You can't provided evidence that we can't. Hence why what you said was an assumption. Qooroo

I invite you to give me a basis within naturalism for objective morality

1. Why? And "outside" or "beyond" the universe none of the laws and understanding of the universe(everything we know) can be applied. There really is no logic to justify your claim. xMOBSTER23x

metaphysical truths apply to all of reality. hence, the universe needs a cause because it cannot come into existence out of nothing. to say that hte universe began uncaused is worse than magic.

2. That contradicts your first idea that everything must have a cause... xMOBSTER23x

I said that everything which begins to exist must have a cause

3.That's assuming you contradict your other claims, which renders your argument useless.xMOBSTER23x

Given that we have one universe as a data point, it seems like folly to me to try to assume that principles that would apply to "other universes" based on that one data point. Put another way, any trend line can be drawn through a single point of data. And while I appreciate your apology, I will absolutely take the empirical evidence of the Kasimir effect over any amount of metaphysical sophistry.xaos

oh, and there's that problem of the fact that quantum fluctuations need spacetime to occur and do not transcend spacetime.

In the realm of empiricism, "dissatisfaction" is not sufficient, though. xaos

Note I said "no known reason", as I am not discounting the possibility that science will someday peel back another layer of how these thngs work, but every indication that we have currently is that quantum behavior is purely probabilistic, not deterministic. xaos

And picking up your thread with someone else, why is the existence of the universe innately "contingent" and not "necessary"; why can your assumption be applied to the universe and not to God? Really seems like special pleading to me.xaos

[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"]

No. However, humans lack the capacity to comprehend things that exist outside of our universe except by abstracting things that exist within. It is distinctly possible that there is something outside of our universe that meets all those requirements but we have no way to begin to concieve of it.Qooroo

That's called begging the question and special pleading.

Calling something a brute fact does not make it so. Different schools of philosophy have posited inherent morality. This is an assumption unless you can offer some evidence for morality being able to come from God but not from any other source.Qooroo

Qooroo, you haven't quite blunted my argument. You cannot provide a basis by which we can call something evil within naturalism.

To be properly basic, a premise must be (depending on the school of foundationalism): self-evident, empirical, or icorrigible. Your statement fails on all three accounts. Therefore it is not properly basic.

Qooroo

sounds like a C&P Job from wikipedia

1. Why can't it? The burden of proof is on you to prove that the universe cannot spontenously begin to exist. Funky_Llama

:lol: Well how about the completely universal human experience that things do not pop into existence uncaused? Seriously, the statement "nonbeing does not give rise to being" is a properly basic belief. the burden of proof is on you to show that it is wrong. until then we have to assume that the universe cannot have come into existence uncaused. And try not to forget, the first premise is undoubtedly more true than its negation. It is a metaphysical statement, it applies to ALL REALITY. sorry xaos.

2. *sigh* Is it, or is it not the case, that any thing that exists requires a cause? Funky_Llama

It is not the case. remember, this is the Kalam Cosmological argument I am using, not the Thomist Cosmological argument.

3. I'm not sure that follows. :?Funky_Llama

Can you prove that being does not come from unbeing, or is that just an article of faith for you?xaos

but regardless, if things really can pop into existence completely uncaused out of nothing, then we have to ask why doesn't anything and everything pop into existence?

And I lobbed 4:

[QUOTE="Qooroo"][QUOTE="NTWrightfan"]

(1)There are 2 objects which can exist timelessly and without material and they are abstract objects and disembodied minds. since abstract objects do not cause anything, it therefore follows that the cause of the natural world is a disembodied mind

(2)Premise 2: it is not due to physical necessity (as there isn't a shred of evidence of any mechanism controlling these constants) nor chance (they are far too improbable. the cosmological constant, if increased by in part in 10^120 would cause the universe to expand too quickly for stars and galaxies to form. if decreased similarly, the universe would have collapsed long ago, also there isn't a shred of evidence for the many worlds hypothesis, and if there are many other universes, then given the amount of entropy in our universe we should be in a much smaller universe)

(3)Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. This is rather simple and uncontroversial, after all within naturalism there is no way to say that something is actually and objectively evil

(4)Premise 2: Objective moral values do exist. This is evidenced by the fact that there are some things (state suppression of the speech rights of Atheists, the holocaust, torturing babies for one's own entertainment, genocide, rape, etc.) which are objectively wrong no matter what anyone thinks about it
Qooroo

These are all assumptions.

I added numbers for clarity's sake. You responded to 2 and that's it.

1. Why can't it? And, since God is a being, where did he come from?

2. That would mean he doesn't exist full stop.

Funky_Llama

2: God does not violate this principle because God never began to exist, hence he is not an example of being coming from nonbeing

3: you have to remember that there is a difference between contingent existence and necessary existence. Since God did nto begin to exist, God exists necessarily.

[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"]Xaos, I really should have you know that only according to the Copenhagen interpretation (which does not have a scientific consensus backing it up) are quantum fluctuations uncaused. But another problem is that you misunderstand the premise. It is not a physical statement, but rather a metaphysical statement. Being does not come from nonbeing. xaos

but regardless, if things really can pop into existence completely uncaused out of nothing, then we have to ask why doesn't anything and everything pop into existence?