Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
I don't have to do any work at all since the claim that 'something can't come from nothing' is a theistic claim and not mine. Theists seek to explain the existence of the universe by arguing that it must have been created so there must be a (uncaused) cause for it, since something can't come from nothing.
Well, the universe didn't come from nothing, it's always existed, as proven by the theistic claim. The uncaused cause is the universe itself. Just take all the arguments you use to justify a god being the uncaused cause and apply them to this.
I noted this already, but you seem to have missed it. You have to first reckon with the concepts of "something" and "nothing" in your use of language.
And I'm not denying you your assertion. I'm just pointing out that it fails to meet your personal standards of what is and is not acceptable as a hypothesis to describe the universe.
Quote:
Irony is spinning in its grave. All you're really saying here is that I have two unsatisfactory explanations for the existence of the universe, neither of which meet scientific criteria such that we could place any confidence in them, they might as well both be just wishful thinking. This is one, the other is the creator god hypothesis. Sure, ok, not a problem since I wasn't settled on a particular explanation, but what about you?
Since I disagree with your concept of "scientific criteria" (we're back to this again, where you think you know something despite both theists, atheists, and people with scientific backgrounds on both sides pointing out at various times that you're wrong), this observation is mostly pointless as far as my beliefs are concerned.
The regression problem is not a new one. I'm fine with accepting a creator God and a temporal start of "the universe."
Quote:
I think it's very obvious what this argument accomplishes. It takes a theistic claim and shows that if the claim is true, then we don't need a creator God to explain the existence of the universe. I'm sure you don't need the implications of that to be explained to you.
I'm not arguing (nor do I believe I've argued) that God "must" exist because the universe exists. You like to call these things "theistic arguments" as if they are somehow necessary for theists to adopt.
But primarily, as I noted, your argument doesn't actually negate anything. The word salad of "it might be energy that changes form over time" doesn't really describe anything in particular that stands as a meaningful counter-claim unless you're saying that "energy that changes form over time" is somehow incompatible with the idea of God. You've just replaced a concept with another set of words that themselves do not hold specific meaning.
(Not noted, but potentially relevant, depending on your concepts, you used the word "time" in the phrase "changes [] over time" and that creates a separate issue with your cosmology.)
You may want to read about Aristotle's concept of the eternal universe as a starting point. Not that it would help your argument here, but because you would benefit from an expansion of your knowledge.