The Big Lump, And Minds (Husserl-Schutz-Chalmers)

If anything that exists has to have a cause, what caused god to exist? And how does anyone know that the universe hasn't simply always existed in some way or other? Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 1 second ago OK, let´s take your question no 2 first. The Big Bang theory is based on "science" itself, scientific philosophy, actually. You didn´t get Craig´s points about past infinity not being possible, and the Bord-Guth-Valenkin paper. You might like the ideas of Black Hole portals and their blowing off new Universes ideas. Those are mechanistic, and the issue means questioning the assumptions of science itself. Once you know that the Universe had a beginning, that is, a beginning where time, space, and matter-energy all came into existence. They didn´t exist before that. Physically, you might be thinking that the Universe existed as a Big Lump, and then it just exploded. They don´t see that happening. Astrophysicists trace all the space and stuff back in time, and down in size that included all the matter-energy. They see it going back to, nothing. That´s an interesting question, actually. They talk about a "singularity", that´s kind of the opposite of a Black Hole. But, scientists can´t evaluate what happens in a Black Hole, either. Yet, they are not both the same thing. So, certain issues apply. Big Bang creations don´t just happen everywhere. The Big Bang is a physical starting point, as far as scientific thinking can go. At that point, the beginning just before the Big Bang, natural science doesn´t actually apply. Multiverse theory is the use of imagination, but it doesn´t actually qualify. Its presuppositions are natural scientific. Natural science´s own context is that it is actually natural philosophy. It is a subset of philosophy. Another issue that helps is that of emergentism, and the nature of mind vs brain. It helps to understand what the meaning of mind vs brain is, their interface and their distinctions. The human mind has emerged from human brain activity, our experience of basic feelings is like other animals. However, our use of symbols has elevated our capacities. Thus, going back to the Cause of the Universe raises the issue of non-physical Entities, and the locus of eternity, an infinity of timelessness and other qualities. Then there´s your question about what cause God to exist? You need to look up that stuff about mind and brain. Once you get a feel for mind as a specific kind of phenomena, and how Western Civilization has taken it to certain levels, and its various qualities in anthropology and sociology, you can begin to understand its power and complexity. That´s where your assumptions, as in Craig´s "presuppositionalism" get set straight. Mind is an amazing human phenomenon, and was already having unusual experiences 40,000 years ago with the Loewenmensch Lion Man cave figurine that isn´t lion or man, but a hybrid. That´s some human mental activity right there. The question of the origin of the Universe, then, indicates a cause. That´s then why Craig asks, what could cause the Universe, that is immaterial? We know abstract things are immaterial. We know MINDS are immaterial. To repeat, human minds come from human brains, but are not the same. Simply put, class written documents, whether cuneiform, hieroglyphics, Plato, Confucius, Caesar´s works, or Shakespeare are all evidence of minds, but separate from any brains. Their works can be copied, but brains can´t. So, Minds are immaterial. It is human minds, in fact that have made modern science. But, modern science is really a subset of general forms of philosophy. So, what we know about the Big Bang is just part of what we know about all things in all subjects. It is human minds that are doing amazing things in learning. Thus, as the Cause of the Universe, an immaterial cause can´t be abstract, but it could be some kind of mind, the Mind of the Creator. &&& punnet2 20 hours ago @Green Peacemst "MINDS are distinct from their operating brains..." That is a claim that needs to be supported. By the evidence, minds (at least the ones we can observe) are not distinct from brains, and are demonstrably affected by physical stimuli (brain damage, sleep loss, drug use). Furthermore, minds cannot "create something from nothing". This argument for a "transcendent cause" first of all postulates mind-body dualism (without proof), then attempts to smuggle in supernatural attributes under "mind". "You assert that, 'nature also didn´t need a cause.'" I'm actually not asserting that. I'm simply pointing out that it's more reasonable a hypothesis than "god created nature and god didn't need a cause." Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 0 seconds ago ​ @punnet2 "Minds are distinct from operating brains (needs to be supported)" Which I did, with an argument that you can´t even cite. What don´t you understand about the fact that Plato died in ca 400 BC/E, yet his mind´s works live on? Intelligible to others, and identifable as Plato´s work? And the distinction between that aspect of Plato´s mind and Plato´s dead and gone brain? Another more experiential distinction has been sustained at least from Descartes to Sartre, with Sartre calling the ego an "essentially transcendent being." Although Husserl´s phenomenology was taken by A Schutz into social concerns, and then Peter L. Berger, Husserl valued the way a person could be explored and questioned humanistically, instead of treated reductively and abstractly as an "individual." That relates to the value of introspection, especially non-mechanistically as noted by Spinoza, CG Schutz, S Freud´s legacy, and David Chalmers (and "philosophical zombies"). That will reflect your own self-awareness capacity, of course. Moreover, Freud MD own investigations began with hypnotherapy, and M Erickson MD demonstrated amazing advances in that field. Hypnosis can allow the mind to direct the brain and body to incredible feats, for starters. As you say, the mind starts out as strongly dependent on the brain´s physical reality. However, that is merely a basic insight. The question is how psychosocial and cultural phenomena are experienced and generated. The expression "Mind over matter" has become a cultural standard for a reason. Hypnotists can achieve amazing rigidity of arms and related effects with participants. Buddhist Shao Lin martial arts training shows related skill development. The phenomenon is part of "supervention" and emergent properties. "Mind over matter" be as simple as learning. If a person decides to try to study hard with discipline, even with self-hypnosis, they are affecting their brain´s chemistry based on their phenomenological mind and a self-referential decision. You assert: "Minds cannot create something from nothing" Where is your reasoning? You haven´t even demonstrated an adequate understanding of "minds" vs. brains. In the human context and material plane, humans do that in their frames of reference all the time. The creation of the pyramids required design, planning, and administrative leadership in an empty part of Egypt, for example. An immaterial entity has its own logical qualities that we can observe, and is not subject to our human contexts when considering the Big Bang the modern frame of reference for the Universe. Your inclination is to make philosophical assertions reflexively, inaccurately, and superficially. I gave a good vivid example of mind vs body in (ancient scholar, or any) documents, and the very real phenomeon of human minds creative, causal capacity is an excellent object to cite for that in the transcendental, supernatural case. Your preference for ad hom terms like "smuggling" undercuts your own ability to reason clearly and traps you in all manner of fallacies, besides basic inaccuracies of dialogue alone. Too bad for you.