Nobody Dies for a Lie

[37818]

Natural, material existence possibly consists of temporal things existing eternally.

Not of themselves. Requires an eternal uncaused existence in order for them to be so. Which they are not.

[Tassman]

Not of themselves.

Yes, of themselves.

Requires an eternal uncaused existence in order for them to be so. Which they are not.

Natural, material existence may possibly consist of temporal things existing eternally.

[37818]

Yes, of themselves.

Not according to the law of identity. Different things are not the existence though they exist. Only the uncaused existence is of itself, not anything else is of itself.

Natural, material existence may possibly consist of temporal things existing eternally.

In order for that to be so , there must be the uncaused existence, which none of the material things are.

[Tassman]

Only the uncaused existence is of itself, not anything else is of itself.

[37818]

Not possible. Material is not space for example. Space is how we experience existence. Space, that is, spacetime has a beginning with our material universe's beginning 13.7 some billion years ago, as we understand this. Infinite regress of the material universe may have an eternal existence, but is not the existence, not the space which begins and ends over and over again. Uncaused existence does not begin or end. What begins and ends over and over again is not the same thing which never begins and ends.

[JimL]

Not possible. Material is not space for example. Space is how we experience existence. Space, that is, spacetime has a beginning with our material universe's beginning 13.7 some billion years ago, as we understand this. Infinite regress of the material universe may have an eternal existence, but is not the existence, not the space which begins and ends over and over again. Uncaused existence does not begin or end. What begins and ends over and over again is not the same thing which never begins and ends.

If, as it seems you acknowledge in the above, that material existence may be eternal, then there is no need of a creator. Matter and energy for instance are differing forms of one in the same thing, and the matter, i.e. the material universe is the result of the particular state that the energy causing it was in 14 billion years ago. The problem with your theory of god is that the world would need have been created out of nothing. Naturalism has no such problem.

[shunyadragon]

Not of themselves. Requires an eternal uncaused existence in order for them to be so. Which they are not.

The eternal cause is possibly Natural Law. Despite your assertions you have not provided a coherent argument that our physical existence is not possibly eternal and Natural is not possibly the eternal cause.

[Mountain Man]

By far the the majority of the scientists support the possibility of the Multiverse hypothesis.

I can find no reference suggesting that "the majority of the scientists support the possibility of the Multiverse hypothesis", and even it was true, so what? I don't care what the majority of scientists do or don't support, I care about what the evidence shows. Dismissing Craig's arguments as "hookus boogus" does not actually refute them. The fact is, if a multiverse existed in all of its infinite possibilities then there would necessarily be readily accessible and undeniable evidence of it in this universe.

What caused the Multiverse? The Multiverse possibly exists in an eternal infinite Quantum World, and there are possibly many Multiverses.

Which runs you face first into the problem of infinite regress.

What caused God?

Nothing. God is uncaused.

[Tassman]

I can find no reference suggesting that "the majority of the scientists support the possibility of the Multiverse hypothesis", and even it was true, so what? I don't care what the majority of scientists do or don't support, I care about what the evidence shows.

The multiverse is a solid scientific idea, one held by many scientists.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...llel-universe/

Dismissing Craig's arguments as "hookus boogus" does not actually refute them. The fact is, if a multiverse existed in all of its infinite possibilities then there would necessarily be readily accessible and undeniable evidence of it in this universe.

Which runs you face first into the problem of infinite regress.

Nothing. God is uncaused.

Like the universe you mean.

[JonathanL]

There's nothing in science that's equipped to handle the issue.

[Mountain Man]

The multiverse is a solid scientific idea, one held by many scientists.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...llel-universe/

Ignorant drivel. To dismiss Craig as a mere philosopher ignores the fact that philosophy and science are inextricably intertwined and that Craig cites scientific evidence to support his arguments. You obviously haven't bothered to read his essay.

Second, your post above implies that science has proven or at least has not ruled out the existence of an infinite regress. Let's see the proof.

At any rate, the impossibility of an infinite regress is best explained with an illustration:

Suppose you had an infinite row of dominoes arranged such that one falling forward would knock over the next in line. Pick any arbitrary domino in the line. How long would it take for that domino to be knocked over by the preceding one? To put it another way, how long would it take for the state to be reached where every preceding domino had been knocked over? If the line of dominoes is infinite then it would be literally impossible to ever reach that state. So the answer to the question is, it would take an infinite amount of time for any domino in the line to be knocked over, which is another way of saying that it would be impossible for any one domino to be knocked over. To put it another way, an infinite regress is essentially a fixed state that can never change.

Which leads to the third hole in your argument: The fact that this present universe exists at all is proof in and of itself that it was not the result of an infinite chain of cause and effect. You can claim that this universe is eternal, except that every piece of scientific evidence currently available to us points irrecoverably to the conclusion that it had a beginning, and appealing to the multiverse, or claiming that matter and energy can somehow exist in an infinite state runs you into the problem of infinite regress.

The problem of infinite regress does not apply to God because God is not an infinite chain of cause and effect.

[Roy]

Ignorant drivel.
...
At any rate, the impossibility of an infinite regress is best explained with an illustration:

Suppose you had an infinite row of dominoes arranged such that one falling forward would knock over the next in line. Pick any arbitrary domino in the line. How long would it take for that domino to be knocked over by the preceding one? To put it another way, how long would it take for the state to be reached where every preceding domino had been knocked over? If the line of dominoes is infinite then it would be literally impossible to ever reach that state. So the answer to the question is, it would take an infinite amount of time for any domino in the line to be knocked over, which is another way of saying that it would be impossible for any one domino to be knocked over.

Ignorant drivel. Linking an infinite regress of causation to an infinite regress of time doesn't refute either of them.

Your drivel doesn't even take into account whether the line of dominoes is infinite in both directions or only in one.

Which leads to the third hole in your argument: The fact that this present universe exists at all is proof in and of itself that it was not the result of an infinite chain of cause and effect. You can claim that this universe is eternal, ...

He didn't.

If you're going to claim that some-one else is posting ignorant drivel, it helps to read what they wrote.

[shunyadragon]

Causes are temporal and finite or they would not be a cause.

Therefore God cannot be a cause.

[Mountain Man]

Enter Ignorant Roy to poop on the chess board and knock the pieces over.

Ignorant drivel. Linking an infinite regress of causation to an infinite regress of time doesn't refute either of them.

Your drivel doesn't even take into account whether the line of dominoes is infinite in both directions or only in one. He didn't.

If you're going to claim that some-one else is posting ignorant drivel, it helps to read what they wrote.

Looks like my domino illustration went right over your head. In simpler language, since this is apparently what you require, it is impossible for a present event to be the result of an infinite series of past events because it is literally impossible for an infinite series of past events to ever elapse. Get it?

As for the Tassmoron's claims about the universe, he suggests that it was uncaused which logically implies that it has eternally existed, because something that exists but was uncaused is necessarily eternal. We also know that the universe exists in its current state as the result of a series of past events, but since it is impossible for an infinite series of past events to elapse then the universe by necessity cannot be eternal. Q.E.D.

[shunyadragon]

The problem of infinite regress does not apply to God because God is not an infinite chain of cause and effect.

Neither is a potentially infinite physical existence. The concept of infinite regress could only apply to events and things within our universe, or as the case may be a multiverse or our physical existence greater than our possible multiverse, because it is defined as a closed set 'actual infinity.' Our physical existence is potentially infinite.