You notice that this already assumes time.
Please provide an explanation without time - that’s what you are having us accept as coherent.
I don’t get this - you refuse to accept what has been empirically validated because, as a layman, you don’t accept it.
Yet you accept an explanation that makes no sense because you some how feel that a nonsensical explanation must be the default??
You keep asserting that ‘said thing’ must be X, Y, or Z and that these things make sense.
Please explain what they mean.
Because I’m not smart enough. Will you accept “Because it’s what Stephen Hawking and a slew of other physicists argue is what the evidence most strongly suggests?”
Either something caused the universe, or it didn’t. You’re saying there’s a third option? Please make it clearer?
I’m not sure why you keep repeating that your view is coherent and mine is incoherent. Can we assume that neither of us are intentionally posting incoherency?
I’m not really interested in your meta commentary on the state of this discussion. My first post in this thread actually asked if someone could explain to a layperson like me how quantum mechanics has already shown that you can have uncaused events. But yeah, you got me, what I’m actually more interested in doing is admitting that my views make no sense.
…
Convince me that uncaused events are possible and have been demonstrated, and I will relent. For now, I’m sticking to both causation, and the subsequent inferred conclusions about the origins of space, time and matter that stem from it.
You’re over thinking it.
All I can do is type it out again. If A creates B, then B is distinct from and forms no part of A. It’s basic logic. Logic 101. There’s nothing to refute here, these should be taken as axioms. “Explain A!!” and “A is non-sensical!!” both fail as a refutation.
No, because it’s unclear how many physicists actually argue that. For example Julian Barbour doesn’t hold this view. Further, if we are going by what Stephen Hawking says, then you have to also accept his position that the universe did not need a ‘cause’.
You are being inconsistent.
The dichotomy that you now present (either something caused the universe or it didn’t) doesn’t match what you’ve said earlier. In this dichotomy, I would say that it’s clear that the universe was not caused.
You would then think that I mean that the universe was the result of just popping into existence - which is clearly not what I mean, since I’ve been putting forth a block universe idea.
So, what’s on the table is this:
- Magic caused the universe (your explanation)
- The universe popped into existence.
- The universe always was (block universe, my preferred explanation)
THAT is what I mean by three choices.
I keep repeating it because I brought up the incoherency and you ignored it. I will keep repeating that your view is incoherent until you resolve the incoherency. Right now your view presupposes time while also presupposing a creation of time (which requires time).
I don’t know if you are doing this intentionally or not - I’ll believe you when you say you aren’t, but that doesn’t mean that your view is suddenly coherent.
You don’t seem interested in actually fleshing out your view either. You simply assert that it’s to be taken seriously. Well, if you want it taken seriously, then defend it.
Why exactly do I need to do that, again? My view doesn’t require uncaused events.
As a side note, why do you get to simply assume your view is coherent while dismissing alternative views as incoherent? That’s inconsistent.
Again, you can believe anything you like - but if you wish to discuss various views and have your view taken seriously, then you need to explain it. I don’t particularly care what view you take, but this attitude that your view is the default view, even though it makes no sense, is really off putting.
Ah, I see, so your view should just be accepted, while the alternative should be scrutinized.
If “B” is time itself, then your scenario is contradictory, since A creating B presupposes B already exists!
That’s basic logic.
You are presupposing a metaphysics of time, as I’ve repeatedly said, AND you are then contradicting your own presuppositions.
You now seem to be saying that we should take, as axiomatic, an absolute view of time - which was empirically refuted by Einstein.
Have you studied logic, Meatros? If A creates B. That’s the starting assumption. Then the inferences begin. Note the ‘if’. IF A creates B.
If A did not create B, and maybe it didn’t, and that’s great, but you’re having another discussion.
However, if A created B, or if something created time, then something is timeless.
This is elementary logic, and requires no explanation of how something or how A works, or of how any of it is coherently possible to you.
Here’s what I don’t get, Dorsk writes this:
Okay, so there never was a time when the universe wasn’t. Kelly, you write this:
If there never was a time when the universe wasn’t, then how is it possible that a ‘said entity must exist’ to create the universe?
It seems that Dorsk scenario posits a universe that requires no creation, yet you are trying to smuggle one in there.
Yes, a few different systems, which have you studied?
Right, however in order to be valid, “A” could not presuppose “B”. Understand?
To put it in other terms, you are saying:
Socrates impregnates Shelly, shelly gives birth to Socrates.
Yet, in order to give birth to Socrates, shelly would have had to have sex with Socrates, right?
Get it?
sigh you are trying to make the impossible, possible, by simply assuming it is.
You are begging the question - which makes your ‘logic’ unsound.
You are essentially attempting to smuggle in this ‘timeless’ concept which you have not defined.
Kelly, please check this out:
No, you’re misusing this logical fallacy, I am not arguing If A creates B.. therefore A.
I am arguing if A creates B, then B != A, and that is a perfectly valid, correct and proper example of logical inference.
How does A create B without presupposing B already exists?
I’m not misusing the fallacy.
You are doing the following:
You are presupposing that timeless causation makes sense.
Please explain how it does. How does God (or whatever) create time without using time?
How do you create the succession of events without creating an event?
You need to start explaining how what you are proposing is coherent. Right now you are simply presupposing that it is.
Please explain what you mean when you say:
An immaterial entity that exists at no time and at no place, does nothing, yet creates everything.
To rephrase the entire thing, here is what I think you are saying - if not, please correct me:
Time = succession of events
Here is ‘reality’ (as I interpret you):
Timeless state -> Creation of time/universe/everything
What you see above is a succession of events; at one point there was timelessness at another point there was time. So timelessness preceded time.
If “Time” is the succession of events, then nothing can logically come before it, since that would be part of the succession of events.
Tell me how I’m mistaken, because I really cannot understand your view here.
My understanding is mutually creating and destroying ghost particles are observable phenomena, not just theoretical or speculation. Quantum mechanical properties of electrons are firmly established and have been for decades.
If you define cause narrowly: “intentional act by a being” then almost nothing in the universe has a cause. If you define it broadly: “the conditions were present to allow the thing to happen”, then there need not be a universal creator, just conditions that allowed the universe to exist.
I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like you’ve started with conclusion that there was a timeless creator of the universe and have constructed a Goldilocks set of criteria that will result in your conclusion being the only one that fits.
But it presupposes A. If B just is B, without a creator, then B can do all sorts of things (including change its properties dramatically). It seems to me you have an “A of the Gaps”.
Personally, as much as I read, I’m not sure questions about the beginning of the universe are actually answerable. That’s not to say they’re mysterious, but that they are nonsensical. I can ask “Is the king of France bald?” but it’s not a question that can be answered. “What happened before there was time?” and “What existed before anything existed?” and “What exists outside of existence?” are probably words that make sense individually, but simply don’t reflect a rational question when arranged like that.
Kelly, don’t feel obliged to answer this post, as I feel you’ve got your hands full. I just wanted to register some resolving thoughts.
I think you have some assumptions here that are not shared by KellyCriterion.
You seem to be assuming that A creates B is some kind of “begat” relationship, where A must necessarily be prior to B. This is not necessarily the case; even within our current understanding of the universe causes and effects can be simultaneous, let alone if we start theorizing about supernatural entities.
That said, I am not advocating god of the gaps. As I said earlier, I don’t think the god idea answers anything here; it just pushes “Why a universe?” to “Why a god?”.
Just speaking personally- you’re not going to debunk the entire Creationist movement and you’ll probably never convince anyone to give up on Creationism. There is a saying that goes “you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.” This doesn’t have anything to do with you and you shouldn’t take it personally. Don’t let other people’s opinions bother you that much.
This is what WLC supports - I’m not sure it’s coherent, to be honest. I’ll grant that it’s a separate scenario than what I’m positing. In order to have it taken seriously, I need it fleshed out a bit. (Edited to add): Not that I’m the final arbiter of what should be taken serious. Just, for me, I don’t find his ‘bowling ball v pillow’ example very elucidating.
Right, fair enough.
As another note, Craig, and his KCA, both require presentism to be the case. Craig has explanations with regard to simultaneous presents (I believe he denies them) and with regard to presentism v relativity. I believe that his take is that our instruments that measure time are mistaken.
I could be wrong though - I haven’t read his formal defense.
We’ve mentioned the quantum foam several times now. It is the example of uncaused events that you’re looking for.