the universe most likely didn't cause itself

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 219
#31
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
There’s only two possible options: that there is infinite regress by always answering yes, in which case our notions of causality breaks down; or you answer no at some point, and our notion of causality breaks down.

The real bottom line, is that to explain our existence requires a violation of our notions of causality. 
Are you saying the concept of an uncaused cause requires a violation of our notions of causality?
#32
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Tradesecret
I’m sorry - exactly what are you taking issue with exactly, and why.

If you read my post: the issue is that whatever the answer; our concepts of allowable metaphysics - causality - breaks down.

That’s demonstrably true.

Arbitrarily deciding that one solution is preferable to another, not because of a valid reason, but because selecting the place in which metaphysics breaks down is preferable to the conclusion you want to draw, is not coherent.
#33
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Are you saying the concept of an uncaused cause requires a violation of our notions of causality?
Well... uh... yeah.

That something can exist without a cause inherently violates the principle that each thing that happens was caused by something else.

Or specifically related to notions of time; because that’s a complexity that seems to always be ignored - Cause and effect have a temporal relationship - cause precedes effect: without  the existence of time, that notion of causality as cause preceding effect doesn’t hold. A “cause” that exists outside of the concept of time can’t be a “cause” in any way we understand the word because the very nature of timelessness invalidates the inherent premise of causality.
Topic's author
#34
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu
as was said, you're just substituting your set of assumptions with another set of assumptions. why should we believe your set of assumptions? as you've noted, every theory that can be posited is open to be distinguished from our principles of science. but isn't what i was arguing more in line with our current understanding of science? i say the universe's maxium energy at the big bang must have been caused by a higher set of energy, and there's nothing in the universe to think it could have did that to itself. you're the one making the bigger leap from science. and why is it faulty thinking to think an infinite ending must have an infinite beginning? again, i acknowledge that it's possible to criticize that argument, but it aligns with science more. you give no good reasons your assumptions are better. 
#35
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
I’m not introducing - in any of my posts- any assumptions at any point.

My post, if you read it, points out that your argument is based on a series of completely unsupported assumptions that you unilaterally declare as likely true - but for which you have absolutely no basis or reason to believe are true.

I covered the energy state one, but will reiterate.

You think that the universe must come from a higher energy state because that’s how things work inside the universe? On what basis can you make that assumption when you have no basis or grounding for drawing that conclusion of any kind? We have no baseline for comparison, can determine no properties, and indeed have no information whatsoever about whether the universe may have came from other than it would be “where the universe came from”. 

I am pointing out that you can’t make assumptions about how it works or doesn’t; because we have no baseline grounding on which to refer: how does one attempt to assume the limitations of physics of a metaphysical reality about which we know nothing?


Making any assumptions about what can and can’t be rules out in terms of physical laws or physical operation of the underlying metaphysical reality that contains the universe - is simply pulling assumptions out of your a$$ - probabilities, likelihood’s, validity of one assumption over another can simply not be assessed.



#36
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
How is this special pleading? If every effect must have a cause, you either have infinite regress or an initial uncaused cause. That does not automatically imply the Christian God, but you have the same problem to deal with. I hold that there is an initial uncaused cause. Which one do you hold to?
I don't hold to either. All the evidence points to time as we understand it beginning at the big bang. You're saying you know what caused the big bang and I'm saying I don't know. 

Are there any causes that were at one point not effects? 
Topic's author
#37
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu
you say we can't know. okay, ultimately we can't know, i agree. but we can infer from the science we do know, into good guesses. also, i realize you didn't argue a lot of your own assumptions, but everyone has an opinion, and if you hold to traditional atheistic opinions about the universe causing itself, then your assumptions are inferior. 
#38
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgmi
 if you hold to traditional atheistic opinions about the universe causing itself, then your assumptions are inferior. 
This proposition has literally nothing to do with atheism. 
#39
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
That something can exist without a cause inherently violates the principle that each thing that happens was caused by something else.
Here's where definitions are important. There are two ways that the Law of Causality is typically worded by people:
  • Everything must have a cause
  • Every effect must have a cause
Which definition are you using?
#40
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Are there any causes that were at one point not effects?
Yes. But just one.
#41
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
In other words, all causes were at one time effects, except for one thing?

Special pleading, particularly when you're not able to conclusively demonstrate that one thing. 
#42
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Special pleading, particularly when you're not able to conclusively demonstrate that one thing.
Please explain specifically how I am guilty of special pleading. Are you asserting that all causes must be effects? If so, how have you come to that conclusion?
#43
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I'm asking you: are there any causes that were not at one time effects? You said yes, only one thing. This is another way of saying "All causes were at one time effects, except this one special thing." That's special pleading. A universal statement that applies to everything, except one thing, and that one thing is only asserted to be special, not proven to be so. 
#44
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
Well... uh... yeah.

That something can exist without a cause inherently violates the principle that each thing that happens was caused by something else.

We have two things that have to be dealt with here, a system of effects which have causes and an infinite regression paradox. Everything within the known universe had a cause, yet at the same time there must exist a point in which those causes began, which brings us to WHY they began. This is not an excuse to bring God into the equation it is a logical calculation and God happens to fit such a postulation. We can trace everything back to a single moment of that which began a succession of events, to a point which preceded those events.
Lets not forget we have two distinct propositions here, God's existence and the formulation of the universe! Only one of those propositions need fit into the cause and effect scenario and the other must address the infinite regression paradox by logical necessity. They need not have the same principles to exist, as only one must meet subject 1's requirements and the other subject 2's requirements. As one can be shown to fit within the principle of cause and effect the other MUST have an answer for the infinite regression paradox. The same need not apply to the other until we fully understand that nature of existence. And we do, as it just so happens.
Before we go into that, lets be clear in what we have here. We have a created universe....or lets say we have a universe that began at some point through a succession of processes, and each moment of progression had an event that caused it. This would be the unfolding of our universe as we know it. Before that, we had a static Reality in which we can't say whether or not there was any cause that justified its existence. We know that God is postulated as infinite, eternal and having no cause. This doesn't necessarily mean that God exists in an infinite measure of time where there was an infinite past and an infinite future. Time is only relevant to the expansion of the universe as we measure that expansion. But before that, there was no measure of time, or a succession of events. God exists independent of time as we measure it so there is no infinite past or future rather there is a fixed, uncaused backdrop to a moving picture play within that reality we call the universe.

Or specifically related to notions of time; because that’s a complexity that seems to always be ignored - Cause and effect have a temporal relationship - cause precedes effect: without  the existence of time, that notion of causality as cause preceding effect doesn’t hold. A “cause” that exists outside of the concept of time can’t be a “cause” in any way we understand the word because the very nature of timelessness invalidates the inherent premise of causality.

Time is an illusion, it's only the measurement of events that take place within a simulation of matter moving through a succession of events on top of a static reality. We can measure those events by the nature of a beginning and an ending but it has no real relationship with eternity, only that it takes place within eternity. But eternity is not an infinite past and future that is a misconception due to our experience of life and death, that only takes place within our measure of physical phenomenon. The backdrop of the picture play of material phenomenon has independence from the events within our universe as they occur.

Say we have a "canvas" and that canvas represents a static, fixed Reality or an eternal platform (backdrop). And that canvas simply exists, it has no relationship to time as we measure it. Now, as we begin to paint on that canvas things begin to appear as layers of paint are properly applied until the final image is portrayed. Now imagine that time is only signified as an actual phenomenon once paint is applied and we can measure each stroke and work of art as the image appears. We can trace the image back to each preceding layer and that is our measurement of when that image began.

God exists independent of the events of the universe, and is the first cause. I can show what that means and how that occurs and by what methods but first I need you to see that we have two separate factors and that God does not need a cause like the universe needed a cause. Two different postulations, we know the universe needed a cause to follow the law of cause and effect within our universe. We do not know that God needed a cause, and we know that it does not follow logical thought because of the infinite regression paradox. So the nature of God being eternal  which is not relevant to time and the nature of the universe being temporal and relevant to time we have a clear working premise. 


#45
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
That's special pleading.

No it's not, we are following the outline of each nature (temporal vs eternal). In post 44 I go over the nature of the universe vs the nature of God. Only the nature of the universe needs to fit within the parameters of cause and effect. It does not logically follow that God has to be subject to a cause, and actually is quite stupid to assert. 

#46
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,210
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Q2: Why couldn’t your answer to Q1 apply to the universe?
Because I do not think it is reasonable to say the universe is eternal, do you?
It’s every bit as reasonable as claiming God is eternal. In fact it’s more reasonable, at least we know the universe exists.

My understanding is that the laws of physics have applied to the universe for as long as it has been in existence. Why should we assume otherwise?
I never said we should. You’re the one making the claim, I am simply explaining to you why your claim has no merit. The fact that there are possibilities other than the one you are asserting should be enough to make you stop and say “you know what, I don’t know how we got here”, but instead you take the side that those of us who do say that are irrational. That’s the issue here.

I never claimed that the law of cause and effect applies to God. You assumed that was necessary, while at the same time claiming universal ignorance of the matter. That was my criticism.
I don’t claim ignorance of the matter, I’m explaining to you that you are using a bunch of words that come together to form a coherent concept as effectively as combining oil and water.

You’re claiming God caused the universe, making the universe the effect. That is by definition a product of time, meanwhile you claim God presides outside of time. This is incoherent. In order for God to create anything there had to have been a point where that something did not exist, followed by a point in which it did. That’s called progression, as in the progression of existence, the literal definition of time.

He would just be an eternal unchanging Being.
More incoherence. An unchanging existence would, by definition, require the object in question to remain static. If God were static then he could not take any actions whatsoever, like creating something. Even the decision to create something would violate this, as that would require God to move from a state of being undecided into a state of being decided, in other words he would have to change.
Topic's author
#47
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@ludofl3x
In other words, all causes were at one time effects, except for one thing?

Special pleading, particularly when you're not able to conclusively demonstrate that one thing. 


if what he said could be true, how can it be a logical fallacy? it's just a theory. if he said it must be true without question, then maybe it's a fallacy. i dont know why, people like to run around calling everything a fallacy, but then again i shouldn't expect otherwise on a debate website. if a cave man thought maybe things could travel faster than light... he's not committing a fallacy, he's just speculating. 
Topic's author
#48
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@ludofl3x
 if you hold to traditional atheistic opinions about the universe causing itself, then your assumptions are inferior. 
This proposition has literally nothing to do with atheism. 
you are correct that atheism is just believing god doesn't exist, but you are incorrect in saying atheism isn't related to the idea of the universe causing itself, or always existing or any of that stuff. atheists usually hold those beliefs, even though there's no good evidence for them. 
#49
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,203
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
So who "started" the floaty about bloke of your picture book bible Mr E.

I would suggest that your GOD also contradicts science.


Hey.......He's just been floating about for ever.

Sure thing Batman.



And where did he find the raw materials?
#50
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
This is another way of saying "All causes were at one time effects, except this one special thing." That's special pleading.
This would only be true if the statement "All causes are effects" were true on its own. But that's not true. Do you think there is some principle that says causes must be effects? If so, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
#51
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
As I said - and you seem to have missed - we can’t infer from the science, we have no basis whatsoever to determine that inference is valid; and frankly the idea that some region or dimensional plane outside our universe operates by its rules refutes itself.

In reality the assumption is wholly unwarranted and unfounded; and your using this very assumption to draw your preferential conclusion.
#52
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
It doesn’t matter ; both are violated in the two ways I explained:

That something can exist without a cause inherently violates the principle that each thing that happens was caused by something else.

Or specifically related to notions of time; because that’s a complexity that seems to always be ignored - Cause and effect have a temporal relationship - cause precedes effect: without  the existence of time, that notion of causality as cause preceding effect doesn’t hold. A “cause” that exists outside of the concept of time can’t be a “cause” in any way we understand the word because the very nature of timelessness invalidates the inherent premise of causality.

#53
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Ramshutu
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you think there is some principle that says causes must be effects? If so, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
Big bang cosmology and the evidence thereof (CMBR). Because time is required for anything to happen, and as far as we can tell time began at the big bang, then all things that happen thereafter are the subsequent effects. I don't know what 'caused' the big bang, or if that notion even makes sense if time didn't exist. See Ramshutu's post, there's a very good explanation of it there. 


#54
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgmi
if what he said could be true, how can it be a logical fallacy? it's just a theory. if he said it must be true without question, then maybe it's a fallacy. i dont know why, people like to run around calling everything a fallacy, but then again i shouldn't expect otherwise on a debate website. if a cave man thought maybe things could travel faster than light... he's not committing a fallacy, he's just speculating.
It's not a theory, it's a guess. The cave man isn't working on a theory, he's not trying to prove himself wrong, he's just guessing, and without any work behind that, as you point out, he's speculating. There's literally no reason for anyone besides the cave man to think he's right, and his speculation has no impact on anyone else.

The reason it's special pleading is as follows. "All things abide by X, except this one thing." That in and of itself is NOT special pleading. The special pleading comes in when I ask for a demonstration. First, demonstrate all things abide by X. Great! Success. Now, demonstrate that this one thing is NOT in any way governed by X. Not say, DEMONSTRATE. Show. THe problem is there's nothing to show, because it 'exists outside of space and time', which even if it were coherent as a concept (as space and time are both required to meet the two basic conditions of existence), I must then ask "even if this one thing cannot be seen, can I at least see something else that exists outside of space and time, so that I can tell it's possible?" The answer is of course no, there's only one thing that exists outside of space and time. EVERYTHING else exists inside of it. The one thing is an undemonstrated cause, the only one of its kind, and cannot be demonstrated, it is exempt from conditions that literally every atom in the universe abides by...and is therefore 'special.' Using that as an argument without demonstrating ANY of it, basically to stop the chain of questions without earning that stop, is appealing to this unique specialness, or special pleading. 
#55
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
Does time have a beginning?
#56
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Because time is required for anything to happen, and as far as we can tell time began at the big bang
If time is required for anything to happen, and there was no time before the Big Bang, how did time begin at the Big Bang?
#57
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
It doesn’t matter ; both are violated in the two ways I explained:

That something can exist without a cause inherently violates the principle that each thing that happens was caused by something else.
It absolutely matters. If the Law of Causality states, "Everything must have a cause," then every cause must also be an effect (or have a cause). But that is not how the Law of Causality should be defined. It should rightly be defined, "Every effect must have a cause." That is true is based on definitions.

The reason you cannot have a married bachelor is because they logically contradict each other. Similarly, you cannot have an effect without a cause simply because of the definitions. Nor can you have a cause without a following effect. The Law of Causality is simply drawing upon the fact that an effect without a cause is a logical contradiction based on definitions.

But it is not definitionally true that every cause has a cause. You have to establish that truth some other way.

So how did you come to the conclusion that every cause must have a cause? Why must that be true?
#58
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Try reading "A Brief History of Time", by someone way more qualified to explain it than I am. 
#59
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm sure that is an interesting read. But if you cannot explain how time began without time, then I don't think your accusation of special pleading has any basis.
#60
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
But if you cannot explain how time began without time, then I don't think your accusation of special pleading has any basis.
One doesn't follow from the other, but that's fine. It doesn't change that you're using special pleading. I don't know why, if you're really interested in it, you wouldn't want to bother looking up the spark notes version (I'll do it for you: http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/time-and-the-big-bang/) but would rather some random forum poster who admits to not being qualified to explain it in any informed way explain it to you, unless...wait, are you not interested in trying to understand it, and would rather just shrug your shoulders and pick your own explanation? That can't be it, can it?