- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
25 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you are saying that the axiom "(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause " has no evidence, your parents will beg to differ. They have you as absolute proof.
The assumption 1) is unwarranted. There is no reason whatsoever to believe it to be the case. There is no evidence to support it. It is just made up so you can claim 3).
25 May 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerI don't understand. Is that meant to be an insult, or are you trying to present an argument? If the latter, can you expand on that?
If you are saying that the axiom "(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause " has no evidence, your parents will beg to differ. They have you as absolute proof.
25 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe assumption 1) is unwarranted. There is no reason whatsoever to believe it to be the case. There is no evidence to support it. It is just made up so you can claim 3).
Just to be clear, what do you mean by 'begins to exist'? Are we talking about a change of state (where energy is conserved and the standard laws of physics are followed) such as when I put some planks of wood together and a chair 'begins to exist'. Or are we talking about something else?
Would an electron positron pair appearing out of empty space qualif dimensions of space time"?
Why doesn't my browser know how to spell "onwards"?
Premise (1) is constantly validated by our experience, therefore far more plausible and reasonable than its denial. It is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing, like magic.
just to be clear, what do you mean by 'begins to exist'? Are we talking about a change of state (where energy is conserved and the standard laws of physics are followed) such as when I put some planks of wood together and a chair 'begins to exist'. Or are we talking about something else?
It is a general causal principle: whatever has a beginning has a cause. We can apply it to anything, whether a change of state, a few planks of wood coalescing into a chair, or the beginning of the universe itself.
Would an electron positron pair appearing out of empty space qualify?
Empty space, of course, is not really "empty".
Are we talking about within the framework of the known dimensions of space time, or are you adding another hypothetical dimension within which time itself can be thought of as beginning to exist?
Premise (1) is a metaphysical principle which applies to events within the universe as well as the universe itself—there is no need to add another hypothetical dimension.
Do you define "the universe" as "all that exists", or "from the big bang onwards" or "within the current known dimensions of space time"?
The universe is defined first and foremost in opposition to non-being. Prior to the singularity, according to the Standard Big Bang Model, there was literally nothing. At the singularity the universe began. Thus the universe includes everything from the singularity onwards.
25 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat exactly are you suggesting existed prior to the Big Bang? The Standard Big Bang Model posits creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing)—no matter, no energy, no space, no time.
To be accurate, our universe, as we know it, had a start. It could quite easily have been something different prior to the big bang.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
25 May 11
Originally posted by twhitehead1. You exist.
I don't understand. Is that meant to be an insult, or are you trying to present an argument? If the latter, can you expand on that?
2. Your parents are the cause of your existence.
Are any of the above statements false? If not, your statement, "The assumption 1) is unwarranted. There is no reason whatsoever to believe it to be the case. There is no evidence to support it. It is just made up" is false, because your own existence is evidence which supports it.
25 May 11
Originally posted by epiphinehasBut that experience and intuition only really applies to the environment we directly experience. It does not apply to everything. That is why people have trouble understanding concepts like quantum mechanics, because it involved phenomena that is different from what we experience in our every day lives.
Premise (1) is constantly validated by our experience, therefore far more plausible and reasonable than its denial. It is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing, like magic.
I am sure that you can think of many many examples where every day experience, and intuition do not apply to the universe in general. Its quite ridiculous to try and use it as a proof.
It is a general causal principle: whatever has a beginning has a cause. We can apply it to anything, whether a change of state, a few planks of wood coalescing into a chair, or the beginning of the universe itself.
So you are claiming that the future is deterministic? Do you have evidence for this?
Empty space, of course, is not really "empty".
Whats is there and what causes electron/positron pairs to emerge?
Premise (1) is a metaphysical principle which applies to events within the universe as well as the universe itself—there is no need to add another hypothetical dimension.
There is, if time is a finite dimension that only exists within the universe.
The universe is defined first and foremost in opposition to non-being. Prior to the singularity, according to the Standard Big Bang Model, there was literally nothing. At the singularity the universe began. Thus the universe includes everything from the singularity onwards.
If we take a model of the Big Bang in which time is finite and started at the big bang, then there is no 'prior' to the big bang and there is no point in time in which there is 'nothing'. Also, it is incorrect to apply a rule that involves time to time itself. It is simply meaningless to try to do so. It like asking what is heavier than 5cm.
25 May 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerAll people are stupid. I know one stupid person. The stupid person I know is absolute proof of this.
Are any of the above statements false? If not, your statement, "The assumption 1) is unwarranted. There is no reason whatsoever to believe it to be the case. There is no evidence to support it. It is just made up" is false, because your own existence is evidence which supports it.
Are you starting to see the flaw in your logic?
25 May 11
Existence requires a universe. If a Creator exists "elsewhere", the "elsewhere" suffers from the same issue of First Cause. It's turtles upon turtles.
So there can be no "before" the first universe (or multiverse). Either universe and time existed forever or (my preferred explanation) time and universe have a joint beginning.
25 May 11
5 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasRight, I've found a better source than wiki for this vaccum fluctuation model thing you talk about - and what I propose has nothing to do with that. All your talk of an infinite past which I have been trying to explain ought not necessarily be a problem has been to avert a crisis you have artificially imposed on my proposal that doesn't actually exist!
[b]...the argument that there must exist at least one point where one or more universes spawned by a multiverse must intersect is neither a necessary conclusion of infinite `time'...
An infinite past allows for every possibility. It is necessary, therefore, that a universe spawn at every point in the primordial vacuum and each universe be infinit argue the contrary.[/b]
And I have shown that your counter-proposal fails in this regard.[/b]
As far as the multiverse could be concerned and whatever sort of dimension it lives in, these universes could, hypothetically speaking, be created where `none existed before'.
How `time operates' in a multiverse I need not talk about (since I have no way to talk about it, and neither do you)
as regards your last point I don't recall where you've correctly shown me anything of the sort. You've identified my counter proposal with a model which you believe is easy to dispel when that is not actually the idea I'm advancing here. As such you haven't shown me how its inconsistent, and as for lack of evidence; given that "God" is just waiting in the wings with no evidence there is no foul if I play the same game.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
25 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadStraw man again.
All people are stupid. I know one stupid person. The stupid person I know is absolute proof of this.
Are you starting to see the flaw in your logic?
epiphinehas said: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause".
You said: "There is no reason whatsoever to believe it to be the case. There is no evidence to support it."
I gave you one example. You are absolute proof of something that began to exist due to a cause. There are billions of other examples like you. You however claim there is NO EVIDENCE to support his claim, when in fact there is a mountain of evidence to support his claim.
25 May 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo when you used the phrase 'absolute proof' you were saying you have absolute proof that at least one thing that exists had a cause? I rather suspect you did not mean that and changed your meaning after realizing your error. It certainly makes no sense in that context.
Straw man again.
epiphinehas said: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause".
You said: "There is no reason whatsoever to believe it to be the case. [b]There is no evidence to support it."
I gave you one example. You are absolute proof of something that began to exist due to a cause. There are billions of other examples like you. You however cl ...[text shortened]... NCE to support his claim, when in fact there is a mountain of evidence to support his claim.[/b]
So, you believe that an example of something is evidence of the universality of that something? You also believe that the more examples the better?
Lets try it out:
All numbers are divisible by 2.
I present as evidence, 4, 8, 16, 12, and the infinite list of even numbers. Surely that trumps your 'billions'? Are you convinced that all numbers are divisible by 2? Are you convinced that 4 constitutes evidence in this regard?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
25 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet me humor your straw man. Lets say his claim was equivalent to sayings all numbers are divisible by 2. Surely if he were wrong you would be able to give me many examples of numbers that are NOT divisible by two.
So when you used the phrase 'absolute proof' you were saying you have absolute proof that at least one thing that exists had a cause? I rather suspect you did not mean that and changed your meaning after realizing your error. It certainly makes no sense in that context.
So, you believe that an example of something is evidence of the universality of tha ll numbers are divisible by 2? Are you convinced that 4 constitutes evidence in this regard?
Btw: you probably meant all numbers are factors of two.....
25 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerNope can't do it....there's bazillions of the fellars that are divible by 2 - clear proof ALL numbers are even.
Let me humor your straw man. Lets say his claim was equivalent to sayings all numbers are divisible by 2. Surely if he were wrong you would be able to give me many examples of numbers that are NOT divisible by two.