But clearly, things can cause other things without the will to do so. A chemical reaction, for example. I see no reason to believe that this uncaused cause would necessarily have been trying to do what it did.
You might also want to read up on the “something from nothing” phenomenon of the Casimir effect and the violation of causality inherent in the Bell inequality experiment. Big Bang cosmology requires quantum mechanics, which has a habit of making human preconceptions about cause and effect, and spacetime itself, seem rather quaint
Yes. I judge it highly unlikely - less than one in a million (indeed, less likely than my inhabiting a computer simulation built by future historians, so gods will find it very difficult to convince me of their existence even by appearing before my very eyes). But even if gods did exist, the questions of why they exist rather than not and whether there are “laws” relating to which kind of gods exist and which don’t would still not be sidestepped (at least, not in any way which could not simply be applied to the universe itself).
Ah, apologies. But note that replacing “eye” with “universe”, “conscious mind” or even “subjective religious experience” does not qualitatively change the argument (as indeed I set forth here).
Of course. But the **Prime **Mover, having nothing acting upon him, would have to have volition coming from within.
I do not think that it can be proven that QM negates my argument. As far as the apparent appearance of particles, it is my understanding that the issue has to do with the location of a particle, and not it’s manufacture.
Then most of what you posted in your other thread is what you think to probably be the case. You couch many premises as facts. But your allowing for the existence of a Creator God shows them to be what they are: theories and opinions. Correct?
You lost me again here. Can you rephrase this? Thanks.
And here is a question, why do you use “gods” plural? Wouldn’t you think it more likely that there be one god rather than multiple gods. Sure there might be, but it strikes me as odd that someone who doubts the existence of God is more willing to accept “gods”. I see this as hostility to theism in general, probably stemming from a deeper hostility to the monotheistic religious expressions it has given birth to. Am I wrong?
“Make sense” by what measure? The laws of logic that hold within* this *universe? Are you even aware of the logical flaw there? Incidentally, are you aware of the meaning of completeness as it applies to logics?
There is every reason to believe otherwise. Physics tells us that TIME itself is a property of this universe. How can we even have causality without it? No causality, no “if…then…”. No “if…then…”, no modus ponens. No modus ponens, no deductive logic.
Because it’s not he best assumption. Sure, it seems like it’s the most comforting for you, but that’s just seductive reasoning on your part. It doesn’t agree with the facts as well as the alternative
Actually, I think it’s your ignorance of the state of the art that makes you doubt me. I think your knowledge of Physics is sadly lacking (and I say this as an utter layman)
No, this is false reasoning. The null hypothesis in this case is that no logic holds.
No.What if you have mu dimensions? What if the *very idea of “dimensions” *has no possible consistency?
You’re just not getting the idea that we can’t say anything, are you? That anything you say about “outside the universe” is meaningless. Including that it’s meaningless. I can see this by the way you sometimes substitute “worlds” for “universes”. We’re not talking about some Sci-Fi parallel universe here. Far, far from it.
Then the words you wanted were “is valid”, not “holds true”.
Not your argument, no, but your premise that everything requires a “beginning” and/or a “cause”.
Read up - these particles pop into existence from empty space, they weren’t simply “somewhere else”. And also read up on Bell and Aspect - noncausality and nonlocality are pretty inescapable.
No, we can still have facts even if gods are possible. Lightning still flashes whether or not it is natural electricity or divine energy. The planets still move whether or not angels push them or gravity stops them flying off in a straight line. And galaxies are still redshifted and the cosmic microwave background still has a characteristic spread regardless of whether the universe was divinely created or is solely natural and has never not existed. Sure, you can call it a “theory” or “opinion” that lightning and planetary motion are natural rather than supernatural, but his would be to discard Ockham’s Razor completely, and modern cosmology is merely an extension of this approach.
I am denying that supernatural beings are any kind of explanation in the first place since so many more questions, such as how and why they exist and whether there are laws governing such, are begged.
No - I consider a plurailty equally as improbable, I’m just covering the bases as far as world religions and those of history and prehistory are concerned. As the old saying goes, I just disbelieve in one more god than you. Why do you consider one more likely than many? Antyhing to do with the aforementioned Ockham, perchance?
I’m not.
Yes.
This would be a great question to put on a Philosophy test.
(I hate philosophy.)
Makes sense by the only measure of it we have: the same logic that has guided scientific inquiry since “Hey, I’m thirsty. The last time I was thirsty and drank that stuff flowing in the stream it helped, maybe it will help again.” What other metric do you propose we use.
And why don’t you point out the logical flaw?
Do you know—as a matter of FACT—that there was nothing preceding the big bang. That it was caused by nothing? Not even perhaps, another universe birthing this one?
It what way is it comforting to me? I pray to no God. My conclusion is based on the logic of what I’ve laid forth. That doesn’t mean its correct, but it is a reasoned position. I get no more comfort from it than you do from believing your position to be true. To attempt to ascribe other motivations to my position is a cheap trick on your part, in an attempt to portray my position as non-rational and emotional. As I’ve stated earlier in the thread, I think any position is best ended with the notion of “…but I may be wrong.” You might want to thinking about adding it to yours.
Which FACTS are you referring to?
And the god of hubris speaks.
So why don’t you lay out the FACTUAL premises you think I should adopt? Not opinion. NOt accepted theory. FACTS.
Do you mean exactly what you say here that “no logic” holds, meaning that there will be no logic one can depend on? Or that A logic will be present, not just the one we’ve come to depend on? And how do you KNOW that either is the case?
So what? I hope you would agree that we understand very little beyond our three dimension. There is not even agreement how many there are. The last I read the best estimate seems to be eleven, if I recall correctly. I have no doubt that we have much to learn in regard to what these extra dimensions mean for our understanding of the world. But just as we can use tools to understand two dimensions in our three dimensional world, through tools like the Pythagorean Theorem, why do you believe that we will be unable to do the same thing in a 4,7, or eleven dimensional world?
Because YOU say so? It is a possibility that our logic will not hold up. It is possible that it will hold up. Neither of us can KNOW which position is ultimately correct. But, somehow, you seem to think you do know. Interesting.
I’m interested to know why it is you’ve gone to God (and i’d point out that you’d probably do better at indicating you’re referring to a generic god rather than a specific god if you didn’t capitalise it, “God” generally being used to refer to the Christian God).
I mean, let’s break it down into its smallest parts. A Prime Mover must, logically, have the quality of not having been caused. I would disagree that it must have will, in that the creation of the universe could have been a mechanical process inevitably arising from the form of the PM. But it seems like to me you’re answering the question of how a PM, a god, may avoid itself being a creation by using a concept that isn’t. IOW, that the god isn’t itself a creation because you’ve defined it as such. Assuming that’s true (and I could easily be wrong); could you tell me a reason why I couldn’t suggest for example the existence of a prime mover singular particle? What logical argument would you use to refute a particle PM that you can’t also use on a god PM?
None. That’s my point - no metric. Don’t try and say anything about what’s outside the Universe, because it will be meaningless. “Outside the Universe” is a category error on a par with “Married Bachelor”, *within *the logic applicable in this Universe. Your logic.
You’re using logic to assert that logic holds. That’s circular reasoning. Logic isn’t a self-complete system, AFAIK - you need MP to prove MP.
No - I can’t know. There might have been, but I can’t say. Neither can you, neither can anyone. That’s what “Universe” means in this context. Physicists can speculate, but they can never know. *As soon as they know *of another universe, it ceases to be separate from the Universe. Do you see how that works?
That’s what I mean - you take comfort in a world where cause follows effect - that things always happen as they have. That logic always works. You can’t conceive of a place where logic doesn’t work.
Well, I don’t know what other basis you have for your position. By your own standard, which seems to be classic deductive logic, your position isn’t logical. It’s internally contradictory. But you haven’t addressed the contradiction.
I don’t see the need to tack on something that should be as self-evident as that. But add it in your head if it makes you happy. Is that the problem? You don’t think I’m being humble enough? Sorry, that’s not how I debate.
That the Universe is by definition self-contained. That we can not observe another universe at all. That Time as we know it is a property of this Universe only, by definition.
It’s not hubris to point out that you don’t seem to know the fields you’re attempting to argue in. I’m not trying to shame you, I’m replying to YOUR assertion that I lack a “wealth of knowledge,” when you know nothing about my knowledge of logic, only that I don’t agree with you on its applicability in this case.
Time is a property of the Universe. This is a fact. Sorry, this is a FACT. It’s the only one needed to posit possible noncausality, which is where we started this.
Either. Neither. And I don’t “KNOW”. That’s the whole point. No-one can “KNOW”.
Speak for yourself. I live in four dimensions, myself.
Depends who you believe. String theory is by no means universally accepted.
So far, they don’t seem to have any impact at all outside of cosmology conferences. They aren’t even experimentally proved, and may never be, or even be able to be. I’m skeptical of string theory, personally. I’ll stick with 4 dimensions for now, and upgrade when I need to.
There you go again, mistaking what I’m talking about - I’m not referring to this “world”, however many dimensions it has. I’m referring to anything OUTSIDE the Universe. What you’re talking about there, with your multi-dimension physics? That’s still THIS Universe. Not what I’m talking about at all. I have no doubt that the laws of logic and geometry hold for this “world”, however many dimensions it may have wrapped up around each other. That tells us nothing about OUTSIDE our Universe.
I didn’t invent noncausality. But even if I did, it’s built into the common definition of “Universe” that I* can’t* know.
You are still misunderstanding me, it seems. I’m NOT saying that logic definitely won’t be the same outside our Universe. That would be wrong. I’m saying you can’t say anything meaningful about it at all. I’ve repeatedly laid out why, with the idea that Time is a property of this Universe, not a multiversal property.
Answer me one question:
Without Time as we know it, flowing arrowlike from Past to Future, how can we have Causality?
I would invite all the theists here (and atheists, actually) to think about this sentence/question carefully. [ul][li]If you consider that it is equivalent to “Is there no such thing as ‘before’ the big bang?” I would agree that this is a question worth asking (though, admittedly, we don’t know the answer yet). If you consider that the question means “was there a nothing-to-something transition at the big bang?” I would strongly disagree that such a question even makes sense. Given that spacetime is a something, how can there be nothing then something without a “then”?[/ul] [/li]
Modern physics takes everything you ever thought you knew about “nothing” and turns it on its head. Indeed, the experiments at the Large Hadron Collider this year (hopefully!) could be said to be cutting edge nothingology.
Cite, that these particles are created from nothing and for no reason. Cite, for them not possibly popping into a paricular location from another location.
I take that to mean that they are not completely inescapable. Is that right?
You misunderstood me. You attempted to refute my position that there need be a beginning by pointing me to your thread where in your OP you state as facts that you now admit (correctly) are not FACTS. So, your refutation doesn’t hold the water you seem to think it did.
Yes those questions all arise, and are relevant only if we get past the first hurdle. Your first sense is patently false, meaning that IF everything was create by God or gods, that would indeed explain how it all came into being. We might still not now why or through what process, and they would be interesting to discuss, AFTER we get pass the first hurdle.
Applying Ockham here should lead you to say that there is one God, not many. It is a simpler construct.
I use God partly out of habit, partly out of the belief that if we were in fact created by him, he deserves the big G, and partly to combat the demeaning of Him by many atheists.
You raise a good point. I ascribe will to him because it seems the cleanest way to have an uncaused event. For instance, if, as you say, all came into being as a result of a mechanical process, we need to then ask what began the mechanical process. Correct? Your Particle PM is even more interesting to me. But then we have the problem of where did the matter (particle) come from? But if god has form, it cold very well be what you describe. But I don’t think physicality is, or can be, an aspect of a PM. There’s that matter of matter.
I pulled this from your first paragraph to say I am not completely clear on what you’re saying here. I think I got the gist of your paragraph, but wanted to make sure that I wasn’t missing something crucial. Am I?
Then how is it you find the desire to spend so much time telling me my view is wrong? When it may very well be correct? Odd, that.
True. But I have no reason to. What reason do you have the logic itself would fail us in another realm? True, either of us can be wrong, but I’d say that the most logical default position is that the logic framework that has proved itself so useful to understanding this realm would be just as useful in other realms. Not taking that position seems to be the illogical position—right here in this world.
Okay, what contradiction?
How do you speak with such certainty about things unknown yet continue to tell me that’s what I’m doing. To help this discussion I just might have to send you my Teleporter and have you travel around to these other universes and see what role Time plays and how it relates to our universe.
You misunderstood me. I don’t want to go back and track the exact exchanges, but I do remember that my comment had to do with why you would ignore logic, turn a blind eye to a wealth of knowledge. That was probably awkward. Maybe if had referred to it as “such a valuable tool” it would have been better. Though still not perfect. That said, my apologies if you took it as an insult in any way. That was not my intent.
No need to be sorry. We agree that time is a property of the universe—our universe. But you seem to also be of the opinion that time could not be part of other universes as well. So, as far as what role time plays elsewhere, you so far have listed no facts.
Again, we agree. But you seem to KNOW that I’m wrong. How? And again, I maintain that believing that logic will indeed hold up is the MORE logical position.
Nice. But you might in fact be living in 7, or 11, or 23…
Again, you misunderstood me. I was talking about other universes. Let’s say there is another universe somewhere. And that it has 17 dimensions. And two of those dimensions operate on a pane, like two of ours do. My point is that the tools we use to understand that two dimensional plane wold be as valid there as here.
But isn’t that, too, just an assumption?
I don’t see how we can. But we don’t know how we came into being. The big bang is mum on what caused the big bang or if nothing caused it. It explains what happens at as the big bang is happening. If the big bang is at Time = 0, all the theory is talking about T+1. So we do not know ANYTHING about what preceded it or caused it. Including the role time would play, whether it is related to the time we know or not.
Do, please, read the wikis - they’re a good place to start. Is there anything in them you think contradicts my statements? I don’t know how one could demonstrate a reason for partilces appearing in vacuo, but I assure you that they in fact do.
Well, the most brilliant physicists in the world haven’t. If you think you can, I’d be interested in discussing how here (and possibly sharing your Nobel prize).
The galactic redshift, CMB and modern cosmology show that you don’t need a beginning just as planetary motion, Newtonian gravity and General Relativity show that you don’t need planet-pushing angels. My OP is as factual as you get in science since one still can’t prove that planet-pushing angels don’t exist. But if you believed in them, or indeed predicated an argument on the possibility of their existence, your argument would be anti-scientific and counterfactual.
Which, of course, we never will.
And zero is simpler again, given the solely natural explanations of modern science.
Listen, I get where you’re coming from - I’ve participated in these threads many times. I would ask you only to genuinely explore the science related to the premises on which you’re basing your argument, in this case quantum physics and cosmology. At the moment you seem to be tilting at the rather weak “But they’re just theories!” windmill, which is what Evolution Deniers do and what Moving Earth deniers did in the 16th Century. I’d be happy to discuss anyhting you find difficult first time round.
As far as we know - and perhaps a likely possibility when considering Everett’s Many Worlds theory for one - is that our universe may be one of many within a multiverse or omniverse or what have you. This states that all possibilities play out, if a coin is flipped and we see heads it also has to be tails somewhere else. In other words, there is some possibility of other versions, other timelines, of the universe we live in.
Then there is another notion for the existence of multiple universes, a different one. A singularity such as a black hole, it is also suggested by quantum physics, may be singularities that create new universes in time / space outside our universe. That may be how ours came to be. Other universes may not have the same physical laws as ours, thus 2+2=4 could be gibberish in some other space with different laws of physics. This raises another possibility of more than one universe may exist.
It is just as likely that there is no prime mover, simply a multiverse that has always existed and always will even if individual universes come and go. In fact, we have more evidence for the existence of such things than we do of any gods, thus making it more likely. At least there is some math that works in describing our universe which suggests the possibility. No such evidence of gods.
I can’t see how the idea of a possibly infinite, eternal universe is anywhere less probable than a prime mover who is supposed to have the same characteristics. In fact, it’s a simpler answer that the universe may have been created by the natural processes of a multiverse opposed to having somecomplex being with a will who has to say the word to create us. No man has created a black hole (yet), yet these enormous singularities in our universe may be calving new universes at this very moment. We know that black holes exist as singularities.
No one has yet come up with a universal definition of god(s) much less pointed a telescope at him/them/it.
I’m saying the very HAVING OF A VIEW is wrong. It’s boneheaded. It can NEVER, EVER, EVER be confirmed. It is as useful as me having a view on what happens behind the scenes in Care Bear Land. More useless, even - Care Bear Land might possibly exist, somewhere. “Outside the Universe” does not.
Not would, might. Because of the “No Time, No Causality, No MP” thing.
This is NOT, NOT, NOT the logical default position. Do you even know what “NULL HYPOTHESIS” means?
BUT We not talking about this “world”!
That you use the rules of logic to prove logic. Self-circularity.
You didn’t answer my question - Do you know what “Completeness” means in this context?
If you get “such certainty” from me shouting “We CAN’T POSSIBLY KNOW!” then you are being somewhat willfully obtuse.
THERE. RIGHT ^ THERE is where you show that you just don’t get it - that you do not have the first iota of a glimmering of a clue of what I’m talking about. You are ignorant of the meaning of the term “Universe” in the context I’ve been using it. In which case talking with you about “before the Universe” has been wasted pixels.
I’m not ignoring logic. I’m using your own logic system to show that your own stance is illogical.
Not really - I’ve shown why you can’t use the tool to make itself. Deductive logics rely on some default axioms, one of which is MP. You yourself have admitted you can’t have MP without Time. So Outside, your tool is useless.
Your entire argument amounts to “Logic is a useful tool here, so I wish it was useful there”. I’m not saying it definitely isn’t useful there, I’m saying you can’t use it on There FROM HERE. It’s a logical impossibility. An oxymoron. A category error. A giant honking mistake.
OK, no problem. .
Time as we know it is EXCLUSIVELY a property of our Universe.
Not the SAME Time, no.
Yes, I have - Time as we know it is part of This Universe, BY DEFINITION. That is a fact. Everything else flows from that.
I don’t KNOW you’re “Wrong”, for whatever that means in this context. I just know that we CAN NEVER KNOW.
By the definition of Universe
No, it isn’t. It may be the experientially-correct opinion, I can’t fault you there. But I’ve been using your own system of logic to show that we can’t say what holds outside the universe:
- Deductive Logic requires Modus Ponens. (if A then B. A, therefore B)
- Modus Ponens requires Causality as we usually know it. (hell, MP is just a statement of causality really)
- Causality requires Time as we know it (arrow, past->future.)
- TAWKI is an exclusive property of this Universe (From the DEFINITION of Universe)
- So Outside the Universe there is no TAWKI (Negation of 4)
- So Outside the universe, no causality, no MP, no deductive logic.
There may be something else, something that looks an awful lot like DL, but WE CAN’T SAY, because we CAN KNOW NOTHING about Outside The Universe.
But definitely NOT 3.
That wasn’t clear from your statement. You do understand that the 11-dimensional superstring universe is still OUR Universe, yes?
So a triangle would still have angles that add up to 180°, type of thing? You’re aware that doesn’t even hold true in our Universe, right?Standard Pythagorean Theorem only holds for a particular, highly artificial set of conditions (there are more involved formulations for other geometries) - in some ways, Euclidean geometry is like Newtonian Mechanics. Very anthropocentric, useful on a day-to-day human scale, but breaks down in the larger Universe.
No, it’s definitional.
Good
And we can never know.
It CAN’T say.
NO. Are you listening to yourself? “Time we know” IS “Time”. There is no other Time, for us. “T-1” CANNOT EXIST. “preceded the Big Bang” is a meaningless term. You keep saying it, but it is WRONG. It is a category mistake . Like “Married Bachelor” or “Living Dead”.
That’s fair. But like I said, I would say that if people do get confused and think you’re talking about the Christian God, that could easily contribute to that. When you say demeaning, though, if you mean just demeaning in general fair enough, but if you mean by not capitalising a generic god we’re being demeaning, I would say (at least in my case) it’s really not intended.
We certainly need to ask what began the mechanical process, but I don’t see that itself being much different from a god. After all, a god is (usually) suggested to have thoughts, a personality; essentially these too are if not mechanical but moving functions, assumed to come into existence with the god. If we accept as possible the existence of a god with motivations in place, then it doesn’t seem a big jump to me to assume the existence of a PM likewise with mechanical functions working.
I’m not entirely convinced that a PM can’t have physicality, though. The problem essentially is what does it have physicality in, but then the universe has physicality despite general unknowing of what it’s in (or if that even makes sense as an idea). Besides, if we’re talking about the existence of a Prime Mover, then likewise the spiritual “realm” doesn’t exist either; a god is (I would guess) composed of some spiritual matter, and would likewise need to exist in a void at first.
Yeah, looking back on it I don’t think it was that clear either. Sorry!
Basically what I was trying to say was that you seemed to be answering the question of what a Prime Mover could be with a definition, and not an answer. I mean, it seems like your definition of God in this particular case can be summed up pretty entirely as “that which has no cause”, but without saying why it is or what other definitions it would match (though you’ve later expounded on that point). So it’s essentially answering the question “What was the first cause of the universe?”, “That which was first caused”. It’s true, assuming the presmises are correct, but it doesn’t mean we have an answer, just that we have an idea of what the answer would have to be like.
Oops. I meant to say I can’t see how the idea of a possibly infinite, eternal multiverse is anywhere less probable than a prime mover who is supposed to have the same characteristics.
I think we should just agree to disagree. You seem to derive some comfort in the fantasy that I have no experience with the subject. Expecting me to believe that the books on my bookshelves are not there, that the recollection I have of reading them is false, that I have never subscribed to and read either Discover or Scientific American, that I have not attended lectures held by cosmologists at Stanford University.
I have offered a proposition, you attempt to refute it with things you couch as FACTS in your other thread. Except we’ve since determined they are not facts. You attempt to crush my position by throwing theories at it that conflict with it to varying degrees. Some of which (QM) you claim says things it does not. So, I see no reason to abandon my position with what you have offered. I am sure there are a hundred other theories that would conflict with my position, and some of them will conflict with each other, so what? Where does that get us? Nowhere. You seek to confuse the forest by examining pine needles. Much of what you offer simply doesn’t interest me, in that my proposition is looking at things from a higher elevation, i.e, I believe there is a Prime Mover. Why, because of our understanding of causality.
I’lljust add, that intentionally or not, your posts are getting increasingly insulting. Either way, thanks for the back and forth, but I think we should just leave things where they are. Except for…
Oh, so you can see the future. Quick, get off the computer and go to the race track.
Nice try. The question went to one god versus multiple gods. You cited Ockham’s Razor and argued for multiple gods being at least as plausible as a single god. I’d ask you to be a little more careful with your future responses. I’m in no need of straw. But as I said, I think we should just agree to disagree.