who made god?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I fully agree with you on that point, but you are yet to retract your statement in other threads that causality is a well known and logical fact. Do you admit now that it is not so and in fact there is no scientific reason to think that it is?

At the moment the universe looks as if it has been formed via a causal process with the "event" at the big bang leading to subsequent events one after the other to lead us to where we are now. Therefore, it seems for the moment that causality is fundamental to the universe.This may be proved wrong in the future but I see no reason to retract anything.

Originally posted by knightmeister
At the moment the universe looks as if it has been formed via a causal process with the "event" at the big bang leading to subsequent events one after the other to lead us to where we are now. Therefore, it seems for the moment that causality is fundamental to the universe.This may be proved wrong in the future but I see no reason to retract anything.

As already pointed out, at the most basic level of quantum mechanics, causality is not necessary at all. I suggest you reread(?) the Davies article I cited. http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html

It turns out, however, that there are physical events which do not have well-defined causes in the manner of the everyday world. These events belong to a weird branch of scientific inquiry called quantum physics.


Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don't experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.


A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality.


The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=================================

I think he talked about "the realm of metaphysics". He never said anything about the existence of "metaphysical entities" nor have you shown that they existed in the past nor is there any obvious reason to think that they did.

===================================

In the realm of metaphsics we assume would e (fairly or unfairly?)

Quite a few other possibilitites can be considered.[/b]

To be clear, I was using the third definition of metaphysics here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metaphysics i.e. " A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment."

I never suggested that there exist any "metaphysical entities" nor gave these hypothetical things any attributes like being powerful. Of course, one can give things that can't be observed, analyzed or experimented on by scientific methods any attributes you choose to (so long as they are not self-contradictory) and not be "wrong". That is, of course, the point.

Originally posted by rwingett
You get no points for being cute. You must choose one of us, or explain why you presumably think we're both right.

No.

Originally posted by knightmeister
At the moment the universe looks as if it has been formed via a causal process with the "event" at the big bang leading to subsequent events one after the other to lead us to where we are now. Therefore, it seems for the moment that causality is fundamental to the universe.This may be proved wrong in the future but I see no reason to retract anything.

At the moment the universe looks as if ...
To you maybe, but you are implying that it is obvious to everybody, which is not the case.

Therefore, it seems for the moment that causality is fundamental to the universe.
A "therefore coming out of vague "looks as if" speculation? Oh, I forgot, you don't know what logic is.
As far as the most popular current theory's are concerned eg Quantum Mechanics - causality is not fundamental to the universe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]At the moment the universe looks as if ...
To you maybe, but you are implying that it is obvious to everybody, which is not the case.

Therefore, it seems for the moment that causality is fundamental to the universe.
A "therefore coming out of vague "looks as if" speculation? Oh, I forgot, you don't know what logic is.
As far as ...[text shortened]... s are concerned eg Quantum Mechanics - causality is not fundamental to the universe.[/b]

Ok , I must be mistaken then. All those documentaries about the big bang , then the cooling and formation of matter , on to the formation of great clouds , then the early formation of stars , supernova , then planets , biological life etc etc

How dumb of me. It certainly looked like a series of caused events one leading logically to another in a sequence. Did I miss a trick?

Originally posted by no1marauder
As already pointed out, at the most basic level of quantum mechanics, causality is not necessary at all. I suggest you reread(?) the Davies article I cited. http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html

It turns out, however, that there are physical events which do not have well-defined causes in the manner of the everyday world. These eve ...[text shortened]... have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.

The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
-----no1 marauder-----

Great . Now go away and think about what that might mean regarding human decision making , choices and free will. Afterall , this nature you talk of exists in our heads and brains do they not? (in the form of the atoms that make up our brain cells) Is thisnot a good argument for the possibility of free will or did you not mean that kind of spontaneity?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , I must be mistaken then. All those documentaries about the big bang , then the cooling and formation of matter , on to the formation of great clouds , then the early formation of stars , supernova , then planets , biological life etc etc

How dumb of me. It certainly looked like a series of caused events one leading logically to another in a sequence. Did I miss a trick?

Yes, you missed a trick. A very big one. Its called quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Great . Now go away and think about what that might mean regarding human decision making , choices and free will. Afterall , this nature you talk of exists in our heads and brains do they not? (in the form of the atoms that make up our brain cells) Is thisnot a good argument for the possibility of free will or did you not mean that kind of spontaneity?

It is a good argument for the existence of free will as defined by some of us. However, it has nothing to do with the free will as described by you in previous threads.