other kinds of things which differentiate between them would be had by them only when they had already begun to exist. This implies that there would be no essential difference between them where beginning to exist uncaused is concerned. Thus, if the universe begins to exist uncaused, then it cannot be the case that only the universe begin to exist uncaused. In that case, the beginning of other kinds of things/events (say, a rapid increasing in strength of electric fields around me) would also be uncaused. But this is contrary to my experience. I (thankfully!) do not experience such events happening without causes such as (say) having to switch on the electric field generator, otherwise I would have been electrocuted to death! Therefore, it is not the case that something begins to exist uncaused. We therefore have good reasons to think that the causal principle is valid not only within our universe, but also with respect to the beginning of the universe as well.

[@suoutamaki14]

@@andrewloke7 thank you so much for taking the time, and in such length and detail. I will definitely get your book.

[@andrewloke7]

@@suoutamaki14 You welcome. A cheaper paperback edition is coming out within the next few weeks, in the meantime the book is freely available for download at Springerlink which is subscribed to by many universities around the world, and so you should be able to access it if you work or study in a university or have friends who do so.

[@suoutamaki14]

@@andrewloke7 Would there be additional arguments against the first law of thermodynamics proving an infinite universe, other than countering with the impossibility of infinite time? Not sure if Hawking's speculations would be a strong enough argument.

[@andrewloke7]

@@suoutamaki14 My argument that laws of physics such as the first law of thermodynamics are not necessarily true is not based on Hawking’s speculations but on understanding what laws of physics actually are viz. they depend on various conditions, and Hawking’s speculation merely illustrated this. Other scientists have also suggested that there could be different universes with different physically laws, which further illustrated the point that they recognized that laws of physics are not necessarily true. Other than this response some have claimed that the positive energy and negative energy of our universe balanced up to zero thus there is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics to say that our universe began to exist from zero energy. Note that while this response implies that our universe has no material cause, it does not imply that our universe has no efficient cause. Consider this analogy: the fact that my company’s total expenses cancel the total revenue, such that the net profit is zero, does not imply that the expenses and revenue occurred uncaused. We still need to ask what made the expenses and revenue to be the way they are. Likewise, one still has to ask what made the energy and the laws of nature to be the way they are. One can argue (as I’ve done) that God created the universe without using preexisting material (i.e. ex nihilo), and this won’t be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics because the total amount of energy of our universe after creation is still zero!

[@logos8312]

I love how God is uncaused and beginningless, but doesn't suffer whatever problems an "actual infinite past" supposedly suffers. Sounds to me like everyone believes that there's an eternal infinite chain of some kind.

[@andrewloke7]

God is beginningless in the sense of being timeless, and therefore does not suffer from an actual infinite past.

[@logos8312]

Whether he's timeless or not is irrelevant. Does God operate on the basis of logically prior reasons to make decisions? If he does, then there's an indexed set (not temporally, but logically ordered) which exists as long as God exists. Any problems with infinites would manifest in this set of God's reasons.

[@LiquidTurbo]

Andrew Loke how did you determine it was the Biblical god, and say not the Islamic god? How do you know “God” was the cause; rather than Allah? Many Islamic scholars use Allah as the basis for their cosmological argument. How did you rule them out? And put forth the Bible god instead?

[@truththroughlove1012]

I think you've actually proven the point without first recognizing why you've assumed your stance on it. Those who posit existence in God recognize an infinite past must rely on a being with omni-characteristics, as mentioned in the debate. Others who are hesitant to accept God recognize an infinite past but are not able to recognize how such infinity could be possible outside of theories that are incoherent with what we can deduce. God is the coherent argument.

[@20july1944]

@Donald Nadeau Do you think the universe has always existed?

[@andrewloke7]

I have replied to the objections to the Cosmological Argument in the comments below (click 'view reply' underneath each comment to read my reply). Due to time constraints I have only replied to those comments which are directed to me and which engage with the actual arguments I presented in my dialogue with Alex. If I have missed any substantial objections please copy-and-paste them here in reply to this comment and I will respond to them.

[@Aguijon1982]

So god made the universe from nothing? Even in the "god scenario" the universe came from nothing. What an irony

[@vincentiormetti3048]

@@Aguijon1982 his version of the argument doesn't require creation ex nihilo

[@Aguijon1982]

@@vincentiormetti3048 sorry but If it wasnt created ex nihilo then it always existed in some other form

[@Aguijon1982]

@@vincentiormetti3048 If the universe was not created ex nihilo then it always existed in some form. Yeah, and the analysis is NONSENSE and a HUGE argument from ignorance fallacy. Because even if the unvierse had a cause (and it might not have, I am just granting that It had for the sake of argument, because more than half cosmologists dont agree that anything started at the big bang)) the cause, even if it had, does NOT have to be some god. To argue that it was a god is a huge argument from ignorance fallacy, Its bullshit. It may have been ANYTHING else. A special particle, a singularity, an Ion, etc. Your way of reasoning is seriously flawed, It is no wonder that theology has NOT discovered anything in thousands of years..

[@vincentiormetti3048]

@@Aguijon1982 The argument doesn't have the word universe written in it, what argument are you attacking? Maybe the causal series extended before the Big Bang like you say, the argument just shows there must be a beginning to the causal chain somewhere.

[@New_Essay_6416]

Really enjoyed the discussion. Well done, as always, Malpass.

[@20july1944]

Would you agree with me that SOMEthing has always existed, for us to be here in a matter/energy universe now?

[@Oners82]

@@20july1944 Nope.

[@20july1944]

@@Oners82 OK. So you believe that SOMEthing could have come from NOthing. WHAT could come from NOthing?

[@Oners82]

@@20july1944 But I didn't say that did I, you are jumping to conclusions. You asked if he agrees that there has always been something, and I said that I don't agree, the reason being that I don't have a clue. I am agnostic on the matter and hence do not agree with your assumption that something must have always existed. I should also point out that your question is ill-defined as you have not specified what you consider as having legitimate ontological status. And to answer your question (ignoring the silly capitalisation) the answer would obviously be *the universe* since that is the very issue in contention. For example a zero energy universe may satisfy a "something from nothing" model, but again this depends upon your ontological criteria which you are yet to define.

[@20july1944]

@@Oners82 Give me an example of ANYthing that you think might come from NOthing. To me, that is a null set.

[@nulliusinverba5703]

I still don't see Andrew presenting a good arguement against "everything might have always existed". Hypithetically one could say there is no "beginning" there is just a continous series of events. I'd grand that it would be impossible to know this, but just because we don't know, does not mean we can assume its negation. (Everything must have a cause)

[@andrewloke7]

You merely asserted your views without replying to the arguments I presented in my dialogue with Alex.A supposed beginningless series of events is not possible because every event (e.g. the beginning of my existence) does not exist and has no capacity to begin to exist unless brought about by another event but that event and indeed all prior events suffer from the same problem, just as every train car has no capacity to begin to move by itself and is dependent on a prior car to begin to move first but all previous cars suffer from the same problem.

[@nulliusinverba5703]

@@andrewloke7 Hi Andrew, appreciate the answer. I understand the analogies you brought forward, and intuitively i will definately grant that it makes sense from the perspective of our universe and its physical laws. But i'm questioning that intuition. What if things outside our universe/existence just "is" ? No beginning, no ending, everything is "circular" in some sense. I think my big hurdle is that i don't understand how you can rule out that possibility? Do you consider your logical analogy of trains, cars and personal existence enough to dismiss that objection? Because i will only grant that those things seem to (evedentually) apply to our universe, I dont see how we can know if those analogies apply before time itself.

[@andrewloke7]

@@nulliusinverba5703 You’re welcome. One may speculate about those things outside our universe which may or may not exist, but what needs explanation is the phenomena we observe e.g. the earth changing, the stars changing, etc, and I’ve already explained why an infinite regress of changes is impossible and why this implies that there is an initially changeless First Cause with free will, i.e. a Creator of our universe. Thus, regardless of whether there are those things outside our universe, there must still be a Creator of our universe.

[@nulliusinverba5703]

​@@andrewloke7 Note that I believe our current scientific models explain most events between beginning of time and now. That covers the earth changing etc. I think this is just a point of disagreement about what is reasonable to conclude regarding the properties of "the thing" that initiated our beginning of existence. And if we go to such a realm i feel we are so far disconnected from reality, i don't see how one can conclude with certainty that everything must have had a creator. And to clarify, this is me saying "i don't know for sure, and i don't think anyone will ever truly know". And because of this, i consider it wrong to assume either side. But if its any intellectual comfort, i'll agree that your assertion that everything must've had an initial cause seems more intuitively correct, and going by odds i would probably agree with that. But i'm perhaps saying that i wouldn't bet my house on it. :-)

[@andrewloke7]

@@nulliusinverba5703 The conclusion of a deductively valid argument from true premises must be true regardless of what realm we are talking about. I am not claiming that the Cosmological Argument establishes that ‘everything must have had a creator’. Rather, I am saying that the Cosmological Argument establishes that there is a First Cause of our changing physical world which includes ourselves and that this First Cause is uncaused, beginningless, initially timeless and changeless, immaterial, has free will, intelligence, and tremendous powerful, i.e. a Creator who is the source of our existence, and whom we should seek to know in order to find the meaning of our existence.

[@achooothanks]

Why should our understanding of philosophy and logic apply to such murky areas as the (non?) time prior to the big bang? At the end of the day I think the safest position we can take is to say we don't know.

[@andrewloke7]

As I explained on p. 11 of my book, an ontological violation of the laws of logic would be non-existent. For example, consider a ‘shapeless cube’: ‘shapeless’ and ‘cube’ cancel each other out; it is like writing something and then immediately erasing it, so that there is nothing. This illustrates that laws of logic are necessarily true; they would hold even at levels far beyond our daily experiences, such as at the beginning of time or timelessness (there cannot be shapeless cubes at such levels too, for ‘shapeless’ and ‘cube’ would still cancel each other out at these levels). Thus the conclusion of my argument (i.e. a Creator of the universe exists) would still follow on the basis of the laws of logic.

[@achooothanks]

@@andrewloke7 Thanks for the reply. As a layman I am in over my head on these issues but l do enjoy listening to the experts. I wish I had been designed to understand all this!🤣

[@andrewloke7]

@@achooothanks You're welcome! I'm sure you have been designed to understand that shapeless cubes cannot exist :)

[@achooothanks]

@@andrewloke7 Am at I point where even to that I would say I don't know!

[@andrewloke7]

@@achooothanks something cancelling itself out would be nothing,

[@MrMcwesbrook]

My problem has always been with the first premise. I am not aware of anyone witnessing something beginning to exist. As far as we know, matter and energy are not created or destroyed in our universe, they simply change forms. Everything that makes you existed 100 years ago it just wasn't in the form we recognize as you. I also have a problem with the concept of nothing. We have never observed nothing and I'm not sure we could observe nothing since our senses and instruments rely on something to detect.

[@andrewloke7]

The first premise can be proven using a modus tollens argument. Here is a brief summary of the proof for the causal premise, for details you would have to check out chapter 5 of my book: Think about why it is the case that (say) when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, it produces a human cell rather than (say) a dinosaur. The answer is simple: the properties of the cause determines the effect; the human DNA in the sperm and egg makes it the case that it is a human cell rather than a dinosaur that begins to exist. However, if a human cell begins to exist uncaused, then there would not be any cause that would make it the case that only a human cell rather than other kinds of things (e.g. a dinosaur) begin to exist uncaused. Moreover, the properties of a human cell and of other kinds of things (e.g., dinosaur, elephant), which differentiate between them, would be had by them only when they had already begun to exist. This implies that there would be no essential difference between them where beginning to exist uncaused is concerned. Thus, if a human cell begins to exist uncaused, then it cannot be the case that only human cells begins to exist uncaused; in that case, the beginning of dinosaur, elephant, etc. would also be uncaused. Likewise, if the universe itself begins to exist uncaused, then there would not be any cause which would make it the case that only universe rather than other kinds of things/events (e.g., the beginning of a rapid increasing in strength of electric fields around me) begin to exist uncaused. Moreover, the properties of universe and the properties of other kinds of things which differentiate between them would be had by them only when they had already begun to exist. This implies that there would be no essential difference between them where beginning to exist uncaused is concerned. Thus, if the universe begins to exist uncaused, then it cannot be the case that only the universe begin to exist uncaused. In that case, the beginning of other kinds of things/events (say, a rapid increasing in strength of electric fields around me) would also be uncaused. But this is contrary to my experience. I (thankfully!) do not experience such events happening without causes such as (say) having to switch on the electric field generator, otherwise I would have been electrocuted to death! Therefore, it is not the case that something begins to exist uncaused. We therefore have good reasons to think that the causal principle is valid not only within our universe, but also with respect to the beginning of the universe as well.

[@MrMcwesbrook]

@@andrewloke7 But every atom that makes up you existed 100 years ago, it was just in a different form. I'm specifically referring to something beginning to exist. Something going form nonexistence to existence. I'm not even sure the concept of existence beginning makes sense. I just don't understand how we as humans can even imagine such a concept since we have never actually observed existence beginning or nonexistence.

[@andrewloke7]

@@MrMcwesbrook There is a distinction between (1) beginning to exist simpliciter (there was no material entity and then there was an existent material thing) and (2) a certain state of affairs beginning to exist (i.e., matter that was previously air and wood is now flame). The argument in my previous comment shows that in either case there must be an efficient cause, even though in (1) there is no material cause. Some physicists have argued that the total energy in the universe is zero, I discussed this on p. 127 of my book. It should be noted that the claim that the positive and negative energy add up to zero does not imply that the positive and negative energy began to exist without an efficient cause. Consider this analogy: the fact that my company’s total expenses cancel the total revenue, such that the net profit is zero, does not imply that the expenses and revenue occurred without an efficient cause! We still need to ask what made the expenses and revenue to be the way they are. Likewise, one still has to ask what made the energy and the laws of nature to be the way they are. Indeed the First Cause must be enormously powerful in order to be able to make all these things to be the way they are--- out of zero mass-energy! While humans with limited powers require pre-existing materials and energy to work from in order to create (say) a table, the First Cause does not require that in order to bring about a series of events that resulted in the billions of stars and galaxies we see as well as the amazing laws of nature. That is tremendous power and intelligence.

[@MrMcwesbrook]

@@andrewloke7 Thank you for your replies. I am just struggling with a couple things. How can we know that non-existence (the first one you mentioned) can "exist". And how can we know that something begins to exist? (from nothing to something) Also, how do we know that "nothingness" can be a real thing. These concepts seem more like paradoxes. I don't think our brains are equipped to deal with these concepts because our brains absorb information through our senses. Our senses detect things that exists. Every thought we have is formed from some combination of things we have experience with our senses. So sure, we might think of nonexistence as the opposite of existence. But again, we have zero idea what that actually entails. When we picture "nothingness in our brain we usually picture a black empty void, which is still something. Again paradoxes our brains are not equipped to actually think about.

[@andrewloke7]

@@MrMcwesbrook You’re welcome. I’m not claiming that non-existence can "exist", but that it is possible that something X begins to exist without material cause but with a preexistent efficient cause which is not non-existence but something with existence i.e. something with causal powers to bring about the beginning of X. The rest of your comment assumes that we can know the truth only by our physical senses, but this assumption is false. There are many truths we can know without having to observe; for example, I can know that ‘there cannot be shapeless square anywhere’ without having to observe the entire universe. The reason is because shapeless and square cancel each other out such that there would be nothing. Likewise we can know that something cannot begin to exist uncaused because of the reasons I’ve explained.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

Here is a good characteristic of the god of the bible: Job 9:22 It is all one; therefore I say, ‘He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.’ 23 When disaster brings sudden death, he mocks at the calamity of the innocent. What a joy!

[@brendanbutler1238]

An infinite series of causes without a first cause is a contradiction because the only reason we talk about causes is because of the prior assumption that something cannot come from nothing. If something could come from nothing we wouldn't ask, what caused that, where did that come from etc. Saying that if something is already moving then it doesn't need a mover is false because the moving thing isn't moving itself, but is being moved by something else.

[@chad969]

Hi Brendan, remember me? We had a long conversation about obligations under one of Cosmic Skeptics videos a couple years ago. You make an interesting point here. If I understand correctly, you're saying that an infinite causal series would entail that something came from nothing. It's important to distinguish between two different senses of the phrase "something from nothing". I think what people generally tend to mean by that is that there is a state of nothingness followed by a state in which something exists. However, there's another sense of the term which I think is more applicable to an infinite causal chain, and that is just to say that the causal chain didn't come from anything, it just always existed. Positing something that never came into existence doesn't seem to violate the principal of sufficient reason, or the principal that something can't pop into existence out of nothing. After all, if the causal series is infinite then there was never a state of nothingness for the series to come out of.

[@chad969]

"Saying that if something is already moving then it doesn't need a mover is false because the moving thing isn't moving itself, but is being moved by something else." Was God's decision to create the universe moved/caused, or was the decision uncased, thus violating the principal of sufficient reason? If you say the decision was caused by God, was God's act of causing himself to make the decision itself caused by God? If so, was God's act of causing himself to cause himself to make the decision also caused? If so, was God's act of causing himself to cause himself to cause himself to decide to create the universe also uncased? You see the infinite regress that is forming. If you have an infinite causal chain, then the movement of every element in that chain is explained by the movement of the prior object in that chain. So there is no element in the chain who's movement is unaccounted for. Now you can still ask, "why does the chain exist instead of not existing?", or "why is the nature of the chain one of movement rather than non-movement?". While those are difficult questions to answer, they don't seem any less difficult when applied to God and his nature. Why does God exist instead of not existing? Why does God have the attributes he does instead of different attributes? The answer that theologians and philosophers tend to give to those types of questions is to say that God and his attributes are necessary. Well if the theologian can say that about God, it's not at all clear to me why one couldn't say the same thing about an infinite causal series.

[@brendanbutler1238]

@@chad969 Hi Chad, yes I remember you, hope your keeping well. You are right to say that positing something that never came into existence doesn't violate the principle of sufficient reason, or that something cannot come into existence from nothing, which is why theists say that an eternally existing God is rational. However an eternally existing universe, or multiverse, isn't rational, because the universe shows evidence of being caused, ie because it changes, and things that change are caused to change by something else, a cause, that must pre exist the thing that changes. But nothing can pre exist something that has always existed, therefore the universe, or multiverse, cannot have always existed. God isn't caused, doesn't exist in a causal chain, God isn't contingent dependent being, but independent, necessary being therefore there is no logical problem with God existing eternally. God doesn't change, and so doesn't need a cause. There is only a need for a reason to explain the existence of things that change, not things that don't change. An uncaused unchanging being must necessarily exist to explain why changing caused things exist. Infinite eternal changing things can never provide a sufficient reason for why things exist.

[@chad969]

@@brendanbutler1238 Thanks, hope you’re doing well as well. Sorry for the length of this post but I wanted to be thorough. I agree with you that changes are caused by something else, but it seems to me that in all clear cases of causation, that “something else” is something within the universe. Causation, as I understand it, involves: 1. A change interacting with another change throughout time, 2. The rearrangement of preexisting matter and energy, and 3. A *_time_* at which the effect hadn’t been instantiated, followed by a time at which the effect has been instantiated. It seems to me that creatio ex nihilo would be independent of all three of those conditions/processes, therefore undermining our inductive basis for inferring such causation. But before I say more on that, I want to address the evidence you provided for thinking that the universe was caused. If part of what you mean when you say that the universe was caused is that there was a state in which the universe didn’t exist, followed by a state in which it exists, then it seems question begging to conclude that such a change occurred on the basis that “things that change are caused to change by something else”, because you’d have to be working on the assumption that one of those changes was a transition in which matter/energy went from not existing to existing, *_which_* *_is_* *_the_* *_very_* *_thing_* *_in_* *_question._* It doesn’t logically follow that because the universe is constantly in a state of change, therefore one of those changes was a transition from non-existence to existence. If that’s not your reasoning then I apologize for misrepresenting your view. You say that a cause must pre-exist the thing that changes. Well if we’re talking about proximal causes then that wouldn’t necessarily be true. For example, if you dug a hole in your backyard, the thing that would change would be the arrangement of dirt, and the proximal cause of the rearrangement could be said to be you or your decision to dig the hole, but it wouldn’t follow that therefore you or your decision pre-exist the arrangement of dirt that was changed. But perhaps what you meant is that a cause must pre-exist the change it produces. I would agree that seems to be the case with every example of causation we know of. Let’s assume that’s universally true for the sake of analysis. I don’t see how it’s coherent to then say that God pre-exists time, without invoking some kind of time before time, or meta-time linking point A (when God hadn’t created time) and point B (when God had created time). Where did that meta-time come from? If God created it, how would he do that without some kind of meta-meta-time linking point A. (When God hadn’t yet created meta-time), and point B. (When God had created meta-time)? This leads to another infinite regress. However, if you say that the meta-time linking points A and B is uncreated, then that renders the theistic position vulnerable to the same philosophical objections to an infinite past leveled by WLC and others. I have no problem with your position that God is uncaused, necessary, or that God doesn’t change. What I’m interested in is the question of whether God’s decision to create the universe was caused. Notice how in every example of causation we know of, change is the product of other change. For example, the change of the seasons is accounted for by the change in angle of the earth with respect to the sun. The change of temperature in a given area is accounted for by the change in sunlight and weather conditions. What is it that accounts for the change in which God hadn’t yet decided to create the universe, and then had decided to create the universe? If you say that there was no such change - that God’s decision is a static, timeless, uncaused, necessary thing like God, then not only does that lead to modal collapse, but any effect of God’s decision would be a unique example of change that isn’t the product of some other change, therefore furthering the disanalogy between causation as we understand it and the kind of causation you’re proposing. If, however, you say that God’s decision to create the universe was contingent, or caused, or that it hadn't occurred at some point and then it had, then what accounts for that change? If you say that God accounts for the change then you run into the problem of infinite regress that I described in my comment a couple days ago. If you say that nothing accounts for the change then you’ve violated the same PSR that the argument for God is predicated on. If you hold the view that the PSR doesn’t apply to free will decisions, then I’d be curious to know how a free will decision can be both non-random and non-determined at the same time.

[@brendanbutler1238]

@@chad969Our inductive observation of physical change doesn't lead to the conclusion that all physical change is caused by physical change, because our inductive observation shows us that physical change doesn't totally explain itself. The immediate cause may be another physical change, but there is always a lack of complete explanation which requires another cause. This means that physical causes can never totally explain physical change, and that is consistent with our inductive observations, indeed it is the logical conclusion of them. That is why creation ex nihilo is not contradictory to our inductive observations but confirmed by them, because there is something newly existent in change (the change) that wasn't there before the change and which the other pre existent physical things cannot explain. My reasoning that change proves that the universe must be finite, and so it must have come into existence, ex nihilo, is that because the universe changes, it must have a cause of that change that pre exists it. Not pre exists in the sense of time, but something that exists eternally beyond time. But if the universe was past eternal it would be timelessly existent and so nothing could exist that could possibly be the cause of it's change. But the fact that it does change means it can't be eternal into the past, and so must be created ex nihilo a finite time ago. I'm not assuming an ex nihilo finite universe (or multiverse) but proving it because the universe is a thing that changes and so requires a cause of that change which means the very existence, not only the change of the universe must be finite. Because God is necessarily beyond time there cannot be a temporal process of causation or decision within God. God's decisions must be eternal. This doesn't contradict the PSR, as regards physical or temporal causes, because God isn't in that order of being, but is the sufficient reason that explains that type of being. A free will decision can be non random because it is within the boundaries of what is possible and also what is moral, but at the same time not a decision that has to be taken.

[@nickmorris2250]

I don't understand how Alex's phrasing of the train moving is disanalogous to our situation. To me it seems perfectly analogous because the chain of cause and effect is already 'moving' in our world ie. I exist, my parents had me, their parents had them etc. Even if we trace it all the way back to the big bang, there's no particular reason to think that there couldn't have been a cause of that and then a cause of that thing etc. Andrew's objection only seems to make sense if we assume that at some point there was no cause and effect happening but where's the justification that that was ever the case? EDIT: just reading some of Andrew's replies to other commenters below and he seems to deal with objections like mine by saying that an infinite regress is impossible. But I thought his argument about the train and money *was* the argument for why an infinite regress is impossible. How can you defend an argument by simply stating your conclusion of the same argument?

[@andrewloke7]

I answered your question in my replies to Fox in the comment thread below started by JW 'The concept of an infinite regress is not weird it’s logically impossible'

[@nickmorris2250]

@@andrewloke7 Hi Andrew, appreciate the reply and I read through most of it but that discussion appears to be still ongoing (last reply 28 mins ago as of writing) and it doesn't seem like the issue has been resolved. The problem still seems to be with your analogy/ies and how exactly they're analogous to the real world. With your money analogy it seems you're saying that the act of borrowing money from someone else is analogous to the process of being caused to come into existence by something or someone else. Money can't be created (except by a god I guess) so the only way to obtain it is to borrow it from someone else that has it. That seems fair to me but from there, it seems there's two (at least) ways that we can think about it playing out in the real world; *1)* You talk to person x and try to borrow some money and you learn that they don't have any. But you motivate them highly to get money by saying something like 'I'll shoot you if you don't get some money for me' so they go off to find someone else to borrow money from but that person doesn't have money either so they go threaten the next person then that person goes and threatens the next person etc. This chain of events can either terminate in a money making machine (ie. god) or it can keep on going forever in which case no one ever gets any money *2)* You talk to person x who has some money and you ask them where they got it as you want some too. They say they got it from person y so you go and talk to them and they say they got it from person z so you go and talk to them and so on. This chain of events can either terminate in a money making machine (god) or it can keep on going forever in which case you never find out where the money came from originally but it doesn't change the fact that person x has money You seem to be arguing for the first way of looking at it which translates into 'nothing currently exists and there's no way something could exist without an uncaused first cause' but the second option seems much more applicable. The second option translates into 'things currently exist and they can either be traced back to an uncaused first cause or traced back along an infinite regress of causes.'

[@andrewloke7]

@@nickmorris2250 Hi Nick, thanks for your reply, my discussion with Fox APPEARS to be still ongoing because Fox keeps recycling his view while ignoring my responses and question. The no-money scenario (‘Suppose I have nothing and the only way for me to begin to have money is to get it from Justin, Suppose Justin has nothing and the only way for him to begin to have money is to get it from Alex. If everyone is like this, no one would ever begin to have money. What is required is someone who doesn’t need to get money from others and is able to have money) is analogous to the real world in which I have no existence before I begin to exist, and before I begin to exist my parents have to begin to exist, and before they begin to exist, their parents have to begin to exist, etc. If everyone and everything is like this, none would begin to exist. What is required is a First Cause. In your scenario 2 you suggested person x has some money from person y who has some money from person z, etc., and you said that this is more analogous to the real world as person x already exists. The problem is that in the real world person x does not always exist and he has no capacity to begin to exist and relies on there being a prior person who also has no capacity to begin to exist. Indeed no prior entity in the series escapes this type of problem, that is why the regress is vicious just as person x does not have money initially and he has no capacity to begin to have money and relies on a prior person who also has no capacity to begin to have money etc.

[@nickmorris2250]

@@andrewloke7 "Suppose I have nothing and the only way for me to begin to have money is to get it from Justin" I don't see how this is analogous to the real world because in the real world you *do* already have money (ie. you *do* already exist) and so does Justin and so does Alex. In the real world we already have money and you're trying to ascertain where we got it from. The situation in the real world is *not* that we don't have money and we want to try and get some as you're describing.

[@andrewloke7]

@@nickmorris2250 In the real world you don’t have money (ie. you don’t have existence) unless somebody else gives it to you (i.e unless somebody else brings you into existence).

[@porkupine]

A lot of people misunderstood the Cosmological Argument. It doesn’t deduce whatever version of god/superhero, only a First Cause of the universe which is uncaused, beginningless, has libertarian freedom, and enormously powerful, i.e. a Creator of the universe. The argument does not start with this conclusion, but rather it starts with the observation of the events of our universe from which it deduces that there is such a First Cause, therefore it is not circular. It is perfectly rational !!!

[@ceceroxy2227]

one sensible comment.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@Adam Cosper No it was the rest before the exclamation which made it sensible.

[@ryrez4478]

Why does the first cause *need* to be a personal being? I don't get it. Someone help me out?

[@andrewloke7]

The First Cause is a personal being because the First Cause has libertarian freedom and intelligence. See my reply to your other comment

[@DigitalGnosis]

@@andrewloke7 Is the First Causes libertarian free-choice to create the universe a brute contingent fact? If not what is it?

[@commonsense1103]

We know the universe had a beginning, the fact it had that beginning predetermines there was before this universe at least one conflicting event.

[@BFizzi719]

I think that our knowledge of metaphysics is limited to knowing that there must be an eternal cause at the beginning. Beyond that we have no way of investigating any other properties of such origin. The theistic first cause does not stop here. to the contrary, theists open the infinitely large drawer of "logically possible attributes" and devise an explanation that is eternal, limitless in power, possesses all knowledge, and classified as a "mind" but without any of the pesky matter stuff present with all minds since that's the thing we are trying to account for. Also, so this cause can also be claimed to account for objective morals, let's say that the first cause has the property of being all-good. This Frankenstein of an explanation has no defined limit to what it can or cannot do, making it able to explain literally anything. Done!

[@andrewloke7]

As explained in my dialogue with Alex, it can be proven deductively that the eternal First Cause is a Creator of the universe.

[@andrewloke7]

@Nick Jones You have failed SPECTACULARLY to rebut the argument I presented in my dialogue with Alex.

[@andrewloke7]

@Nick JonesI have given you the syllogism in the other thread above, let's continue our discussion there.

[@michelledavis3484]

alex for pm

[@johnjacquard2182]

Mr Andrew hello fine sir. I'm curious , how can a alive experience being have no environment to exist inside of? 8f God is forever, what is his location during this forever?

[@20july1944]

God isn't organic, so He doesn't need an environment. God's location wouldn't be in the "space time" of our universe, whatever else you want to say about it.

[@johnjacquard2182]

@@20july1944 your just defining God that way there nothing to show it's other than a imagining I can imagine anything definitionally

[@johnjacquard2182]

If God is not organic describe the actual structure for 8s made of and the location of said structure, because as of now all you can show is you are using the word God in language . I can do same thing ready? Tragglespich is a being from the ultra natural realm. He created God in the supernatural realm.

[@20july1944]

@@johnjacquard2182 I'm positing this God on the basis of His apparent effects: 1. He is the only possible brute fact of reality -- I challenge you to posit any alternative. 2. He, a self-existing intellect, is the only possible cause of the highly specified and functional complexity of organic life.

[@johnjacquard2182]

Tragglespich has the properties of creating the super natural realm because tragglespich is located in the ultra natural realm . It's a higher dimension . He created God.

[@rageforthemachine]

How are God’s thoughts not subject to the infinite regress problem? If God had thoughts, unless you can point to a “first thought” by God, there had to be a thought prior to every one. How is God changeless and yet caused the universe to come into existence? God existed for an eternity in a state without a universe where nothing else could act upon him. For him to come to a decision to create the universe there had to be some change either within him or without him to create the cause.

[@andrewloke7]

As Augustine pointed out long ago, there can be ideas in the Divine Mind in the state of timelessness which is not subjected to the problem of infinite regress.

[@DonswatchingtheTube]

I think unchanged is more about the nature of being and principles than a static state that never changes and motionless. It's best to let doctrines build the overall picture of what it means by its own terms.

[@rageforthemachine]

Andrew Loke I don’t mean to take up a lot of your time, but can you elaborate on why Augustine thought God’s thoughts were exempt? As it stands now that just seems like a a case of special pleading. It is similar to Dr. Craig’s response that God’s thoughts are different than our thoughts. If you are going to call God’s thoughts thoughts then you are going to have to show how they are fundamentally similar to what we call thoughts in ourselves.

[@andrewloke7]

@@rageforthemachine Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception without justifying the special exception. Saying that God’s thoughts are timeless is not a case of special pleading because there are justifications, viz. (1) the premises of the argument I presented which shows that a timeless Creator exists. (2) God’s thoughts are fundamentally similar to ours in the sense that they involve intentionality, awareness of logical relations, etc.-there is no need to be in time in order to possess these properties. However, God can enter into time if He wants to, which He did when he freely chose to bring about the first event

[@andrewloke7]

@bmk777k Even if we live in a simulation, we should still ask where does it come from i.e. what caused it. I’ve already explained that an infinite regress of causes is impossible and why this implies that there is an initially changeless First Cause with free will, i.e. a Creator of our universe. Thus, there must still be a Creator God.

[@davids11131113]

Start off asserting god exists, then go into what god he caused.....well you have to demonstrate ‘god’ exists in the first place or you may as well debate whether magical universe creating unicorn created the universe. It’s just a big fallacy.

[@2fast2block]

"It’s just a big fallacy." You fantasize that your god of nothing did as you wank off to it and orgasm about it but it's all an impossibility that you don't care about, all you want is to wank off and pretend you're smart. "you may as well debate whether magical universe creating unicorn created the universe." Great, hope you enjoyed your orgasm on that claim. You must have knowledge of creation then. Tell us how creation happened by your god of nothing that did it naturally. Start out with there was nothing, or something just came or always something, or whatever you orgasm to that will come to a dead-end because you have NO science for a natural creation, but humor me, you wanking dumbass clown.

[@hannahanderson4305]

No that's called special pleading. You first have to define what a God is, you can't just stick that idea into the conclusion without any coherent definition. Second in science we need mechanisms to be defined, without a mechanism showing how this particular event happened all you have is speculation and conjecture. Since we don't know what occurred before the singularity you can't just say God dunnit.

[@hannahanderson4305]

And after that you need to then somehow show that it's the Christian God vs Islam or any of the other gods that have been invoked throughout the ages.

[@andrewloke7]

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception without justifying the special exception. My argument is not special pleading because it is justified on the basis of the reasons I presented which entails the conclusion that there must be a First Cause of the universe which is uncaused, beginningless, and has free will and enormous power, which is what a Creator God means. Science itself requires deduction which I use to arrive at my conclusion, and the conclusion of a deductively valid argument from true premises must be true regardless of whether we are able to define the mechanisms by which the First Cause bring about the universe or not.

[@andrewloke7]

@@hannahanderson4305 Concerning why the Creator is the Christian God, I discuss some of the relevant evidences in my book The Origin of Divine Christology published by Cambridge University Press.

[@hannahanderson4305]

@@andrewloke7 no, sorry but the premise is wrong right off the bat, you cannot prove everything in the universe has a cause. This breaks down at the quantum level,

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

@@hannahanderson4305 Can you demonstrate that?

[@johnjacquard2182]

Do you believe a human being is 1object? And that 1 object is traveling through moments after moments?

[@jasonaus3551]

No

[@20july1944]

I would agree with a human being is one object traveling through moments after moments.

[@johnjacquard2182]

@@20july1944 a human being is not one object a human being is trillions upon trillions of living cells. The living cells is one thing . This why we have to destroy life to stay alive we tear tissue from living cells into our stomach to survive. Destroying life is requirement for us to keep living . Putting living cells in our stomach from a ojcenl8ving thing is this contest

[@johnjacquard2182]

Life destroys life to eat living cells. What is gods justification for a contest of living things destroying tearing the tissue of plants even? Plants use sun to survive 💪 why didn't God make you absorb sun through your skin to survive? You must destroy life tomkeep yours even ifnyou only eat salads

[@johnjacquard2182]

Other life gives up it's lie to die for any to live. It's a cannabalistic contest . Does God eat souls destroying life to keep living too? Man made in gawdsbimage? Or is the Bible and all gods ancient version of comic books and movies ? What's more likely

[@rickknight5872]

Could the Bible be historically accurate? I like to point people to the theories of Uniformitarianism versus Catastrophism. Both are based the interpreters presuppositions or axioms.

[@davids11131113]

The Bible is partially historically accurate in descriptions of places etc, just like Spider-Man comics happen in a real historically accurate setting. But other parts like Genesis, well we know today things did not happen like that. Plants and the animals on earth did not exist for a couple BILLION years the only thing that did exist were micro organisms bacteria and viruses.

[@rickknight5872]

davids11131113 If the Cambrian explosion shows the start of most animal phyla, how do you explain going from microorganism to animal without a record? You can tell me all about your faith if you let me tell you about mine. I believed in evolution and billions of years for 40 years until I explored the possibility of scripture being true. I actually believed I needed Jesus before I believed Genesis. Good luck It’s awful hard humbling yourself knowing the need for a Savior. I’m speaking from experience.

[@rickknight5872]

davids11131113 We all have the same evidence. You can interpret it as you like. I have changed the way I interpreted because of logic. For instance. I don’t believe brittle sedimentary rock layers can bend to the extent that they are bent without breaking at the folds Check folded mountains in Google images. A single catastrophic global flood sure makes sense. Don’t say heat and pressure. The same rocks would show metamorphism if that were true. Many more dating methods go against radiometric dating which is the preferred method for Uniformitarianism.

[@michelledavis3484]

a "shitless square"?

[@joejohnoptimus]

"Shapeless square"

[@hingeslevers]

"shitless scare" 😜

[@porkupine]

It is interesting to see that the other atheists on this page have been silenced by Andrew’s arguments, leaving behind a crass and whining Nick Jones who doesn’t even realize that he has lost because he doesn’t understand modus tollens. Is this the best that atheism can offer?

[@MrMcwesbrook]

I'm still confused on the beginning to exist idea. What part of a person begins to exist? Isn't everything made of the same stuff on the most basic level? Like if I eat protein, my body breaks it down into more basic amino acids and uses those to build new muscle fibers. The amino acids existed before they became a part of me.

[@veridicusmind3722]

Most things in the universe consists of other fundamental particles, but it doesn't change the fact that these composites actually comes into being (e.g. there are actual chairs and flowers instead of only particles that are arranged chair-wise or flower-wise). The implication of a view that doesn't see things as coming into being would require us to deny the existence of composite objects in reality and endorse some form of mereological nihilism.

[@MrMcwesbrook]

@@veridicusmind3722 Ah I think I get it. So you are saying what comes into existence is the composition or form/arrangement that those particles take. Am I restating your thoughts correctly? If yes, then I would agree with that. Then I guess the question is what is responsible for creating that form?

[@veridicusmind3722]

@@MrMcwesbrook exactly! And even with that in mind, we can still apply the inductive generalization on things that aren't composites, such as virtual (and even non-virtual) particles that are all contingent, or (as even van Inwagen would argue) consciousness or minds.

[@veridicusmind3722]

@@MrMcwesbrook and it is also worth to mention that this would only be relevant to one of the defences for the first premise. The two other metaphysical defences Craig gives doesn't need the inductive argument(s). Also, if we rephrase the first premise more modestly to say, (i) if the universe began to exist then the universe has a cause for its beginning, then we can go straight to the metaphysical justifications without needing to inductively defend the proposition that everything that comes into being needs en efficient cause.

[@syasya3722]

The impossibility of tasalsul (infinite regress) With reason we know that something that is the whole is greater than the part and therefore it is impossible to equate the whole with the part. Example: a cat is a whole (kulliyat) which consists of parts (juz'iyat) such as tail, teeth, fur, whiskers and so on. Of course a cat is much bigger (in terms of quality and quantity) than a cat's teeth or a cat's tail. Because of that, a cat (as a whole) is not the same as a cat's tail or cat's teeth. Now suppose there is a series of backward events that are tasalsul (infinite regress) A is caused by B which is caused by C which is caused by D and so on without end. Now let's take a sequence of events, say event C. In this event C, it also consists of a series of backward events that are arbitrary (infinite regress). Where event C consists of CA caused by CB caused by CC caused by CD and so on without end. Thus event C which is part (Juz'iyat) of the whole (kulliyat) series of tasalsul events (infinite regress) also consists of a series of tasalsul events (infinite regress) and therefore event C (which is partial) is the same as the series of all events tasalsul (infinite regression). Meanwhile, at the beginning, reason already had the principle that the whole (kulliyat) was impossible to equate with the parts (juz'iyat). It is impossible to equate the entire series of tasalsul events with some of the events in the tasalsul (event C). But as we have demonstrated above, event C also consists of an endless sequence of events in the past and hence event C is equal to the totality of tasalsul events which is logically impossible. Thus, tasalsul (infinite regress) is logically impossible. There are many illustrations to show the impossibility of tasalsul (infinite regress) 1. The illustrator borrows a book. If A borrows a book from B. B does not have and borrows from C. C does not have and borrows from D. If this series of borrowing books continues without end then A cannot borrow books. In order for A to be able to borrow the book, this sequence must have an end. There must be at least one person who has the book without needing to borrow from others 2. Illustration of shooting dead criminals. A commando gives orders to his men not to shoot a criminal before waiting for approval from those behind him. Say there's a line of soldiers. A is in front, B is behind A, C is behind B and so on. This means that so that A can shoot criminal A must wait for B's approval, but B must also wait for C's approval and so on. If this sequence continues, the criminal will not die. In order for a criminal to die, there must be one soldier who gives shooting instructions without waiting for instructions from the others. 3. Illustration of entering the room There is a room. Say in that room there is a rule "no one can enter this room before someone else enters." A came and was about to enter the room. Reading the rules, A does not enter. B comes and is about to enter the room. Read the rules, B does not enter. C too. D too. etc. If this continues without end then the room will be empty. So that the room is not empty there must be at least one person who enters the room first.

[@diggingshovelle9669]

Our Minds Are Infinite also

[@brando3342]

The prevailing scientific theory to date is that time/space and thus matter can be turned back and back, until there would be no more time/space. This "infinite money lending" train is simply not scientific and a completely unproductive point to stick on.

[@plasticvision6355]

Brando Correct.It’s a totally stupid argument because it is irrelevant!

[@andrewloke7]

The money lending and train examples are used to illustrate the notion of dependence which science requires e.g. the formation of water is dependent on the prior existence of hydrogen

[@plasticvision6355]

Andrew Loke But it falls down as an argument for god when the first law of thermodynamics is considered because what cannot be created (energy) requires no creator. In other words energy exists necessarily. Philosophers have known that this is a serious problem for the god hypothesis since the 1920’s so for almost a century now.

[@stwoods25]

@@plasticvision6355 Where was energy before the big bang?

[@plasticvision6355]

Steve Woods In one sense this irrelevant as energy must always exist, whether this is actual or potential, but the short answer is that the sum total of positive and negative energy is zero (positive and negative balance exactly). This is why creation from nothing is possible, but highly likely on quantum mechanics. It's also worth noting that there is no logical contradiction entailed in creation from literal nothing for no reason as there is literally no thing to prevent such an act. That's just a brute fact of logic, not an opinion. These are many of the issues theists gloss over either because they don't want to know or find hard to understand.

[@brain0nfire]

But why do you need a first cause when there is the possibility that the whole always existed?

[@ApozVideoz]

Cause and existence are two different things. There is a first cause of existence that does not have the common or naturalistic, if I may, definitions attached to it. Considering the properties of our universe's existence, a first cause is necessary.

[@20july1944]

What "whole" has possibly always existed?

[@brain0nfire]

@@ApozVideoz even the big bang model could be a cycle, like a balloon inflating and deflating.

[@brain0nfire]

@@20july1944 it's jus a label pointing to all there was/is/will be.

[@20july1944]

@@brain0nfire No, it really couldn't be a cycle, because matter becomes energy in nature (fission/fusion) but NOT the reverse -- energy does NOT become matter in nature -- our universe is a one-shot deal.

[@lorgus100]

In a universe where all causes have a previous cause why does a ‘first cause’ seem more likely that a infinite series of causes? Why does one unintuitive absurd explanation trump another?

[@anglozombie2485]

because change is a real thing in the world. We see potential and actualization. Also, infinite regress is impossible. Example would be a married bachelor is what you are saying is possible.

[@lorgus100]

AngloZombie reword the first premise anyway you want. Are telling me you except a prime actualiser/potentialer that ‘exists’ timelessly over a infinite regress? Trade one absurdly for the other.

[@coolmuso6108]

@@lorgus100 "In a universe where all causes have a previous cause." This is already a wrong way of characterising the first premise. The premise is: "whatever begins to exist has a cause," or "whatever comes into being has a cause." What Andrew's argument is based on, is similar to Thomas Aquinas's essentially ordered causal series - which is based on dependence. For example, suppose you want to power a T.V. You plug the television's electric cable into a power strip. You then plug that power strip into another power strip, and another power strip, and so on...Even if you have an infinite number of power strips, the T.V. and each power strip in the series has no capacity to generate its own causal power. Since each entity is borrowing causal power, you cannot have borrowed causal power without something to borrow it from. Therefore, they have to derive their power from a first member (with built-in or underived causal power). It can impart causal power without having to derive it from anywhere else. In this case, the electrical generator (this isn't where the buck stops, technically, only using it for the purpose of analogy). Only then, will the T.V turn on. In this case, an essentially order causal series cannot extend to infinity - since each entity has zero capacity to generate causal power and must borrow it from a previous member: 0+0+0+0+0…..to infinity = 0. Therefore, it terminates via ontological necessity at a first member - one that can impart causal power to each member. However, although Aquinas is talking about simultaneous causation at any one moment of time, Andrew has taken it and combined it with the concept of things coming into being (Kalam) to produce an essentially ordered causal series extending across time. For example, before I exist, I have zero capacity to begin existing without a prior cause. Therefore, in order for me to come into being, there needs to be a cause - my father for example. My father, however, didn't always exist and he also came into being - which required a cause and so on. Each entity in this series lacks the capacity to come into being without a prior cause and they need to derive their causal power from a previous member. Therefore, like I said above, the causal series terminates by necessity at a first member that is beginningless and uncaused (since whatever begins to exist has a cause). When you unpack what attributes this cause has, it's basically God...

[@lorgus100]

@@coolmuso6108 Whatever way the premise is worded or characterized it is appealing to perception of causes and being. All things in the universe with being had a cause which following from other things with previous causes. Why stop at power strip? Power strip is powered by a generator. A generator’s energy comes (directly or indirectly) for the sun and so on and so on. Your analogy lacks the logical chain that stems back to the limits humanities’ epistemology. The big bang. All analogies that stems from this universe will suffer from the same problem (the math thing also problematic). Slapping a bit of paint on the old cosmological argument is a tried and failed mode of theistic philosophers. If you want to believe a prime mover and believe that thing is a god, be my guest. That has its own set of problems. But inserting the necessity for a prime mover into the first premise will result in begging the question.

[@andrewloke7]

Your claim ‘all causes have a previous cause’ is based on inductive reasoning which is always susceptible to refutation by counterexample. Whereas my argument against an infinite regress is based on deductive reasoning, and the conclusion of a deductively valid argument from true premises is always true, thus its demonstration of a First Cause provides a counterexample to your inductive claim.

[@eternisedDragon7]

The rookie mistake (maybe it was made due to lack of care or thought, or an oversight or just plain lack of basic mathematical education) that Alex Malpass is making during this debate when he claims ''if there were infinitely many (distinct or otherwise) events that occured in the past, then for any given such event or moment in time among them that one may pick for investigating it, it would be impossible for the on-going of the presence to coincide with or occupy this event/moment at any time within some abstract, ordered timeline, and the reason for this being the case is that it would have taken in-finitely long to reach that moment in time, and with the presence being unable to be ever located at any such moment no moment in time could ever reach the state of becoming the present, so that the presence would have no place in such a model as it would have no starting point'' lies in mistakenly concluding from an infinity of events in time to an unbounded range of time that reaches out infinitely far into the past that would for some reason (consisting of lack of imagination) be needed to cover all of these. Contrary to what he says, infinitely many moments/events in time can be covered within a bounded range/interval in time (''can'' in the sense of it being impossible to rule this scenario out in the manner that Alex Malpass presented), as e.g. the set of the real numbers [0,1] illustrates, which is the closed interval that contains all real numbers from 0 to 1, as it contains infinitely many (even uncountably infinitely many) real numbers (or alternatively it also contains infinitely many real numbers of the form 1/n for all integers n>0) that can represent moments/events in time for a suitable model of time in which the present being at a real number x would mean x amount of time (e.g. in seconds) passed. And in such a scenario one could reach any moment/event in time within a finite amount of time passing to get there, as opposed to what Alex Malpass claimed to be an impossibility to get to in a logically sound manner. Afterall, the speed/velocity or (not necessarily constant) pace or rate (of covering different amounts of a set) with which the ''presence'' passes or rushes through a time-line/chain or event-line/chain, aswell as potentially some type of ''density'' of the distribution (over time) of the events/moments that one is speaking of also matters when it comes to questions regarding the boundedness of accumulated amount of time that is needed to reach any specified point in time, provided a starting point is given and also a structure or order that has to be passed through (in this case by some monotonically behaving presence-determining function or variable).

[@matthieulavagna]

Justin , you speak wayyyyy to much.

[@stewscum]

I always don’t like it when the host likes to insert themselves this often in what is supposed to be a criticism

[@stewscum]

Cleo Fierro agree to disagree. I understood what he said fine but his arguments are ere not clearly articulated. If you review Alex’s website he explains in more detail how Loke is not as clear as he needs to be, when he needs to be. The host didn’t seem to distill the arguments themselves down but instead offered a slightly relevant take on it which I think derailed Alex from the questions he wanted to ask about what was just said, still recently in everyone’s mind. With conversations like these, the amount of specificity and clarity required between just the two credentialed (generously applies to Loke as well) people means anyone trying to assert themselves makes that process more cumbersome and easily can easily gloss over things that might have been said if not for time being eaten by the moderator. IMO

[@stewscum]

Cleo Fierro I again disagree because the host didn’t interject with simplified versions of the arguments actually made. 10x more could have been accomplished on the actual arguments if this were just a conversation without this host and if anyone missed something they could rewatch.

[@stewscum]

Cleo Fierro hahaha, you’re picking a really strange place to plant a flag especially when you assert that having someone else restating the argument is somehow less of a waste of time than backing up 30 seconds in the video but you like Justin! Good for you. My points stand and When they do eventually talk together we’ll see which video is actually the more informative

[@elcangridelanime]

I also agreed that Justin often commenting doesn't help the conversation. I'm more interested in hearing the guest's discussion. Justin seem to only talk in order to help his particular side. He isn't unbias as a host.

[@NN-wc7dl]

@@elcangridelanime True.

[@madshadows7083]

I think it boils down to this: If God can be the un-caused first cause, then matter can be the un-caused first cause? The basic building blocks of life could be un-caused. At least we can observe and test matter. The god, if it exists, refuses to show itself so we can't test or observe it. If one argues matter has to be created, I would ask "how do you know?" and ask, "why doesn't god have to be created?" If a spirit can be eternal, then matter can be eternal as well. That having been said, I don't think the atheist did a very good job here. He got bogged down in the weeds and didn't make many solid points. He allowed the Christian to control the debate.

[@andrewloke7]

As I explained in my dialogue with Alex, the First Cause must be initially changeless and has free will. Matter and the basic building blocks of life are constantly changing and do not have free will and thus cannot be the First Cause and therefore has to be created. Observation and testing is not the only way to know things. As I explained to Alex, we can know that there cannot be shapeless square anywhere without having to observe or test every part of the universe to find out. We just have to know what we mean when we talk about the relevant notions of shape and square. Likewise once we know the relevant notions we can know that there cannot be an infinite regress of changes and therefore there must be a First Cause of the universe who is initially changeless and has free will, i.e. a Creator God.

[@20july1944]

I'm going to dare to supplement the comments of Andrew Loke. Matter can't be the uncaused cause because if matter is uncaused, it has always existed and is therefore infinitely old. Matter always tends toward heat death (no available energy) so any infinitely old matter was either inert (no available energy to begin with) OR it used up its available energy an infinite time in the past. Matter can't be the uncaused cause.

[@madshadows7083]

Andrew Loke I’m not sure why the first cause has to be changrless. That sounds like an arbitrary point. That having been said hasn’t God changed regularly? The God of the Old Testament has changed quite a bit from the god of the New.

[@20july1944]

@@madshadows7083 He said *_"initially changeless"_* AND have free will, this is so that God isn't merely a physical condition like a difference in electrical charge which will resolve itself with a discharge, for example.

[@andrewloke7]

@@madshadows7083 As I explained in my dialogue with Alex (did you listen?) , an infinite regress of changes is not possible and the first change cannot have begun to exist uncaused, therefore it must have been caused by a First Cause that is initially changeless. But once the First Cause bring about the first event He is no longer changeless.

[@lukeanthony9904]

An infinite sequence of non-moving trains doesn't move on it's own, but neither does a finite series of trains.

[@andrewloke7]

As I explained in my dialogue with Alex, what is required is a First engine

[@porkupine]

From our observation of the events of our universe, Andrew has successfully deduced the existence of a Creator, but Alex has failed to understand his argument.

[@ceceroxy2227]

alex is just a more educated version of the internet atheist, he is a smart guy but says illogical things to maintain his atheism

[@Oners82]

Starting to get worried at about 3:15. Please PLEASE don't let this be just another theist who regurgitates all of WLC's nonsense. We've heard it a million times before so please let this guy say something new... Edit - a few minutes in and wow dude; slow down with your talking. It sounds like I've got the player on 4x!

[@20july1944]

I was "worried" I'd have to keep seeing your whining nonsense, and I did....

[@Oners82]

@@20july1944 Any argument? No? Fuck off then :)

[@anglozombie2485]

He did give a slightly altered argument that sounds better. But to me the cosmological is one of the strongest.

[@20july1944]

@@Oners82 "Any argument" about what topic? Our last chat ended with you telling me that the 4-D extent of our universe was embedded in a larger 4-D structure that "just is" and you emphatically contrasted that with my "always existed" characterization of your proposal of a larger 4-D structure. I don't see a difference and I don't see what explanatory power your model has.

[@Oners82]

@@anglozombie2485 Seriously?! The CA is probably the worst argument I've ever heard! It literally amazes me how many fallacies can be contained in a single syllogism, and it amazes me even more than so many people who try to debate this issue lack the education in logic to spot them!

[@726json]

Hello Dr. Loke, I just wanna ask wouldn't the existence of God be an inference to the best explanation? Most things indeed follow natural laws and require a cause to exist, but at the same time, there are exceptions like miracles and other unexplained phenomena. If we conclude that God exists based on our general observations and ignoring the exceptions, then the existence of God shouldn't be a concrete truth, but rather a prediction.

[@andrewloke7]

There are different arguments for the existence of God, some are IBE and others are deductive, and they complement one another. A miracle is not an exception to the causal principle ‘whatever begins to exist has a cause’, given that the miracle (by definition) is brought about by supernatural being who is the cause of the miraculous event. Given my deductive argument for the causal principle, unexplained phenomena would have causes as well even though we still haven’t discovered them. The Cosmological Argument shows that the existence of God is a concrete truth.

[@andrewloke7]

@Nick Jones I have shown that a Creator God exists using a 11 step argument in the other thread "Oh dear..' but you have FAILED SPECTACULARLY to back up your objections to my 11 step argument by failing to reply to any of the five questions I asked you in my previous post, which I have repasted below. The questions are not trying to divert and muddy the waters or poison the well as you claim, rather the questions are intended to expose the fallacy of your objections to my 11 step argument (see the first post of that thread) which has already shown that a Creator God exists. As I said in my previous post, ‘Reply to them point by point or I will take it as TACIT ADMISSION that you have lost your case.’ Since you have failed to reply to them, you have lost your case. Addendum: Questions which Nick Jones have failed to answer: In reply to my defence of the Causal Principle ‘whatever begins to exist has a cause’, Nick Jones wrote ‘A building is merely a change of state from bricks and mortar to a means of shelter! A cake is the changing of state of numerous ingredients! None of these things began to exist!’ Q1: So are you saying that the building didn’t began to exist? The cake didn’t begin to exist? You didn’t begin to exist? Q2: I asked you ‘please tell me which of the 11 steps of my argument require demonstrating something beginning to exist from nothing?’ Nick Jones wrote ‘SOrry sonny but who the hell are you to decide that only one thing can begin to exist uncaused in the quantum world?’ Q3 ‘But where did I decide that only one thing can begin to exist uncaused in the quantum world?’ This is a misrepresentation! Q4: if you think you can rip the Kalam why don’t you submit your essay to Oxford or Cambridge journals which have published my articles before? You dare not do that, don’t you? Q5: The fact that you don’t understand logic 101 has been shown by the CREDIBLE EVIDENCES listed below you have no answer to this credible evidence, isn’t it? CREDIBLE EVIDENCES that Nick Jones FAIL LOGIC 101 and therefore has failed to understand and failed to rebut the Cosmological Argument: 1. In reply to my Modus Tollen argument for the Causal Principle, Nick Jones wrote ‘black swan fallacy.’ Comment: The black swan fallacy is a fallacy about induction, whereas my argument is based on deduction and therefore is NOT susceptible to the Black Swan fallacy. Nick Jones fail to understand the distinction between induction and deduction. This is credible evidence that he FAILS LOGIC 101. 2. In reply to my Modus Tollen argument for the Causal Principle, Nick Jones wrote: ‘You dont seem to grasp 1. if grass is green then I have a 12 inch penis 2. Grass is green 3. therefore I have a 12 inch penis Is not a valid sylogism;’ Comment: You are mistaken on THREE points. First, this is Modus Ponens, not Modus Tollens. Second, it is valid but the problem is premise 1 is false. You don’t seem to know the distinction between validity and soundness of an argument. An argument can be valid but unsound because the premise is false. YOUR TWO MISTAKES IN ONE SENTENCE DEMONTRATED THAT YOU FAIL LOGIC 101. LOL! Thirdly, you did not support the first premise because you did not demonstrate the relation between the antecedent and the consequent (ie the grass and your penis). However, I have already supported my premise by demonstrating the relation between the antecedent and the consequent i.e. how the consequent follow from the antecedent, as follows: if something X in the quantum world begins to exist uncaused, then THIS MEANS THAT there would not be any cause which would make it the case that only X rather than other kinds of things/events (e.g., the beginning of a rapid increasing in strength of electric fields around me) begin to exist uncaused. Moreover, the properties of X and the properties of other kinds of things which differentiate between them would be had by them only when they had already begun to exist. This implies that there would be no essential difference between them where beginning to exist uncaused is concerned. Thus, if X begins to exist uncaused, then it cannot be the case that only X begin to exist uncaused 3. Nick Jones wrote ‘If EVERYTHING that begins to exist needs a cause then im afraid the first cause would indeed need a cause. which is a logical condradiction.’ Comment: Nick is mistaken, let me illustrate: If EVERYTHING that is triangular has 3 vertices this does NOT imply that X would also have 3 vertices, because X is NOT triangular. Likewise, if everything that begins to exist needs a cause this does NOT imply that the first cause would need a cause, because the First Cause does NOT have a beginning. There is NO contradiction. YOU FAIL LOGIC 101! 4. Nick Jones wrote ‘Clearly if everything that begins to exist needs a cause and youre claiming that the first cause does not need a cause then the claim that everything that begins to exist needs a cause is fallacious!!! I.E The first cause does not need a cause therefore not everything that begins to exist needs a cause does it? Comment: Nick is mistaken, let me illustrate: If everything that is triangular has 3 vertices and X does not have 3 vertices, this does NOT show that the claim that everything that is triangular has 3 vertices is fallacious. Rather, the conclusion is X is NOT triangular, while it remains true that everything that is triangular has 3 vertices. Likewise, if everything that begins to exist needs a cause and the first cause does not need a cause, the conclusion is that the First Cause does NOT have a beginning, while it remains true that everything that begins to exist needs a cause. 5. Nick Jones wrote; ‘So you're admitting that not EVERYTHING that begins to EXIST has a cause as you're claiming the first cause dousnt NEED a cause!’ Comment: Nick Jones fail to understand the logical distinction between Sentence A: ‘EVERYTHING that BEGINS TO EXIST needs a cause’ and Sentence B: ‘EVERYTHING that EXISTS needs a cause’ I deny B but I accept A 6. CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT NICK JONES misrepresent the Cosmological Argument Nick Jones: ‘So......you're still struggling with the logical contradiction of claiming everything needs a cause and then claiming there was a first cause!’ Comment: I did NOT claim that everything needs a cause. As I said before, what I claim was ‘everything that begins to exist needs a cause’, but you DISHONESTLY MISREPRESENTED my claim by omitting the words ‘begin to exist’. Final Grade for Nick Jones: FAIL

[@andrewloke7]

@Nick Jones You have confirmed what I said in another post that you keep on misrepresenting me when you said 'your argument can be summarised as follows.... Let's play on people's intuition that everything needs a cause' Comment: I did not say that 'everything needs a cause.' Rather what I said was 'everything THAT BEGINS TO EXIST needs a cause.' After repeatedly misrepresenting my argument and failing to answer my questions three times you still have the shamelessness to write in another thread ‘So.....the only reason you havnt responded to premises 7-11 is because you know if you did, I would expose them as much as I exposed your earlier premises!’ LOL! you have not exposed my earlier premises but have merely exposed your ignorance of logic and English (see addendum below). Since you still haven’t realized your failures I shall now proceed to provide more evidence of it by responding to your latest objections re premises 7-11: 7. Since the first change (=first event) could not have begun to exist uncaused (this is based on Causal Principle), the first change (=first event) must have been caused by a First Cause which was initially changeless. You wrote ‘Thats a total non sequitur.’ Comment: Do you understand what non sequitur means? This is not a non sequitur because the causal principle says ‘whatever begins to exist has a cause’ and a change is something that has a beginning, therefore the first change would have a First Cause. Now the First Cause cannot be a change prior to the first change (otherwise the first change wouldn’t be the first!) so the First Cause must be changeless initially. The conclusion follows from the premise. Re premise 8. You wrote ‘Youve not demonstrated that the first cause was changeless!’ Comment: I have; see above, but you have failed to understand because you failed basic logic.; see below. 9. In order to bring about the entire universe, the First Cause must have enormous power. ok 10. A First Cause that is uncaused, beginningless, initially changeless, and has libertarian freedom and enormously power is a Creator of the Universe. You wrote: Your dishonest method of calling the formation of the universe a creation rather than a formation which would require a creator begs the question and is phenomenally dishonest! Comment: You don’t know English. The Oxford English Dictionary defines creation as ‘the action or process of bringing something into existence.’ My argument shows that there is a First Cause which brought the first event of the universe into existence. This is creation. Moreover, you have FAILED SPECTACULARLY to back up your objections to my 11 step argument by failing to reply to any of the five questions I asked you in my previous post, which I have repasted below. The questions are not trying to divert and muddy the waters or poison the well as you claim, rather the questions are intended to expose the fallacy of your objections to my 11 step argument (see the first post of the thread 'Oh Dear..') which has already shown that a Creator God exists. As I said in my previous post, ‘Reply to them point by point or I will take it as TACIT ADMISSION that you have lost your case.’ Since you have failed to reply to them, you have lost your case. Addendum: Questions which Nick Jones have failed to answer: In reply to my defence of the Causal Principle ‘whatever begins to exist has a cause’, Nick Jones wrote ‘A building is merely a change of state from bricks and mortar to a means of shelter! A cake is the changing of state of numerous ingredients! None of these things began to exist!’ Q1: So are you saying that the building didn’t began to exist? The cake didn’t begin to exist? You didn’t begin to exist? Q2: I asked you ‘please tell me which of the 11 steps of my argument require demonstrating something beginning to exist from nothing?’ Nick Jones wrote ‘SOrry sonny but who the hell are you to decide that only one thing can begin to exist uncaused in the quantum world?’ Q3 ‘But where did I decide that only one thing can begin to exist uncaused in the quantum world?’ This is a misrepresentation! Q4: if you think you can rip the Kalam why don’t you submit your essay to Oxford or Cambridge journals which have published my articles before? You dare not do that, don’t you? Q5: The fact that you don’t understand logic 101 has been shown by the CREDIBLE EVIDENCES listed below you have no answer to this credible evidence, isn’t it? CREDIBLE EVIDENCES that Nick Jones FAIL LOGIC 101 and therefore has failed to understand and failed to rebut the Cosmological Argument: 1. In reply to my Modus Tollen argument for the Causal Principle, Nick Jones wrote ‘black swan fallacy.’ Comment: The black swan fallacy is a fallacy about induction, whereas my argument is based on deduction and therefore is NOT susceptible to the Black Swan fallacy. Nick Jones fail to understand the distinction between induction and deduction. This is credible evidence that he FAILS LOGIC 101. 2. In reply to my Modus Tollen argument for the Causal Principle, Nick Jones wrote: ‘You dont seem to grasp 1. if grass is green then I have a 12 inch penis 2. Grass is green 3. therefore I have a 12 inch penis Is not a valid sylogism;’ Comment: You are mistaken on THREE points. First, this is Modus Ponens, not Modus Tollens. Second, it is valid but the problem is premise 1 is false. You don’t seem to know the distinction between validity and soundness of an argument. An argument can be valid but unsound because the premise is false. YOUR TWO MISTAKES IN ONE SENTENCE DEMONTRATED THAT YOU FAIL LOGIC 101. LOL! Thirdly, you did not support the first premise because you did not demonstrate the relation between the antecedent and the consequent (ie the grass and your penis). However, I have already supported my premise by demonstrating the relation between the antecedent and the consequent i.e. how the consequent follow from the antecedent, as follows: if something X in the quantum world begins to exist uncaused, then THIS MEANS THAT there would not be any cause which would make it the case that only X rather than other kinds of things/events (e.g., the beginning of a rapid increasing in strength of electric fields around me) begin to exist uncaused. Moreover, the properties of X and the properties of other kinds of things which differentiate between them would be had by them only when they had already begun to exist. This implies that there would be no essential difference between them where beginning to exist uncaused is concerned. Thus, if X begins to exist uncaused, then it cannot be the case that only X begin to exist uncaused 3. Nick Jones wrote ‘If EVERYTHING that begins to exist needs a cause then im afraid the first cause would indeed need a cause. which is a logical condradiction.’ Comment: Nick is mistaken, let me illustrate: If EVERYTHING that is triangular has 3 vertices this does NOT imply that X would also have 3 vertices, because X is NOT triangular. Likewise, if everything that begins to exist needs a cause this does NOT imply that the first cause would need a cause, because the First Cause does NOT have a beginning. There is NO contradiction. YOU FAIL LOGIC 101! 4. Nick Jones wrote ‘Clearly if everything that begins to exist needs a cause and youre claiming that the first cause does not need a cause then the claim that everything that begins to exist needs a cause is fallacious!!! I.E The first cause does not need a cause therefore not everything that begins to exist needs a cause does it? Comment: Nick is mistaken, let me illustrate: If everything that is triangular has 3 vertices and X does not have 3 vertices, this does NOT show that the claim that everything that is triangular has 3 vertices is fallacious. Rather, the conclusion is X is NOT triangular, while it remains true that everything that is triangular has 3 vertices. Likewise, if everything that begins to exist needs a cause and the first cause does not need a cause, the conclusion is that the First Cause does NOT have a beginning, while it remains true that everything that begins to exist needs a cause. 5. Nick Jones wrote; ‘So you're admitting that not EVERYTHING that begins to EXIST has a cause as you're claiming the first cause dousnt NEED a cause!’ Comment: Nick Jones fail to understand the logical distinction between Sentence A: ‘EVERYTHING that BEGINS TO EXIST needs a cause’ and Sentence B: ‘EVERYTHING that EXISTS needs a cause’ I deny B but I accept A 6. CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT NICK JONES misrepresent the Cosmological Argument Nick Jones: ‘So......you're still struggling with the logical contradiction of claiming everything needs a cause and then claiming there was a first cause!’ Comment: I did NOT claim that everything needs a cause. As I said before, what I claim was ‘everything that begins to exist needs a cause’, but you DISHONESTLY MISREPRESENTED my claim by omitting the words ‘begin to exist’. Final Grade for Nick Jones: FAIL

[@andrewloke7]

@Nick Jones If your characterization of my argument is ‘highly accurate’ why do you still need to have ‘adjusted it’? More importantly, after you have ‘readjusted it’ YOU STILL GET IT WRONG! (duh!) For example, you claimed that I said ‘everything needs a cause, WHETHER I SAY EX NIHILO OR NOT’ Comment: I did not say that 'everything needs a cause, whether ex nihilo or not.' Rather what I said was 'everything THAT BEGINS TO EXIST needs a cause, whether ex nihilo or not.’ For other examples of your misrepresentations and a demonstration of your failure to rebut my 11 step argument which proves that a Creator exists, see the thread ‘Oh dear…’

[@michelledavis3484]

thought processes and actions and events are sequential and linear not timeless.

[@andrewloke7]

I understand time to be a series of changes ordered by ‘earlier than’ and ‘later than’ relations. On this view, if something is initially changeless, it would be initially timeless. The word ‘thought’ can mean different things; essentially, it refers to something in the mind and that something can be ideas that one is aware of. There is no contradiction is saying that something has an initially changeless (i.e. initially timeless) awareness of ideas (i.e. thought) and their logical relations. Therefore, God can have thoughts in an initial state of timelessness without requiring processes . However, I would add that God can enter into time if He wants to, which He did when he freely chose to bring about the first event

[@RandomYTubeuser]

The notion of something that is "initially changeless" is absurd. If something is changeless then it can't change and not be changeless anymore. In order for God to decide to enter into time he would have had to be in time already. You cannot just decide to do something if you're changeless and timeless.

[@andrewloke7]

@@RandomYTubeuser Changeless means ‘not-changing’. It does not mean ‘cannot change.’ Concerning your point about God deciding to enter into time, there is a distinction between God’s intending to enter into time and his undertaking it -- i.e., his exercising his will to bring about that intention (Craig 2009). Given this distinction, Craig argues that it’s possible for God to eternally and initially changelessly/timelessly intend to bring about the universe, and to freely and spontaneously exercise his will to create it a finite amount of time ago and to enter into time only as He did so.

[@RandomYTubeuser]

@@andrewloke7 I still don't see how God can spontaneously exercise his will to create the universe and in doing so enter into time while being timeless and changeless. Exercising one's will or creating something are both actions which (as any other action) depend on time, they can't be done in the absence of it. Invoking God's "free will" as an explanation to this problem seems to me to be just as unsatisfying as saying "God can do it because magic". Humans have free will, yet I don't suppose you think we could perform actions if time suddenly stopped/disappeared. Why can God?

[@andrewloke7]

@@RandomYTubeuser RN: You wrote ‘I still don't see how God can spontaneously exercise his will to create the universe and in doing so enter into time while being timeless and changeless.’ But this is a misrepresentation of my view. My view is God was initially timeless and changeless without exercising his will, and as he exercised his will he is no longer timeless and changeless. Thus it is false to say ‘while being timeless and changeless’.

[@brando3342]

Dang, Andrew talks extremely fast.

[@20july1944]

I think there is a control at the bottom of the window where you can slow it down. I may do that myself and listen again.

[@ironlion805]

Weird things happen...so there. I win.

[@chrislarge7272]

I don't see how we can get free will if the "everything that begins to exist has a cause" argument holds. A "free" choice is made This "free" choice began to exist Therefore this "free" choice is caused If a choice is caused it's not free

[@Oners82]

Chris Large A choice is not something that exists, you are just playing a word game. And why do you say that a caused event cannot be free? That is a completely unjustified assertion.

[@goldenalt3166]

For my part, it still seems that God has all the infinite regress problems that a universe would have. Calling him eternal or beginningless just means the regress is internal. If he's changeless or timeless, then you have the problem that he would have no way to start creating universes or stop creating universes. Well, unless you claim that he was incomplete without a universe existing. There is also the problem that an perfect omniscient being would have no reason to create a universe. There's reason to do something for which the outcome is known when you have no need of it. When was the last time you jumped in the air to confirm gravity?

[@chrislarge7272]

@@Oners82 How do you define exists? If a choice cannot exist can time? or a god? Regarding a choice that is caused, what does it mean to be free? If free means that if you could rewind time you could have done otherwise, then if you rewind to a point before the choice is made but after the cause of that choice - how could a different choice be made?

[@Oners82]

@@goldenalt3166 "If he's changeless or timeless, then you have the problem that he would have no way to start creating universes or stop creating universes." A weak analogy I know, but photons are timeless particles and yet they still manage to travel vast distances and interact with other particles.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@Oners82 So god is just a messenger?

[@ryrez4478]

The free will that this first cause would have is nothing like the free will that humans are purported as having. So how can you say you have free will if you don't have the same freedom of will that this first cause has?

[@andrewloke7]

Moreland (2017, pp. 306-307) notes that ‘We understand exercises of power primarily from introspective awareness of our own libertarian acts, and we use the concept of action so derived to offer third-person explanations of the behaviour of other human persons. There is nothing obscure about such explanations for the effects produced by other finite persons…In fact, naturalists like John Searle, John Bishop and Thomas Nagel all admit that our basic concept of action itself is a libertarian one’.

[@michelledavis3484]

if god is the first cause of the universe that implies god has thoughts and has made an event to take p[ace which also means gods thinking is not only consequential but also time based therefore not timeless.

[@andrewloke7]

I understand time to be a series of changes ordered by ‘earlier than’ and ‘later than’ relations. On this view, if something is initially changeless, it would be initially timeless. The word ‘thought’ can mean different things; essentially, it refers to something in the mind and that something can be ideas that one is aware of. There is no contradiction is saying that there is a First Cause who has an initially changeless (i.e. initially timeless) awareness of ideas (i.e. thought) and their logical relations. Therefore, God can have thoughts in an initial state of timelessness . However, I would add that God can enter into time if He wants to, which He did when he freely chose to bring about the first event

[@michelledavis3484]

@@andrewloke7 does god have thoughts that cause changes over time? does his thoughts cause new events to occur. how do you know what god can and cannot do? where do you get this information about him? yes he does. therefore not timeless.

[@andrewloke7]

@@michelledavis3484 As I explained in my dialogue with Alex (did you listen?), the First Cause must have free will such that He can prevent Himself from causing changes initially, therefore He can be timeless initially. With free will He can also freely move out of the initially changeless state and thoughtfully caused the first event and also other later events/changes to occur. We can know things by considering the evidences of observation and the laws of logic which leads to the conclusion that such a First Cause exists, and by using the word God I’m referring to this First Cause

[@michelledavis3484]

@@andrewloke7 if god is omnipotent and/or omniscient then he cannot have freewill

[@andrewloke7]

@@michelledavis3484 Why not? Have you read Craig and Moreland's Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview which answers these kinds of questions?

[@lawrenceeason8007]

I don't have enough evidence to be a Christian

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@Mohamud Ahmed or any religion for that matter

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@Mohamud Ahmed well, not really. We don't have sufficient evidence for anything supernatural. So that covers a lot of religions. Any that don't claim the supernatural were written by people anyway, just like all religions

[@20july1944]

@@lawrenceeason8007 Any evidence for whatever your model of reality is? All you KNOW is that you no longer believe in Christianity.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@20july1944 no I am just saying that there is no logical reason to believe in ANYTHING without proper and sufficient evidence

[@20july1944]

@@lawrenceeason8007 Hmmm. But you believe that something has always existed -- what is your evidence for that?

[@danielholland2694]

I still don't get the jump Theists make to "I know this is the case" that there has to be a first cause and how it happens to be their specific God. Assuming there is a first cause; How do we rule out a first cause as something not God and by what means can you know that as well.

[@coolmuso6108]

The attributes/properties of the cause follow from the argument itself. We’re not just listing random assertions. Since the universe (all contiguous physical reality) began to exist, and the universe is composed of time, space, and matter, the cause must be apart from the universe - timeless, spaceless, immaterial. These three attributes are also derived from each other. If time is defined as a series of changes order by earlier than and later than relations, then something that is timeless is also changeless. If something is changeless it is also immaterial (since matter is always changing or has the capacity/potential to change). Since matter is defined as something that has mass and occupies a space, something immaterial is also spaceless. Since the cause is timeless it also exists eternally without beginning or end and is therefore beginningless and uncaused (since whatever begins to exist has a cause). Since the first cause imparts causal power to all entities without having to derive it from somewhere else, it is all powerful (omnipotent). Since the first cause is initially changeless, in order to initiate the first event (beginning of the universe), it must have the capacity to initiate the first change while preventing itself from changing initially - the attribute of possessing libertarian free will (thereby giving us a personal cause). Occam’s razor also shaves away any multiplicity of first causes. So we wind up with one, uncaused first cause, that is timeless, (initially) changeless, spaceless, immaterial, eternal, beginningless, omnipotent, and possesses libertarian agency (personal Creator). This is what we mean by God. Of course, a lot more can be said.

[@danielholland2694]

​@@coolmuso6108 You're still just asserting it's your God without even demonstrating that. Doesn't follow at all.

[@anglozombie2485]

Daniel the problem with your assertion is that let’s say simulation theory was true and we are created by a more intelligent life then we still have ultimate regress problem. You need a being with omnipotence etc for the argument to make sense.

[@danielholland2694]

@@anglozombie2485 So the answer is I don't know.

[@anglozombie2485]

@@danielholland2694 I think we all don't know to a certain extent. For all I know I have been pumped with an alien gas and everything around me is a massive hallucination and doesn't even exist.

[@johnjacquard2182]

What is the philosophical argument that a living human has to eat other living things?

[@davids11131113]

That’s just a biological fact, why would it need a philosophical argument?

[@johnjacquard2182]

@@davids11131113 what is thephilosophical argument that God needed to create us to murder and kill and eat living things if God created reality?

[@johnjacquard2182]

Why does God need spiritual beings with souls to kill eat eat the flesh of the living ?

[@johnjacquard2182]

@@davids11131113 gods like " oh, and by the way living things can only continue to stay alive by murdering other livings then to eat them" What is the philosophical justification for God doing that?

[@johnjacquard2182]

Human life depends on destroying the life of other things we have to eat living cells we can eat chemicals or rocks it is living tissue so called God designed a system where to stay alive accreature must destroy another's life and eat it to stay alive what would be the reason for would do that?

[@anglozombie2485]

I like looking up Alex videos but I do feel Andrew won this one.

[@LiquidTurbo]

Well color me impressed. It's settled! The universe was created by God, everyone!

[@andrewloke7]

@@LiquidTurbo Not surprising given that many scientists and philosophers throughout history have concluded the same.

[@LiquidTurbo]

@@andrewloke7 That does not mean they arrived at the correct conclusion.

[@anglozombie2485]

@@LiquidTurbo I felt he won this debate because Alex took some weird positions like on infinite regress.

[@miraj0072004]

​@@anglozombie2485 Alex did not take that position. Rather he pointed out that this is not logically impossible as @Andrew Loke was positing it to be.

[@biggregg5]

I'll tell you one thing that for damn sure that demonstrates infinite regress. A Christian apologist that makes a seemingly infinite number of assertions without demonstrating that assumption to be true. This was pathetic.

[@20july1944]

Do you disagree that someone ultimately had to have the money? If not, where did it come from?

[@biggregg5]

@@20july1944 It's my opinion that when we try to apply philosophy to the extreme mysteries of the origins of the Cosmos, and some dude who is not a Cosmologist is saying things like "something can't be the case" or "something has to be the case" is a joke.

[@andrewloke7]

@@biggregg5 All scientific disciplines including cosmology require deductive reasoning which is what I use to make my case. If you had taken a course on Critical Thinking you would have realized that the conclusion of a deductively valid argument from true premises must be true regardless of whether we are talking about the origins of the universe or not.

[@DonswatchingtheTube]

Then it cuts both ways.

[@biggregg5]

@@andrewloke7 I know all about induction and deduction, and have taken my share of courses in philosophy. If you had learned your philosophy from a real university instead of Biola, they would have taught you that unless a deductive argument's premesis is true....not just asserted, you might as well throw the whole argument away. You should just listen and learn from Alex.

[@Supersofter128]

1:00:55 “shitless square”

[@johnjacquard2182]

For a being to exist or be real it has to be located somewhere. Where 8s the location of the theists God?

[@jasonaus3551]

Says who? When and where?

[@20july1944]

God's space is not the physical space-time of our universe which can be warped by gravity, for example.

[@LiquidTurbo]

“I don’t know how the universe came into being or what caused the universe, if indeed it has a cause. Therefore God.”

[@andrewloke7]

This is a misunderstanding of the Cosmological Argument which is not based on ‘I don’t know’ but based on deductive logic which science itself requires.

[@LiquidTurbo]

Andrew Loke is it really? What is the “cause” of virtual particles in the quantum realm that literally pop into existence out of nothing? Since it is widely believed the universe began on a quantum level; the notion of causation go out the window.

[@andrewloke7]

@@LiquidTurbo By cause I mean necessary conditions. quantum particles do not come from absolutely nothing; rather, quantum particles are manifestations of pre-existent quantum fields which act according to pre-existent quantum laws and these are necessary conditions.

[@LiquidTurbo]

Andrew Loke how did you determine the universe did not derive its current form from some pre-existing “quantum field” or condition, that was devoid of space-time, or from some other form that existed “prior”? How did you determine that the universe came into being from absolutely ex nihilo NOTHING; and not say, a tunnel from another bubble-universe? Or some other different matter-state from an eternal universe? Or a pocket universe from a larger infinite multiverse?

[@andrewloke7]

@@LiquidTurbo *The universe may have derived its current form from some pre-existing “quantum field” or condition or from some other form that existed “prior”, but given my argument that an infinite regress is impossible there must still be a First Cause which I explained must have free will i.e. a Creator exists. The Cosmological Argument is not intended to prove all aspects of creation (e.g. ex nihilo or not), but that a Creator exists.

[@1999_reborn]

Debating Alex Malpass is suicide. I respect the courage.

[@20july1944]

Would you agree that SOMEthing has always existed, for us to be here now?

[@ApozVideoz]

Indeed, debating Andrew is suicide.

[@ApozVideoz]

@@20july1944 I don't know if it can be termed as "something" or even be comprehended and branded by any of our semantic/phenomenological definitions. But yes, I do think there always was something that "existed".

[@ApozVideoz]

@@20july1944 Well for one I believe its a personal God. Such questions do not have simple, brief answers.

[@20july1944]

@@ApozVideoz Oh, you're a good guy and referred to Andrew vice Alex -- my mistake.

[@josiahtejeros4896]

Without watching the video only hearing the audio I thought the first guest do stutter or have speech disorder

[@malvokaquila6768]

I would assume at least to my ear it's because English isn't his first language.

[@bigtombowski]

Chinese guy

[@pwharman]

I am confused. In Andrew's view, God has existed without beginning, wants things without deliberation, and creates things at the same time as wanting them. Doesn't it follow that everything God wants necessarily already exists? It seems incoherent in this view to say the universe was created. The universe, being something God wants, would also necessarily exist without beginning. If this is denied then it either contradicts the idea that God creates things at same time as wanting them, or the idea that God deliberates before acting.

[@andrewloke7]

There is a distinction between God’s intending to create a universe and his undertaking it -- i.e., his exercising his will to bring about that intention (Craig 2009). Given this distinction, God eternally intends to bring about the universe, and freely and spontaneously exercise his will to create it a finite amount of time ago.

[@pwharman]

@@andrewloke7 thanks for taking the time to reply. Wouldn't you agree then that it contradicts the idea that God creates things at the same time as wanting them? This was something you argued in your discussion with Alex Malpass.

[@andrewloke7]

@@pwharman The word 'wanting' is ambiguous, it can mean intending or undertaking. My clarification in my previous reply to you clarifies the issue and answers your question.

[@anglozombie2485]

@@andrewloke7 Just out of interest. I hear a lot atheists play the card that it is more probable for there to be a naturalist first cause for the first cause then creating a new category as in a super natural being which is far more complicated. So you go with occam's razor and go with the simplier first cause instead of a more complicated one like a diety that is omnipotent, omnibenveloent etc. I think Graham Oppy brings this up in debates.

[@andrewloke7]

@@anglozombie2485 Occam’s razor works only if all else is equal. In this case it is not equal, because the cosmological argument I presented demonstrates that the First Cause must be initially changeless and has libertarian freedom, and thus it is not a natural cause describable by physical laws. As for the omni attributes, the cosmological argument by itself is not intended to prove or disprove it, and we can consider other arguments which complement the cosmological argument, such as the historical argument for the resurrection and deity of Jesus who implied that the First Cause is all-good, all-powerful etc., see my book Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (available for free download at my academia edu page) for more details.

[@andrewforbes1433]

56:02 Alex is right to bring this up, and Andrew completely dodges it.

[@digipoke12345]

That was such a fantastic point, my goodness.

[@kjustkses]

I don’t see how anyone can accept an infinite regress without sticking their head in the sand.

[@spacedoohicky]

It depends. A real infinite is not logically fallacious because objects aren't propositions. The problem is we are finite so we can't interact with a real infinite. So there could be a real infinite, but the fallacy would be saying we know for sure it exists because we are finite. It's not even that existence can't regress infinitely. It's that we cannot regress infinitely.

[@Leleel]

I don't see how anyone can accept a circular argument without sticking their head in the sand.

[@Leleel]

@J w to dumb it down to you Christians since you clearly can't comprehend. Both infinite regress and circular reasoning are logical impossibilities. Assuming one or another is a mistake before its possibility is demonstrated.

[@Leleel]

@J w not in classical logic. But so is a circular argument aka eternal God.

[@spacedoohicky]

@J w An actual infinite regress is just impossible to prove. It's like trying to claim some specific person you can't see is eating pancakes on the other side of the world. Or that extraterrestrials exist. It's impossible to verify. The original analogy was the turtles all the way down story. That was intended to demonstrate that a person making a claim on a subject they couldn't possibly know could make ad hoc explanations for an infinite past. But the question of existence being eternal is an open question. If we say we don't know if it's eternal, but it could be that's not an infinite regress. Fact is we don't know because we keep finding out that certain aspects of reality are unintuitive to our predictions. So on the flip side we have another fallacy in the form of unjustified incredulity. And special pleading for God which is claimed eternal therefore representing another infinite regress, or claimed timeless without justification.

[@michelledavis3484]

the problem with unbelievable or any platform it will always have a bias and promote that bias even is if it's subconsciously.

[@michelledavis3484]

@bmk777k the simulation hypothesis has been debunked.

[@mattsmith1440]

@bmk777k The fact that this could be a simulation actually shows that an omniscient God can't exist. It too could be part of a simulation, programmed to believe itself omniscient. A merely intelligent being would know that, and not claim omniscience, which helps indicate the Bible was written by unsophisticated humans as many of us suspect.

[@20july1944]

@@michelledavis3484 How would you debunk simulation? I see three main arguments for it.

[@michelledavis3484]

@@20july1944 why would i debunk it?

[@20july1944]

@@michelledavis3484 Your earlier post: Michelle Davis 1 week ago @bmk777k the simulation hypothesis has been debunked.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

I don't see why Loke insists 'nobody has any money' in the infinite chain of lenders example. It seems that's simply by his stipulation, whereas for the scenario to be more analogous to reality and the infinite past we are trying to model, there IS money, that is being handed from person to person down an infinite chain. Who is holding the money at the moment represents the present.

[@20july1944]

Mr. Malpass is completely lost on the money-lending infinite regress example.

[@plasticvision6355]

20july1944 Not at all. You are simply not understanding his argument. Our theist doesn’t understand that we know that timeless, extremely powerful infinities exist: they are called black holes. This is Alex’s first money lender. The money isn’t owned by anyone, it’s borrowed from a source that is not personal. Also recall the first law of thermodynamics states energy can’t be created or destroyed, which means energy must exists necessarily (it can’t be caused because it can’t be created). Theism is founded on a corrupted idea that philosophers knew in the 1920’s was in trouble with the statement of the first law. Andrews argument is just nonsense.

[@andrewloke7]

@@plasticvision6355 As I explained in my discussion with Alex, the First Cause must have free will, so it must be a personal Creator rather than an impersonal black hole.

[@20july1944]

@@plasticvision6355 A black hole isn't an infinite of anything. What would you say is infinite about a black hole? Stars create energy constantly, by turning matter into energy in nuclear fission/fusion.

[@20july1944]

@@andrewloke7 Correct! If the first cause were simply a condition leading to a next event, that event would have happened immediately.

[@20july1944]

@@plasticvision6355 You said *_"The money isn’t owned by anyone, it’s borrowed from a source that is not personal."_* The source doesn't have to be personal, there merely MUST be an initial source.

[@ceilingspirits1592]

Alex is fantastic! Poked sufficient holes in every point as to make the argument moot.

[@andrewloke7]

Which hole has Alex actually poked? And how has the argument been made moot? I think he failed on both counts, but if you have reasons for thinking otherwise please share them here and I'll respond to them.

[@johnjacquard2182]

I never understand these theists. Which philosophical argument showed superposition? Reality cannot be infinite but his can?

[@20july1944]

What would you mean by "infinite" reality? What is the 'brute fact" in your model, instead of God in the theism model?

[@johnjacquard2182]

@@20july1944 the 8hitial argument is that you cannot have an infinite series of events in the past , then a couple mins later says God can be infinite . It's like when we thought solar system all there was then we thought our Galaxy all there was we found billions then we thought universe all there was how we think multiple of them so it could be infinite if the scale of those objects continues out forever yes at any one scale it's finite a Galaxy is finite but when you soon out you have hundreds billions Galaxy then another objec universe then zoom out to manynof those etc. Any one area of scale is finite .

[@20july1944]

@@johnjacquard2182 A single, eternally self-existing Creator is indeed remarkable, but coherent as a brute fact. An infinite regress is NOT coherent. Do you actually posit an infinite regress of causes?

[@johnjacquard2182]

@@20july1944 what is it about language with you? An infinite degrees of causes not okay however an infinite regress of a being existing in no particular location is just fine? It's a joke right?

[@johnjacquard2182]

What aspects of reality conform to human language?

[@Leleel]

I wonder why Andrew finds an infinite regress impossible while proposing a God that requires circularity by being a cause in itself. Too bad if some of his students really became Christian because of this argument while he as a teacher is obligated to start with what Münchhausen trilemma is, rather than with a flawed theological argument.

[@coolmuso6108]

"I wonder why Andrew finds an infinite regress impossible while proposing a God that requires circularity by being a cause in itself." If you're implying that theists believe that God caused himself, then that is false and no Christian believes that. God is uncaused and beginningless - which is a conclusion of the argument. He explained why the specific infinite regress he was talking about is impossible.

[@Leleel]

@@coolmuso6108 God poses qualities of being eternal and uncaused. The reason for his existence is in himself. How is this not a self causation?

[@coolmuso6108]

HEL9000 You are conflating self-caused with self-explanatory. The explanation of God lies within the necessity of his nature - he could not have failed to exist. That means he exists eternally and is therefore uncaused.

[@Leleel]

@@coolmuso6108 if you say that he could not have failed to exist then it's an unjustified axiom and can be dismissed just as circularity and infinite regress.

[@coolmuso6108]

HEL9000 It’s a conclusion of the cosmological argument(s). It’s not an a priori assumption...

[@johnjacquard2182]

Events don't fold one after another that's not how reality works we are notin a movie like 30 frames a second time is not that. Space and time is one object a fabric.time is relative not absolute thisn8s demonstrable

[@20july1944]

Time is indeed relative, but that doesn't mean that causality is relative.

[@kjustkses]

The problem with the argument from Alex, which says that “everyone has money”, is that no one would need to borrow unless one person doesn’t have money. But then that would be a first cause.

[@elcangridelanime]

The problem is that money is only a fiscal representation of value. Every person can generate money so there isn't a First cause for the money, Everyone just agreed this green of paper has a value and everyone is able to trade with it. The Bank isn't the only one that can Borrow money from. In Alex Example everyone is able to generate money so you don't have a single "place" to borrow from.

[@johnjacquard2182]

Theists believe reality conforms to human language ?no I thought it was other way around

[@20july1944]

Who says that?

[@victor_rybin]

Exactly, lol. you can't prove anything by using only logic, the observations are necessary

[@johnjacquard2182]

It's makes no sense all that argument for no infinite chains of events then to say an infinite being does not have to follow the original argument that all effects need a cause. An infinite being is an effect .

[@20july1944]

No, an infinite (in the past) being is a cause, because there was never a situation in the past where this being did not exist.

[@johnjacquard2182]

@@20july1944 that's not what i mean. If God always existed you can't have infinite number of thoughts in the past or you never would have got to a more recent thought of God creating the universe.

[@johnjacquard2182]

That's the same argument used about the universe initially to avoid God 8n first place, get 8t still applicable to God .

[@johnjacquard2182]

That 2as the argument to evoke God yet still applicable to God.

[@johnjacquard2182]

@@20july1944 why couldn't the same be said about reality itself?

[@johnjacquard2182]

You don't have to frame things in that linguistic way . Quatun tum mechanics is the layer of reality which this larger reality emerges from. In quantum mechanics there is no cause and effect, that is a larger scale phenomenon . But this reality at human scale emerges from the quantum tinyscale . In quantum things pop into existence no cause it's probability based. Not linear. This is all demonstrable .

[@20july1944]

Give me an example of something "popping into existence" at the quantum level and then what "larger reality" could "emerge" from that thing.

[@johnjacquard2182]

@@20july1944 the particles we are all made of and that everything is made of. They pop into existence at the scale of the plank scale. Next question.

[@kjustkses]

john jacquard They still need empty space to fluctuate. You can therefore not say that it definitely doesn’t have a cause.

[@20july1944]

@@johnjacquard2182 Like what "pops into existence"? Quarks, leptons, that sort of thing?

[@johnjacquard2182]

@@kjustkses empty space is just two words your using to describe a set of criteria .there is no object 1 thing with that label.

[@andrewloke7]

Due to time constraints I have only replied below to those comments which are directed to me and which engage with the actual arguments I presented in my dialogue with Alex. I have ignored those comments which ignored my arguments or misrepresented them. This shall be my policy for replying to future comments.

[@andrewloke7]

@J w Thank you for sharing this.

[@Oners82]

@@andrewloke7 Do you only respond to people who agree with you? Seems a bit intellectually dishonest for an academic, no?

[@Oners82]

@J w That is not a valid argument, it is an appeal to motive which is an ad hominem fallacy. Also, it's just not true. I do not believe in God and that is a fact whether you can deal with it or not. And as for atheists not using logic (amusing coming from a guy whose only argument is a fallacy!) bring it on. I think I've heard every theistic argument there is and I can rebut every one of them. The fact that you think people are illogical just because they don't agree with you only serves to demonstrate the weakness of YOUR reasoning skills. Andrew's arguments seem to be riddled with fallacies, and I can show you why if you like.

[@Oners82]

@J w I don't care what you think, the fact is that your post WAS ad hominem and hence has no basis whatsoever to be considered even remotely rational. As for cognitive dissonance and not wanting it to be true, you are just wrong as a matter of fact, and unfortunately too close-minded to accept that not everybody aggrees with you because not everybody has been indoctrinated into your belief system. "To deny simple basic logic like the impossibility of an infinite regress or eternal past is the same as saying you make a square circle." Wrong. There are countless mathematical models that involve an eternal past are they are perfectly logically consistent, but the problem is that you lack the education to get past your naive intuitions. And not only that, but an infinite regress is not even required to have a universe without a first cause, however the details of this are quite technical and I fear it would be wasted effort trying to explain it to you. "Now saying you have debunked theistic claims and arguments is just you asserting you are correct because you think you are correct." Wrong again. I didn't assert that I am correct which is precisely why I used the word "rebut" rather than "refute" (try learning the difference). My views may be wrong (although I highly doubr it), but I know for a FACT that your assertions regarding theistic argument being airtight on logical grounds is 100% bullshit. Give me your best argument and I will tell you in detail why your claim that trying to rebut it is like arguing for a square circle is complete nonsense. "all it is are dummies who know nothing but think they are smart and have debunked arguments when they haven’t in the least." So some of the greatest philosophers in the world (the majority of whom are atheists) are dummies, and only you (who judging by your argumentation style lack any decent education) and people who agree with you are smart?! I would call you stupid but I think it goes beyond that, you sound genuinely delusional. You are like the personification of the Dunning-Kruger effect! Prove me wrong, give me your best argument that is apparently so good it is like squaring a circle to refute. Don't be a coward, give it your best shot (please tell me the false claim that an infinite regress is impossible is all you've got...).

[@andrewloke7]

@@Oners82 If you have read my replies to other comments below, you would have realized that I have responded to people who disagree with me but who tried to engage with my arguments rather than ignoring them. If you noticed any substantial objection to my argument which I missed, please paste it here and I will respond to them.

[@mrmarvellous5378]

As a Pantheist I believe that the Universe is the creator (not in a conscious sense), It, the Universe is eternal (always existed) and will continue to exist forever no need for a mind to create things such as us, this creation has an infinite regress/cycle and will continue in one shape or another long after we have become extinct.

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

Come on man how do you believe something so dumb? Pantheism has been refuted. The Big Bang happened. The universe had a beginning. Please stop, lol.

[@cschristan1]

It's rather foolish of a "Christian" to try and make a case for the existence of God to an unbeliever or in this case an atheist. The minute one does that, they put God in a position where the creature is now sitting on the throne in the court room and judging God. And these people think then that they are doing God a favour?! Psalm 50 16 But to the wicked God says, “What right have you to tell of My statutes, And to take My covenant in your mouth? 17 “For you hate discipline, And you cast My words behind you. 18 “When you see a thief, you [g]are pleased with him, And you associate with adulterers. 19 “You let your mouth loose in evil , And your tongue frames deceit. 20 “You sit and speak against your brother; You slander your own mother’s son. 21 “These things you have done and I kept silence; You thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you and state the case in order before your eyes. 22 “Now consider this, you who forget God, Or I will tear you in pieces, and there will be none to deliver.

[@andrewloke7]

Not judging God but using our minds to discover Him.

[@kosgoth]

@@andrewloke7 So you don't make a decision on god then you are an agnostic? Otherwise you judged him guilty of existing.

[@andrewloke7]

@@kosgoth I follow the evidences which lead me to the conclusion that God exists

[@kosgoth]

​@@andrewloke7 Technically it was Chris I should have messaged. Special pleading. I don't know why you would think there is a god, we know the christian god doesn't exist. The YEC god doesn't exist because we know the world is older than that. We know a good Christian god can't exist because his plan is to torture most people for eternity.(most people aren't christians after all) So he can't be good if he exists. If you had a plan that failed 70% of the time you'd be a heck of a failure.

[@DonswatchingtheTube]

God is on trial, not from God's standpoint, but from his finite creations standpoint. God never gave his creation the responsibility or burden of being God.

[@johnjacquard2182]

Agents have to be alive to cause things dead agents cannot do anything. For an agent to be alive requires an environment to exist in.

[@20july1944]

No, that's only true of organic agents.

[@anglozombie2485]

I'd suggest looking into divine simplicity because that answers both your questions

[@johnjacquard2182]

@@20july1944 show me , demonstrate it.

[@johnjacquard2182]

@@anglozombie2485 the only way to get " divine" is from imagination.

[@20july1944]

​@@johnjacquard2182 What environment does a non-material being require to exist?

[@johnjacquard2182]

In quantum mechanics it has been demonstrated billi9ns of times 0er second all over the world a particle begins to exist with no cause then it is located in more than oneplace at once while also not being in them locations at all. What is a logical argument for this demonstrable fact?

[@20july1944]

What particles begin existing with no cause? What is the name of these things?

[@hannahanderson4305]

And that falls apart when you get to the Quantum level, he may be a baptist religious philosopher but he's no astrophysicist.

[@20july1944]

OK, Hannah -- tell me about the "quantum level". Has it *_always_* existed? In what form?

[@Oners82]

@@20july1944 I thought I might see your trolling again and I did ;)

[@20july1944]

@@Oners82 Sure, if "brilliant scientific questions" cam be called "trolling." Do you want to explain how the entire history of our universe is a 4-D tunnel/bubble in a wider 4-D medium that "just is" (your words) but somehow hasn't "always existed" (my words)?

[@Oners82]

@@20july1944 I have tried but I genuinely don't think you have the intelligence to understand it. I mean your very question is a complete misrepresentation of what I said, and since you have done the same thing several times my only conclusion can be that you are either: A) trolling B) incredibly stupid C) are serious but lack comprehension skills. I mean aren't you the guy that thought that block theory and steady state theory are the same thing? All I can do is facepalm.

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

@@Oners82 So asking questions is trolling now LOL! You must be cery disappointed by all the atheist trolls, amirite?

[@tammygibson1556]

God exists outside space time, how is it possible for anything to exist without space?

[@andrewloke7]

Only material entities require space. God is immaterial and therefore can exist without space.

[@tammygibson1556]

@@andrewloke7 I cannot comprehend an immaterial being. You are saying here God is made of nothing and are on no more solid ground than scientists are with something from nothing.

[@andrewloke7]

@@tammygibson1556 The negation of a meaningful term is meaningful. Materiality is meaningful. Therefore, the negation of materiality is meaningful, and that is what immateriality means. Likewise, space and time (understood as a series of changes ordered by an earlier-later relations) are meaningful terms. Therefore, the negation of space and the negation of time are meaningful terms, and that is what spaceless and timeless means. Moreover, existence means having properties. One can think of an immaterial Creator as something that has the properties of causal powers, intelligence etc. and which can exist without spacetime. The conclusion that such a transcendent Creator exists is based on the proof which I explained to you in my other comment.

[@tammygibson1556]

@@andrewloke7 Okay, spaceless. Keeping up with opposites; what does it mean to be spaceless? That means to be full of matter, so much so that there is no space left. Now try to imagine space without space. I see nothing but matter. Timeless- without time. How do you plan a creation without time, without contemplation? Most humans would deem such behavior as reckless. Look at the debates over AI. We contemplate the ethical and moral path forward. It would be reckless to just do it. To contemplate requires time A creation as immense as the universe requires contemplation Therefore, God is not timeless.

[@andrewloke7]

@@tammygibson1556 Spaceless does not mean ‘full of matter, so much so that there is no space left’. Spaceless means the absence of spatial dimension. Humans require time to think because the capability of human mind is finite. Nowadays AI are able to compute much faster than before; they require less time because they have greater capability. An infinite God with infinite capability would require 0 amount of time to think; He is aware of all truths in timelessness. As shown by the proof I explained in my other reply to your comment, such a transcendent Creator must exist.

[@CorndogMaker]

We go to hell unless we know about libertarian free will and accept it over other prevailing views like compatablism. Because that's the only way we can be logically certain that God exists. I wish God at least made libertarian free will more of a consensus among philosophers or maybe even empirically verifiable and not so incoherent. So many people are going to hell just because they don't have access to be convinced of something so controversial even among philosophers. It would be nice if he made it obvious and we were only left arguing if vicarious redemption and human blood sacrifice are effective means of absolving someone elses crimes. That way we wouldn't have to do philosophy backwards to a foregone conclusion and we could accept Jesus as a scapegoat and be saved for being what we innately are.

[@davids11131113]

Any god that needs philosophical arguments to convince of its existence isn’t very powerful.

[@physics_philosophy_faith]

Heaven/hell isn't based on if you accept LFW or determinism, but on if you accept Jesus as Savior (assuming a Christian context). You can believe what you want about LFW. That belief doesn't control your ability to follow Jesus

[@CorndogMaker]

@@physics_philosophy_faith Im a determinist. I'm not responsible for not believing in Jesus, because I can't do it. It's not my fault if I don't. I can't voluntarily believe in anything. I don't believe anyone can. I am convinced of things- quite against my will. When they overcome my doubt, I can't help but believe them. Try this exercise: *choose* a belief to have. Right now. Not something you believe already. genuinely believe in something that you're not convinced of. Don't just pretend to believe it, actually believe it. I think you'll find that you cannot. Belief isn't voluntary like that.

[@physics_philosophy_faith]

@@CorndogMaker Your belief in determinism doesn't make you not responsible for your decision to reject Jesus. If determinism is true, then plausibly it does make you not responsible. But Christianity teaches that you are responsible, and heaven/hell in Christianity doesn't depend at all on your belief in determinism, but on your commitment to God. Additionally, one can still believe in determinism and trust in Christ. Those aren't mutually exclusive in the slightest. There are Christians who do that.

[@CorndogMaker]

@@physics_philosophy_faith I physically *can't* choose believe in Christianity. Choice like that is an incoherent concept. I'm *incapable* of believing in something I'm not convinced of. All of my beliefs are determined by my circumstances which are not in my control. Those who do believe in christianity, do not freely choose it- their belief, like all beliefs, is involuntary. A result of upbringing, environment, genetics, becoming convinced and other causal influences. Everything I do is a result of previous determining circumstances. If I could travel back in time, but I was invisible and couldn't interfere- I could watch people, repeat the same actions over and over. No matter how many times I rewind time to watch people, they can't "choose" to do anything differently. if their historical path, their brain chemistry, isn't interrupted, they'll just repeat themselves like robots. As a time traveler I'd be able to see through the illusion of "free will" I couldn't blame them for not making different choices. They have no way of doing that.

[@brando3342]

"Infinite" is not a concept that can be realized within reality. That is what Andrew is trying to express. If time were truly "infinite" there would be no way to put your finger on any one time in the past. There would be no "now" or "past" because everything started an infinity ago and has not stopped since infinite time ago. How do you process an infinite amount of time? You can't because such a thing doesn't exist, "infinite" is just a concept we produce in our heads, it cannot be manifested in reality. Like Andrew said, if the train didn't begin to move, then it is not moving and no train would ever move.

[@plasticvision6355]

Brando Black holes exist and are timeless and hence infinite by axiomatic definition. Oddly they can also be a cause - a cause of other objects to be consumed by them. They can also dissipate energy...

[@brando3342]

@Plastic Vision Black holes are timeless? Since when? :D

[@brain0nfire]

You need a start because you started. It's you that can't make sense out of a cosmos without a start. The train doesn't need to begin moving it was always moving. Infinity is a concept yes, so is time. Why is it one more legitimate than the other? It's not that time is infinite, it's that time is no thing. It doesn't affect anything, things just are. There is only now and past because your brain memorizes it, future is infered. The truth of the matter is that every moment is happening simultaneously (this is chronological jargon but it's the best I can muster). You are the big bang happening. Infinity is just a concept, reality isn't. Don't try to simplify it through conceptualization. You will lose the essence in trying to explain it. Explaining is not the same as reality itself. You want the patterns in your codes to become the reality it wants to box in.

[@brando3342]

@Sen Nome I didn't say anything about needing a start because I started. The science says there was a start or beginning. Also no, infinite time into the past cannot be realized. Can you show me one thing that can be confirmed to be infinite?

[@brain0nfire]

@@brando3342 I know, I did. No, the science postulates with the information it has of the observable reality. The science's reasoning traces back to the big bang because it's where the data converges towards. No one relevant is saying it's necessarily definitive. I can't show you one thing infinite, but I can't show you a finite thing either. Worse is when we start discussing how one should taxonomize "a thing" (where it ends/begins or what is it/isn't it). If atoms can be divisible forever that it's one problem. If there are endless ramifications producing endless dimentions that's another, if inside (is there an inside?) each black hole there are other universes. Boy infinity can go many ways. Even God can be infinite. What's your problem?

[@johnjacquard2182]

What is a philosophical argument for wireless internet being possible? There no philosophical arguments that have anything to do with reality.

[@martinmillar7998]

Even if I agree that a god started the universe why is it your god?

[@MarkHunterSolo]

Because God said so? You might want to read his biography the bible (see Genesis 1, John 1, Hebrews 11, The book of Revelation 22)

[@martinmillar7998]

@@MarkHunterSolo ask any muslim he will also say his book says so.

[@MarkHunterSolo]

@@martinmillar7998 The Quran/Koran claims to be the next book to be read after the Torah ( from the Old Testament) and the Injil (New Testament) both of which are considered Holy Books by Muslims, so they are supposedly following the same God, so I think you chose a bad example there.

[@martinmillar7998]

@@MarkHunterSolo if the Jewish, Christian and Islamic god is the same then he is like a married bachelor he cannot or does not exist.

[@MarkHunterSolo]

@@martinmillar7998 Have it your way Martin, but I have seen an angel with my own eyes so I think you have a shock coming (sooner or later)

[@veritopian1823]

Alex Malpass: Things that are removed from our personal experience are on shaky ground. Also Alex Malpass: Why can't the universe be infinitely old? Also Alex Malpass: Why couldn't you have an infinitely long train that pulls itself? Then he redeems himself: You can't make a choice without time... Nice. Then back to: Why couldn't the universe come from nothing? I know we don't experience that but, why TF not? Andrew Loke: You can make decisions without time. (Oh dear :( ) His argument about this is terrible... It's illogical. - Ideology kills braincells! AM: Refutes that BS... Host: Did a pretty good job. God is not changeless, He's Yang.

[@LogosTheos]

"Why couldn't you have an infinitely long train that pulls itself" Because derivative causal power cannot exist in the first place unless there exists something with underived casual power to initiate it or else the series would not exist to begin with. Even if the series was infinitely long it would need an external first cause, which is just to say it has underived casual power, to sustain it in existence or else the series would not exist in the first place. Even if a paint brush handle was infinitely long it could not have the causal power to move itself. The same thing goes for an infinitely long train. Whether the series is temporal or infinite is irrelevant. It is about the ontology of casual power. To say that causal power is derived and not derived at the same time is the logical contradiction.

[@plasticvision6355]

LogosTheos Black holes are timeless, infinity powerful and dissipate energy randomly. Quantum mechanics shows that energy is eternal, as backed up by the first law of thermodynamics. Given that energy can’t be created (or destroyed) it follows logically and necessarily that it requires no creator. Quantum events are uncaused. We know this is true. It can and does cause events for no reason. So no, on the science, god is not required as energy is already a strong candidate for an uncaused first cause and can be shown to be necessary. You don’t need any of this religious tripe. Sorry.

[@LogosTheos]

@@plasticvision6355 Complete strawman and red herring. You obviously either didn't read or grasp what I said.

[@plasticvision6355]

LogosTheos Wrong. The physics as we understand it was that the universe was infinitely small. In such a state time would not exist, but the energy would be immense. Sorry, not even god can redefine the laws of physics.

[@plasticvision6355]

Rabbi Circumcistein Wrong. The universe was timeless at one point as it was infinitely small and there was an immense amount of energy present. All current models of the origin of the universe depend on the first law being observed Godbots can cheat, physicists can’t and have no need to. Sorry.

[@dwayneab1]

The question we all ask ourselves- How did mankind come to exist. ultimately we can only base how we came to exist based upon our known theories passed down throughout history. One must be true!!! But mankind doesn’t hold certainty of what is ultimately true. we must base the likelihood of something being true based upon our witnessed reality. Either God exists & he will eventually reveal himself Or mankind will be left with the science it constructs to conclude answers based on uncertainty’s.for the rest of time. We are in this reality together trying to find out why we are here. Either intelligence put us here or it didn’t You decide.

[@JanderStrahd]

"I assert that there must be an uncaused cause because causes cannot be uncaused." Great argument. All you need to do is ignore literally every flaw. And that it's about as unique as sliced bread. But not as fun.

[@andrewloke7]

You misrepresented my argument. I did not say 'causes cannot be uncaused'. What I argued was every cause that begins to exist has a cause and that there must be a beginningless uncaused First Cause

[@gregory2272]

It not a matter of evidence. We all know that he exists because of what has been made! Meaning matter and energy, these things don't and cannot make themselves from nothing. The problem sin, we suppress the truth in unrighteousness. It's funny how in the beginning he made them Male and Female just as we continue to see today, so many different languages instead of one like you would expect if we had evolved. If there is no mind prior to our mind how do we determine wright from wrong have a sense of justice. The is more than enough evidence to show that God exists but we don't want to have to give an account for our sins.

[@spectrepar2458]

Ok so how do we get from the first cause argument to whatever particular god you are talking about

[@doctorstrangiato3218]

I don't find Andrew's argument convincing. I see no conceptual problem with a naturalistic scenario in which matter-energy exist eternally (as in conservation of mass-energy) and simply transform from one form to another without beginning (e.g., energy from sunlight transforming via photosynthesis into the chemical bonds within molecules, which are then broken down to generate ATP during cellular respiration, which is then used to power muscle movement, etc.). There is no need to posit a 'first domino' that causes all the rest to fall. The mistake is to assume that if there were no first cause, then we wouldn't get to 'now'. But this is only true if you assume that the causal series is finite and has a 'first member'. But this is to assume exactly what Andrew is trying to prove and is therefore begging the question. Furthermore, to posit an uncaused first cause is nonsensical. To effect change, entities (including a God) must themselves undergo change. If the entities didn't need to change in some way then the effect would have already occurred. If the first cause is immaterial, then the problem is exacerbated further, because we have absolutely no concept of how an immaterial mind (if there can even be such a thing) can cause change in a material substance- the so-called modus operandi problem. Is God physical or material? No- so He can't effect change. Is God then an abstract object? If he is, then he has no causal efficacy, because abstract objects have no causal power. Finally, given the indisputable dependence of perceptual and intellectual functions on physical brains, the hypothesis of a disembodied supreme intelligence as the cause of the universe should be assigned a prior close to zero.

[@HM-vj5ll]

The whole time i was wondering what that gentleman was doing in the other room...

[@tammygibson1556]

Loke: Everything must have a cause+God is uncaused= Logical failure

[@andrewloke7]

Where did I say 'everything must have a cause'? What I said was 'everything that *begins* to exist has a cause.' God is beginningless and therefore is uncaused. There is no logical failure.

[@tammygibson1556]

@@andrewloke7 "God is beginngless" is an assumption. You cannot know this. You have a premise that does not pass the sniff test. I have evidence of absence. At the end of the day we should believe things supported by evidence.

[@andrewloke7]

@@tammygibson1556 God is beginngless is not the assumption but the conclusion of the Cosmological Argument. The evidence is the series of causes and effects which we observe, based on which we can prove that there is a beginningless First Cause who is a Creator of the universe, which is what I mean by God. The premises and conclusion of the Cosmological Argument are as follows (for defence of the premises mentioned below, see my book God and Ultimate Origins [hereafter Loke 2017]): 1. There exists a series of causes-and-effects and changes (=events), in which case either 1.1. The number of earlier entities in the series is actually infinite (an infinite regress), or 1.2. The number of earlier entities in the series is finite, in which case either 1.2.1. Earlier and later entities are joined together (like a loop) such that there is no first entity in the series, or 1.2.2. Earlier and later entities are not joined together, in which case the finite series has a first member i.e. a First Cause and a first change (=first event). 2. It is not the case that 1.1 the number of earlier entities in the series is actually infinite -the argument for the impossibility of concrete actual infinite number of events -the argument for the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite number of events -the argument from the lack of capacity to begin to exist (Loke 2017, Chapters 2 and 3). 3. It is not the case that 1.2.1. Earlier and later entities are joined together (like a loop) such that there is no first entity in the series (this is viciously circular, Loke 2017, chapter 4) 4. Therefore, there exists a First Cause and a first change (=first event). 5. Since the First Cause is the First, it must be uncaused. 6. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause (Causal Principle), the First Cause must be beginningless. (Loke 2017, chapter 5: there are at least 3 arguments for the Causal Principle: one of them is a Modus Tollens argument): (1) If x begins to exist without causally antecedent condition, then other kinds of things which can begin to exist would also begin to exist without causally antecedent condition, because (1.1) there would not be any causally antecedent condition which would make it the case that only x (rather than these other kinds of things) begins to exist, and (1.2) the properties of x and the properties of other kinds of things which differentiate between them would be had by them only when they had already begun to exist. (1.1) and (1.2) jointly implies that there would be no essential difference between x and other kinds of things where beginning to exist uncaused is concerned. However, (2) it is not the case that other kinds of things which can begin to exist would also begin to exist without causally antecedent condition. For example, I do not experience a rapid increasing in strength of electric fields around me beginning to exist without causally antecedent conditions such as (say) having to switch on the electric field generator (3) Therefore, it is not the case that x begins to exist without causally antecedent condition. 7. Since the first change (=first event) could not have begun to exist uncaused (this is based on Causal Principle), the first change (=first event) must have been caused by a First Cause which was initially changeless. 8. In order to cause the first event from an initial changeless state, the First Cause must have 8.1. The capacity to be the originator of the first event in a way that is un-determined by prior event, since the First Cause is the First, and 8.2. The capacity to prevent itself from changing, for otherwise the First Cause would not have been initially changeless 8.1 + 8.2. => The First Cause must have libertarian freedom 9. In order to bring about a universe with its highly ordered laws of nature, the First Cause must be highly intelligent (a ‘superior Mind’-Einstein) 10. In order to bring about the entire universe, the First Cause must be enormously powerful 11. A First Cause that is uncaused, beginningless, initially changeless, has libertarian freedom, highly intelligent and enormously powerful is a Creator of the Universe. 12. Therefore, a Creator of the universe exists.

[@tammygibson1556]

@@andrewloke7 beginningless can apply to the universe. The Big Bang theory does not require that things did not exist before it. My understanding of the BB was that all elements that existed came together into a dense singularity with so much energy it went boom. The expanse of the universe supports a BB. Predictions can be made based on BB. What predictive property does a necessary creator have that cannot be explained with a non-supernatural cause?

[@andrewloke7]

@@tammygibson1556 I have already explained in my reply to your other comment that the beginningless First Cause of the universe must be initially changeless and has free will as well. That cannot be the universe itself because the universe is in constant change.

[@user-rn8vb9ml4r]

Very difficult at times to listen to Loke speak, he really needs to do more research on the philosophy of time and causation.

[@andrewloke7]

A number of comments have misrepresented my argument. See my replies to the comments below

[@andrewloke7]

@Pedro Parica I explained in my dialogue with Alex why the cause of the universe is a Creator God and showed that this conclusion is not based on ignorance but based on reasons.

[@andrewloke7]

@Pedro Parica It is your bias that prevents you from engaging with the reasons I gave in my discussion with Alex which demonstrate why any model in modern cosmology would require a Creator to explain the universe. Did you even listen to our discussion? If not why do you comment on our discussion?

[@andrewloke7]

@Pedro Parica You are again making assertions without responding to the arguments I presented in my dialogue with Alex. For a discussion of the modern cosmological models see chapter 2 of my book God and Ultimate Origins, published by Springer Nature, a world leading scientific and philosophy academic publisher. The point is that, on the one hand, none of the cosmological models have been proven to be correct solution to the question of ultimate origins, on the other hand there is a proof which I explained in my dialogue with Alex which shows that there is a Divine First Cause.

[@andrewloke7]

@Pedro Parica You keep asserting that the conclusion that the Creator exists is based on ignorance. For example, when ancient people did not understand certain natural phenomena (such as lightning), they thought that these are caused by the gods (e.g. zeus). As scientific understanding progresses, such explanations are replaced by scientific ones. In reply, the conclusion of the Cosmological Argument is not based on ignorance. Rather, it is based on reasons. The argument is not ‘because we still do not know how to explain the origin of the universe, therefore there must be a Creator.’ Rather, the argument is because there are reasons (which I explained in my dialogue with Alex) for thinking that an actual infinite causal regress is metaphysically impossible , therefore there must be a First Cause. It is because there are reasons for thinking that everything that begins to exist has a cause, therefore this First Cause must be beginningless. The rest of the properties of this First Cause are likewise derived on the basis of reasons rather than ignorance, as I explained in my dialogue. While the progress of science would generate newer understandings of the laws of nature as explanations for the phenomena we observe (such as lightning), it would not replace a First Cause (Creator) as an explanation for the existence of all things, including the laws of nature themselves which must have come from this First Cause. Thus the conclusion of the Cosmological Argument cannot in principle be overturned by future scientific discoveries.

[@andrewloke7]

​@Pedro Parica The fact that a massless particle travelling at the speed of light does not ‘experience’ time passing does not imply that the particle can exist without a beginning at the point of origin of its travel e.g. from where the particle is emitted, which IS a beginning. As for the other points you asserted please read again my comments above.

[@bouncycastle955]

"I'm not convinced that your first premise is true" "Don't worry, there are arguments but I'm not going to bother with them, moving on" Debate over.

[@andrewloke7]

Where did I say 'I am not going to bother with them?' On the contrary, I was fully prepared to defend the Causal Principle that everything that begins to exist has a cause using a modus tollens argument, but Justin told me and Alex during the interval that we would not have time to talk about this. I defended the Causal Principle in detail and answered your questions in my interview with Intellectual Conservatism concerning my debate with Graham Oppy. Check it out on youtube. Check out also Hugh Jidiette's blog where I replied to Alex's questions concerning my modus tollens argument.

[@bouncycastle955]

@@andrewloke7 in the video we're commenting on. Confirmed by the fact that you didn't bother with them.

[@bouncycastle955]

@@andrewloke7 wow, I just watched you and Oppy. Good on you for advertising a recording of you being absolutely embarrassed. I'd strongly recommend rewatching it yourself, seriously, so embarrassing.

[@counterpoint2034]

@@bouncycastle955 Many commentators &reviews online have concluded that loke won that debate; so embarrasing of you that you failed to recognize that; dont you bother to listen carefully to arguments & read carefully what people actually say? Loke already explained that Justin said not enough time and yet you ignored this and insisted he didnt bother; I'm not going to bother further with your comments too.

[@bouncycastle955]

@@counterpoint2034 many commentators understand the debate as poorly as Loke does? You don't say... And if he doesn't understand debate in general, that's his problem, blaming the moderator won't help.

[@plasticvision6355]

Alex’s quoting Smith and then using Craig and Loke’s excuse based on Craigs response to Smith for agent causation (and god not being like any cause we know) was a master stroke. It showed how ill considered apologetic arguments are. And then we have Loke arguing for the very same divine causation, concluding this from inductive inferences made in this universe? Loke really should give up. He is arguing that an incoherent concept is the creator of the universe? This is theistic desperation at its zenith.

[@richschmitt100]

It could be that there is no beginning just an always.