25 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerAgerg's beaten me to a response on that. Lets assume I can't provide a counter example.
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.
Btw: you probably meant all numbers are factors of two.....
No. I did not.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
25 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadSince you gave me a million examples of things that exist that do not have a cause, we can assume your straw man is a true reflection of his argument. The joke is on you though. Have a good one. I now see why I should just ignore your posts.
You just proved that your proof by example doesn't work very well. In fact, we have just provided a counter example to your claim and you already admit a counter example is sufficient to disprove the claim.
25 May 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou have not shown that my analogy is a strawman, instead, you have proven yourself wrong. Rather than admitting it, you get all sarcastic.
Since you gave me a million examples of things that exist that do not have a cause, we can assume your straw man is a true reflection of his argument. The joke is on you though. Have a good one. I now see why I should just ignore your posts.
25 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasConclusion 3) does undeniably logically follow from assumption 1) and 2).
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
Discuss...
But the main problem is, assumptions 1) is extremely hard to qualify/justify.
“...(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause ...”
The “Whatever begins” means “ANYTHING that begins” which implies that ALL classes/categories of things have causes for their existence.
We know that SOME classes/categories of things have causes for their existence. The problem is we arguably cannot rationally extrapolate from that known mere fact that ALL classes/categories of things have causes for their beginnings and it is a very common error in logic to think that you necessarily can extrapolate so rationally.
We cannot even justify the assertion that PROBABLY ALL classes/categories of things have causes for their existence because SOME classes/categories do; and that is true no matter HOW many classes/categories of things are sampled and confirmed to have causes for their beginnings.
Here is an analogy:
Suppose, hypothetically, you have never observed nor ever heard of or know of any kind of animal that can be created without a male parent.
Then perhaps you might think:
“(1) whatever animal is born has a male parent”.
You may have a vast sample of many classes/categories of animal that you have determined ALWAYS DO definitely have a male parent.
But can you really safely extrapolate from that to assert that definitely or even merely probably ALL classes/categories of animal always have a male parent? What about those classes/categories of animal that are unknown to you?
Or, and this bit is more analogous to what I am saying about the “Whatever begins to exist has a cause” assertion, what about those classes/categories of animal that are known to you But neither you nor anyone else has observed how they reproduce?
(an amoeba would be an example of an animal with no male parent)
25 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasI don’t think that this is correct. Scientific cosmology does not address the metaphysical question of being and non-being—or the possibility of “something” called “nothing” (non-being), the notion of radical nihil. [G.E. Moore’s comment that we always seem to speak of “nothing” as if it were “a queer kind of something”.]
What 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.
The big-bang does not (at least not necessarily) assume generatio ex nihilo; it does assume that the cosmos as we know it expanded rapidly (“bang” ) from prior, unknown conditions—the singularity. Those prior conditions are not only unknown, perhaps unknowable. When cosmologists refer to the “universe” in this context, they mean the universe as defined by certain rules that appear to have developed along with the initial expansion. [However, it would be nice if a cosmologist/physicist were to weigh in here; there used to be a couple on the site.]
In such a case, any “necessary cause” could be located within those prior, unknown conditions; this is no more or less mysterious than positing a mysterious external cause (“god” ). Except that is satisfies the principle of Ockham’s Razor. [I hope that LemonJello might weigh in with a discussion of the principle of sufficient reason—your premise (1)—since I believe that he has some philosophical problems with it.]
Simon Blackburn, following Hume, noted: “For it must be ‘unknown, inconceivable qualities’ that make anything a ‘necessary existent’.” [Otherwsie, for Hume, the phrase “necessary existent has “no meaning, or, which is the same thing, none that is consistent” within the observable, contingent cosmos.] Blackburn continues: “And for all we know, such unknown inconceivable qualities may attach to the ordinary physical universe, rather than to any immaterial thing or person or deity lying behind it.” It also seems logically possible that any “necessary cause” need not be singular, but a causal complex.
Somehow, when it comes to an extra-natural deity, notions (if they actually are entertainable notions) such as sui generis, beyond time and space, pure spirit—etc., etc.—somehow are assumed to be sufficiently intelligible so as to outweigh a simple “I don’t know, and maybe we cannot know”. Adding a supernatural (extra-natural) category that is incommensurable to our intellect, in order to “explain” a natural state (the singularity) that is incommensurable to our intellect, only multiplies incommensurabilities without actually explaining anything. [Wittgenstein: “…a nothing will serve just as well as a something about which nothing can be said. We’ve only rejected the grammar that forces itself on us here.”]
Finally, as Palynka noted, explanations for/of a creator deity that “exists” “nowhere” and has eternally/timelessly—etc., etc.—runs into the same issues. In fact, according to my understanding of the “big bang”, you are positing here, not just a cause, but a cause of a cause—since, for science, the “big bang” is the “first cause” of the universe as we know it, out of, not nihilo, but the mystery referred to as the “singularity”. Here we start to have “turtles all the way down”.
—References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang; Simon Blackburn, Think, pp. 159-167; Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, ¶304.
__________________________________
Good discussion. Hope all is well with you, Epi. 🙂
25 May 11
3 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasI have also before argued that the universe is not a “thing” (an effect, per se) but the whole collective complex of things, forces and their relationships. The universe is not like a jar containing bugs, such that—once one has explained the collection of bugs and their relationships, one is still left with the jar to explain.
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
Discuss...
If one of the relationships that defines the collective complex as we know it is cause-and-effect, then the whole inference collapses. It basically ends up saying that the principle of cause-and-effect needs a cause—but then, that cause would need a cause, and so on…
In essence, “God” as a “first cause” is declared by fiat in order to escape infinite regress; I can, as I noted above, simply stop by fiat at the singularity, without the need to invoke one more (unnecessary) step.
__________________________________
At bottom, the cosmological argument suffers from several faults that seem too easily identified for it to be at all convincing. But, since it is a deductive argument, the simplest counter seems to be that it fails to establish the kind of logical necessity that it proposes: it is either subject to infinite regress (soluble only by fiat), or it devolves to begging the question.
25 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI 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.
But 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.
I am sure that you can think of many many example ...[text shortened]... itself. It is simply meaningless to try to do so. It like asking what is heavier than 5cm.
It is metaphysically absurd to think that the universe popped into existence uncaused. Unless you are able to provide good reason to reject premise (1), it is perfectly rational to accept it, since premise (1) is more probable than its denial.
Whats is there and what causes electron/positron pairs to emerge?
Empty space is not a true vacuum, but a sea of fluctuating energy endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws. Electron positron pairs emerge spontaneously from the sub-atomic vacuum (its indeterministic cause/source).
There is, if time is a finite dimension that only exists within the universe... 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.
As I said, premise (1) is a metaphysical principle, not a physical law of nature like gravity, and therefore does not require space-time to be valid.
25 May 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonRegardless, premise (1) is more probable than its denial. Unless you can provide a defeater from premise (1) which makes it less likely than its denial, it is perfectly rational to accept it.
Conclusion 3) does undeniably logically follow from assumption 1) and 2).
But the main problem is, assumptions 1) is extremely hard to qualify/justify.
“...(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause ...”
The “Whatever begins” means “ANYTHING that begins” which implies that ALL classes/categories of things have causes for their existence.
We kno ...[text shortened]... s observed how they reproduce?
(an amoeba would be an example of an animal with no male parent)
25 May 11
Originally posted by vistesdThe big-bang does not (at least not necessarily) assume generatio ex nihilo; it does assume that the cosmos as we know it expanded rapidly (“bang” ) from prior, unknown conditions—the singularity. Those prior conditions are not only unknown, perhaps unknowable.
I don’t think that this is correct. Scientific cosmology does not address the metaphysical question of being and non-being—or the possibility of “something” called “nothing” (non-being), the notion of radical nihil. [G.E. Moore’s comment that we always seem to speak of “nothing” as if it were “a queer kind of something”.]
The big-bang does not (a ...[text shortened]... .
__________________________________
Good discussion. Hope all is well with you, Epi. 🙂
On the contrary, this is precisely what the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem proves: as long as the General Theory of Relativity holds, an initial cosmological singularity (delineating the boundary of space-time) is inevitable. The implication of this, of course, is that being arose from non-being; i.e., ex nihilo.
When cosmologists refer to the “universe” in this context, they mean the universe as defined by certain rules that appear to have developed along with the initial expansion.
I don't think the evolution of physical laws is something popularly accepted among scientists. Rather it is accepted that physical laws do not change over time, and if they were ever shown to change, it would merely indicate the existence of a deeper law that subsumes the original. As far as we know, the known physical laws were in place and operating at the singularity.
In such a case, any “necessary cause” could be located within those prior, unknown conditions; this is no more or less mysterious than positing a mysterious external cause (“god” ). Except that is satisfies the principle of Ockham’s Razor.
Indeed, there are quite a few possible scenarios out there, but none of them, as far as I am aware, satisfy the principle of Ockham's Razor better than the proposition, "God caused the universe." I'd be more than happy to discuss the pros and cons of your most favorite account of cosmic origin.
Adding a supernatural (extra-natural) category that is incommensurable to our intellect, in order to “explain” a natural state (the singularity) that is incommensurable to our intellect, only multiplies incommensurabilities without actually explaining anything.
If the universe began to exist, then it has a cause. There is nothing unintelligible about that. As I said, there are other possibilities besides God to account for the universe coming into existence, all of which we are able to discuss rationally and weigh in relation to the evidence at our disposal. The question is, which theory explains the evidence better than the others.
In fact, according to my understanding of the “big bang”, you are positing here, not just a cause, but a cause of a cause—since, for science, the “big bang” is the “first cause” of the universe as we know it, out of, not nihilo, but the mystery referred to as the “singularity”.
As far as I understand it, the singularity is merely the mathematical expression of the space-time boundary, not itself a first cause.
Good discussion. Hope all is well with you, Epi. 🙂
I expect you all to be theists by the time we're done. 😉
Thanks, life is wonderful! Same to you, vistesd.
25 May 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelI'm not sure if it's a multiverse or just a really really big universe. (Probably both). But what I was trying to say was that just because the big bang happened and it seems as if the residue from this "bang" makes up our entire universe, it is simply not true. Or at least cannot be verified.
1. anthing that becomes manifest has a cause yes. The unmanifested entities have no cause because they are eternal. They can manifest bodies for themselves and explore lower dimensions but essentiallt they are unmanifested and without a cause.
2. In this part of the almost infinite thing we call the unverse there was a big bang which is when our part ...[text shortened]... manifested things. From solid inert objects to less tangible "things" like relationships,etc.