Stephen Hawkins debunked?

"But their coming to be must always have a cause (and this cause cannot be nothing)."

Have you learned nothing? That is a baseless assertion. We know of plenty of quantum mechanical phenomenons that have no cause. So why does this one need one?

"A first necessary being is needed in order to explain contingent beings in general."

No, it isn't.

"One cannot have a infinite "self-sustaining" series of contingent beings"

Yes one can.

Edit: Cindi - Yes, it is true that the probability of past events is 100%, but only when all steps that have led to it have been deterministic ones. How do you know all the steps that led to the beginning of our Universe were deterministic ones?

You don't, which means your argument fails.

Edit 2: There is nothing to engage, because your argument is a pure non-sequitur.

1) The conclusions do not follow from the premises. For example, the argument that "One cannot have a infinite "self-sustaining" series of contingent beings, because (since the series is merely a collection of contingent beings and nothing more) the series itself would be contingent." is a straight up non-sequitur. I have yet to see anything from you that shows how one cannot have this.

Would the series be contingent? You don't show this to be the case. Would that constitute as a problem? You don't even show that to be the case. You just fail.

2) You also fail to demonstrate that "But their coming to be must always have a cause (and this cause cannot be nothing)." Yet again a non-sequitur.

Edit 3: Cindi - That was not the question I asked of you. And it's actually the first time ever that I use the word "sophistry" on R&S.

Edit 4: Gymnopedie 1 - 1) "No one of its parts has existence through itself, and since the whole is made up of beings that do not have existence through themselves, the series is contingent. "

Yet again a non-sequitur from you. Just because a series is made up of contingent pieces does not mean the series itself is contingent. I mean, you're trying to sell the story that just because an infinite regression is made up of pieces that need something to cause the next one, therefore the whole series needs an external cause.

And that conclusion simply does not follow.

2) "The rest of my paragraph was the argument for that claim. Keep reading."

Yes I'm sure that was its purpose. But it does not demonstrate any such thing. For example in it you say: "This something obviously cannot be nothing, because then one would be saying that nothing makes something distinct from nothing"

But that is just yet again a non-sequitur. Just because something can come from nothing does not mean that equals saying "nothing makes something distinct from nothing". Virulent non-sequiturs you have there, as have all who think they can somehow logically prove a god must exist.

Edit 5: "To say that if we just kept "piling" on contingent beings, one after another, we would eventually somehow, like some sort of "emergent property," get a necessary being or a self-sufficient series is ridiculous."

But if you read what I wrote, that's not what I'm saying AT ALL. What I'm saying is that you fail to demonstrate:

1) That the series necessarily needs an external cause.

2) That a series could not consist of an infinity of contingents.

3) That all things must begin with necessary beings.

4) That something cannot arise from nothing.

5) That something arising from nothing would mean "nothing makes something distinct from nothing"

You just assume all this upon no evidence whatsoever. You must excuse me, I can't waste my whole day debunking your nonsense.

Edit n. whatever:

"My point is that since no contingent being derives its existence from itself, and yet it exists, there must be "something" that makes it exist."

Must there? You don't know this. We know of plenty of things of which nothing "makes" them exist. They just pop into and out of existence because that doesn't violate any physical laws. Ever heard of virtual particles? They do exactly this.

Anyhow, this will be my last update as you simply cannot make one argument that is not fallacious. Have a good day.

First cause. First Mover.

What makes the first cause unique and not itself subject to the first cause. This would make God a created being, a cause of something else. This is known as "special pleading".

Why can there not be infinite regression?

Why can't the first mover be a natural event?

This is a perfect example of Occam's razor. When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question.

EDIT 1

Big Bang fits the above bill. It does NOT assume upon "nessecary proofs or beings" and does not postulate an entity. The big bang does answer suffiecinetly as the first mover.

The idea of Nessecary beings or proofs is purely theoretical. Even so, the big bang theory (as agreed and accepted by many Theists) is simply a "brute fact". Anything else is pure speculation.

EDIT 2

You would have to amply make your case for nessecary and contingent beings. I am very interested in hearing the argument for this.

Also you imply that the big bang is a material event. I do not nessecarily agree, as this is seen as a time before all forces including time and gravity were a combined singular. I think (if needed) this would doubly qualify it as a nessecary being as it transcends what we understand as material or physical.

EDIT 3

Why does the first mover have to be sentient or a being at all. The only reason that the first mover MUST be sentient or a being is because it is the only way it will fit into your equation, thus I still believe that the big bang is still a viable choice.

Once again this is pure speculation. Speculation and fact are not the same. While I find interest in your ideas, there is far too much assumption. Quite honestly, until we have more evidence, "I don't know" is FAR more plausible. I refuse to make my belief based on assumptions, it's lazy and the premise is far to weak.

"But their coming to be must always have a cause (and this cause cannot be nothing)."

That's an assertion, not a proof.

Quantum mechanics is driven by probability, not determinism, so events can be uncaused. We only have causality in large-scale classical physics due to the wavefunction 'averaging' of many quantum events.

So simply stating something doesn't make it so.

Edit:

@Cindi:

"Jabber wok- The 'probability' of the universe not existing is a big fat "0"! Because we do exist, your argument is moot."

Straw man - that's not my argument. That is an outcome that has already happened. You completely misunderstand the principle, that outcomes are uncaused. They do happen, but cannot be predicted as they have no specific cause. So arguing that an outcome has happened is NOT the same as arguing that it has a cause.

In simpler terms think of a radioactive decay - we cannot predict when any one decay event will happen, as it is uncaused. When it DOES happen, then the outcome is a real event, but it is still uncaused. To argue that it has happened is not the same is arguing that it was caused. You need to wrap your head around that difference.

Edit2:

"The assertion that virtual particles have no cause is not only a hasty and presumptuous scientific conclusion, it is also a false philosophical conclusion, as I am trying to show."

But you're not doing so, as you only *assert* that things must have a cause, not prove it. Probabilistic non-determinism is not hasty and presumptuous, as it's based on observed nature. Evidence. By all means find flaws in the science if you can, including the evidence, but simply asserting it is flawed is not sufficient. The arguments of 'classical' physics at macroscopic scales do not hold for quantum mechanics, yet that is what you seem to be appealing to.

Your assertion does not hold up at the smallest scale, the quantum level. Theory holds that matter can indeed arise from nothing, and go back to nothing. Space is pixelated, as it were, and the "quantum foam" can give rise to particles, and particles can disappear again. While this would appear to violate the Law Of Conservation Of Mass, it has been found that particular law applies only on a more macro scale. There are many violations of what would appear to be natural laws (and by that I don not mean God stuff, I mean basic, fundamental scientific ideas. The smaller the scale, the less the macro laws apply. Your argument assumes homogeneity of the application of these laws, where we know now that simply isn't how it works.

Think scientifically for a moment.

The universe appears to contain no net energy - the negativity of gravity appears to precisely cancel out the positive energy in matter. This is implied by the fact that the geometry of space is almost exactly flat.

There is no violation of the first law for a universe with no net energy to come from nothing.

A beautiful trip through the Universe, ending with one of the best things on earth, COFFEE!! Ode to a coffee bean? GM Elys Now where did my coffee get off to?

You are confusing real things and imaginary things.

If something is real - if it actually exists - it has the capacity to exist and no capacity to not exist. If it is not real it has no capacity of any kind. So no real object can fit your definition of 'contingent being'.

It's impossible to say whether or not his thinking may be flawed until we read his book. From the nature of your post, I'm guessing you won't be among his readership. In that case, you'll never have a leg to stand on.

someone had to put the seed ..what happens to the seed after its creation is another story. conclusion their has to be a creator along the way. call it what you want but there is intelligence behind all existance.

Jabber wok- The 'probability' of the universe not existing is a big fat "0"! Because we do exist, your argument is moot.

The universe exists, fully and completely, to a probability of 100%. Therefore it is 'determined' that it exists.

Add that to your pocket of 'probabilities'. And chalk one up for determinism.

+++ Invisible Talker..... Simple question, "does the universe exist?"

get it now??????

oh and is "sophistry" your word of the day? cuz you seem to be using it a lot. lol