Total posts: 827
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
A formal debate is a fight. An informal forum is not a fight.
Why at all should I waste time conversing with you if you are not even man enough to fight me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
it will all turn out in me easily owning your Bible ignorance and your RUNAWAYS from same!
YES. OF COURSE. THEN OWN ME THEN!!!!!
If you crush me, the voters will not vote for me. Do you understand? I repeat: if you crush me, the voters will not vote for me. Do you understand?
How on Earth can you claim that my debating skills are at the diaper stage when you think that you would loose a formal debate against me. YOU, NOT I, have been the one making blatant statements of arrogance. Therefore, YOU are the one that is afraid to debate me. You know that any sane human would vote for me in a real debate. Hypocrite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
@fauxlaw
.
BrotherDThomas, who is too scared to have an official debate. Who is being hypocritical by at the same time accusing me with 100% confidence but still not believing that he can beat me in a public debate. Maybe he just thinks that "satan" makes me win regardless of how much he beats me. Regardles, I thought God was stronger than Satan. Please debate me properly and pray to God that you will win -- and I will do the same -- and then the true victor will have God making the votes reflect the result.
Understood? Huh!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I have never seen BrotherDThomas before.
He seems to have an interesting strategy, where he always repeats some mantra of personal association with his fellow debaters:
FAUXLAW, the runaway from biblical axioms, and now the #1 Bible fool upon this forum, and who has called Jesus a LIAR many times,FAUXLAW, the runaway from biblical axioms, and now the #1 Bible fool upon this forum, and who has called Jesus a LIAR many times,Benjamin, who slaps Jesus in the face by being satirical to Christianity,Benjamin, who slaps Jesus in the face by being satirical to Christianity,Benjamin, who slaps Jesus in the face by being satirical to Christianity,FAUXLAW, the runaway from biblical axioms, and now the #1 Bible fool upon this forum, and who has called Jesus a LIAR many times,
I wonder if he simply writes this line of personal association the first time he engages with a person, and then just copy-pastes this line every time he then speaks to that person again. Regardless of how he does this, Bro's behaviour is interesting, and should maybe be studied by an expert in human psychology. Maybe Bro is suffering from some rare mental illness -- or maybe he just suffered from arrogance due to being amongst the 1% "TRUE" Christians. Regardless, I think about challenging him to a formal debate, in order to get an easy win due to the conduct category. LOL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Are you FU*KING kidding? How ungodly can you get little boy minion of Satan?
I always try as hard as I can to insult God. But you have clearly defeated me in this competition. Cursing and accusing is cheating, though, so I don't consider your victory legit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Paul argued that "A foolish person boasts"
What have you said about yourself?
I as a TRUE Christian do follow ALL of Jesus’ inspired words within the scriptures
I am sorry, brother Thomas, but Paul would classify you as a foolish person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
@fauxlaw
Brother, I wish to understand your divine words of wisdom.
Unfortunately, the concentration of curses and demonic references in your argument makes me question the real authority behind your arguments: God, or satan?
...
Get recked in the insult-war, noob!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
A state of non progression is to be infinitely frozen in time. That is mutually exclusive with any of the normal traits associated with a god.
Ok I agree.
BTW that was my objection against the cosmological argument from my first post. Funny that I ended up defending instead of objecting to the cosmological argument.
How the turntables.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
The biblical axiom above explicitly shows that I as a TRUE Christian can act in the same manner as Jesus did to verbally abuse all fake Christians
This you have written in your description. Firstly, I find it hard to believe that you of all people is a true Christian, while 99.99% of other Christians are fake.
Secondly, when did Jesus "verbally abuse" anyone? Critique is not the same as abuse -- unless you didn't know basic grammar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
OBJECTION: What is the definition of"pseudo-christian"
OBJECTION: How do you rank foolishness?
OBJECTION: You cannot be sent to debate.art, as it has no location
OBJECTION: Jesus didn't send you to debate.art, at least you have provided no evidence to support that assertion
It seems like you have a cocky attitude. Not only do you assert as a fact that your religion is true, but you also imply as self-evident that your specific interpretation of religion is true. All of these fallacies you committed discredit your argument. Furthermore, you fail to recognize the OBVIOUS fact that my post is satirical -- not a statement of real opinion. Having exposed all of these weaknesses I can rightfully claim that YOU are the #1 most dumbfounded Christian, as even an atheist would be more reasonable than to try and fail to debunk my satire.
Created:
Posted in:
Theologians still reject the obvious conclusion that God, being a trinity, should indeed be called "they".
Studies have found that 63% of known gods identify as males. While statistically, God is more likely a male than a female, no definitive answer have been given. Instead, they simply assume that God is a male. Nobody has ever considered that God is both the father and the son -- the missing link often called "holy spirit" is most certainly a female.
This is just speculation of course, as 0% of omnipotent Gods have been studied, due to the insane holy light that they emit. The most accurate tool of measurement, human eyes, cannot look at God's face, and nobody has ever volunteered to look at the holy parts of God's body. Historians suggest that Satan was banished from heaven after finding out the true gender of God. But as always, demonnews.org is not the most reliable source available.
The word of God does not provide a clear answer to the question, this includes all versions and publications such as Bible, Quran, Torah, Apocrypha, Book of Mormon, etc. It is therefore regrettable to call God a male without the theory being confirmed: God still has no known gender. The official reasoning is that God's aggressive, impulsive and self-centred personality leads us to believe that God has the psychology of a male rule of a barbarian tribe. A lesser-known reason is that males are the superior sex and that the perfect God would be a male if he had a gender.
The last reason you will find is that Jesus Christ was confirmed to be a male in 823 AD, after intense studies performed by a group called Christians -- who are almost indistinguishable from another group called Muslims. The only difference is that Muslims still claim that Jesus was a mammal while Christians call Jesus a hybrid species. This discussion is quite irrelevant though as God's DNA is still being studied. Experts have estimated that the entire genome of God might be infinitely long, in which case, Jesus would not be the true God because the divine part of his DNA would simply not fit inside his cells.
No need to worry though. After an official statement from God himself at the hospital bed last week, intellectual circles concluded that science will have killed God before he can send Messiah back to Earth. This means that God will never actually be able to settle this gender issue -- so your subjective opinion about the gender of God will never be proven wrong. The only downside is that hell will still be active even after God is dead, so there is no reason to leave your religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No.
Your question is all about semantics.
God exists independently, which means that his existence is not based on a previous iteration of himself. He is constant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Progression: a sequence of numbers in which each term is related to its predecessor by a uniform law
No, God is not in progression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Is the universe subject to causality?
This is actually the entire point of the argument. If one can prove that the universe is subject to causality, then one has proven that the universe was caused by something independent -- being God, or something god-like.
Not that which exists within it, but the universe itself.
I can, in fact, do exactly that.
The only option for the universe to be independent (aka God-like) is for it to be eternal in time. But in fact, it is expanding, and there is a finite amount of energy inside the universe. This means that IF the universe is eternal in time, every instance of energy would be infinitely far apart. Since that is not the case, we know that the universe is not eternal. The only option for it to be eternal is a cyclic universe -- which contradicts modern science and also means that the universe would be dependent on previous iterations of itself.
P1: Every point in time is dependent on the last point in time and the laws of physics
P2: Nothing can be dependent on itself.
C: The first point in time must be dependent on something external
It all boils down to this simple problem:
- Something independent must be the reason something exists at all
- If the universe was "independent", that would be a false independency
- The universe cannot be truly independent, since its dependent on previous iterations of itself
- An independent universe is actually just a universe dependent on itself - which is nonsensical
- God, or something god-like, CAN indeed be genuinely independent.
- God is not dependent on himself, he is genuinely independent
- Anything dependent on God can both have a finite beginning and follow the laws of causality without becoming a paradox
- Thus, the only way NOT to believe in a paradox is to believe in God, or something god-like
Obviously, God is not a logical deduction, but one needs to believe in the existence of the traits he posses, like true independency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
you are deliberately ignoring my reasoning
I am not. You cannot claim that logic breaks down, you have simply asserted that SCIENCE breaks down -- to which I would agree.
the things which INFORM logic break down
We cannot know which premises to use without observation, but the logical process itself is completely sound. This means that any argument is sound and valid IF all possible explanations are covered. Let me demonstrate:
P1: A human dies
P2: War kill humans
C: Human was killed by war
The fallacy in this argument is not the logical process, but that premise 2 was chosen arbitrarily, ignoring other options.
Is this what you accuse my argument of? That my argument arbitrarily makes unsound premises?
Considder this very same type of syllogism:
P1: A human is found with a bullet in his chest
P2: Guns are only fired by humans
C: The humans was killed by another human
Now, this syllogism is also sound. But the second premise does not cover all options, so it is false, right? No. We have observable facts to support premise 2. This is the process called SCIENCE, and this process breaks down at BB, but logical syllogisms don't.
UNLESS you have information or precedents to draw from
I disagree.
In science, we need DATA to make an argument, because the possibilities are nearly endless. But in this discussion, we are talking about dualistic logic. We can discuss all possible scenarios and analyze their impacts. We don't need specific evidence to assert any premise, because we can simply brute force through each single uncertainty. If you can cover all possible scenarios, you don't need information to make your logic sound, you simply have to use sound methods to analyze the validity of each option. You accuse me of arbitrarily using unprovable premises -- an accusation that falls apart when I actually test ALL possible scenarios.
For example, God either exists or he doesn't. This is not an observable fact -- it is self-evident, to claim otherwise would be a denial of A = A.
Thus, the method I used is at least as valid as that of the scientific method -- after all, science doesn't consider ALL possible options.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Does logic break down at Big Bang simply because our scientific models are no longer adequate at that point?
Logic: Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
So the answer is no. A = A, that is the basic law of logic. This means that the logical argument I am proposing is valid, it is a strict syllogism: "A = B, B = C, thus A = C"
If A=A breaks down at BB, then my argument is false. However, you have provided no proof to suggest that A =/= A before BB. Why would we assume that simply because our mathematical models break down that A stops being A? Remember that my argument does not rely on any kind of empirical assumptions, it simply assumes that A = A.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The idea of something causing reality amounts to arguing that existence was caused by something that doesn’t exist.
I might have been unclear. By "reality", I meant the material reality.
Exist: to have real being whether material or immaterial
I claim that since all material things have a cause, that the material reality is caused by an immaterial one: God, or something god-like.
The laws of logic do not exist. They are descriptions of the limitations of things that exist.
They ARE the limitations.
There could be infinite “Gods”
Actually, there could be one infinite God or your proposal, or anything in between those two extremes. The point is, Gods defining characteristic necessarily belongs to SOMETHING. Because if this trait, independency, doesn't exist, then the existence of something dependent doesn't make any sense. The only way to claim that something independent doesn't exist is to claim that NOTHING exists.
If you can disregard causality for one thing then you can disregard it as a law
Causality: the idea that anything that starts to exist has a cause
I don't disregard causality by claiming God has no cause. God has no beginning, and the law of causality doesn't require him to have a cause.
I think your objection is that God, or something god-like, isn't proven to be immaterial. I agree, I haven't proven that energy cannot be this "independent" thing. But we DO know that something independent exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
we have NO WAY of evaluating the truth value of ANY statement concerning it.
You say that since MATHEMATICS don't apply, logic doesn't apply. That is non-sequiter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
We have already covered all options. All possible uncertainties are already embedded inside the options presented. YES, we do not know what the state of the universe was before Big Bang. HOWEVER, all possible states of reality are taken into account, and fit into these categories: caused or uncaused.
Tell me, what do you actually mean by these "we don't know" arguments? That logic is not valid before Big Bang?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If this is the case it does not necessitate that the universe has any cause and it also does not necessitate that there was only one cause.
If the universe did not exist before BB, it has by definition a START. And anything with a start has a cause.
The causes is either:
- God, or something similar
- Something else with a cause
- This thing requires a cause -- and does not solve the problem
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You ignored my point that there doesn’t have to be one chain.
You are making things unnecesarilly complicated.
Of course, there might be multiple multiverses of multidimensional universes connected by quantum strings - but that doesn't affect the argument that any chain of events must have a cause. In other words, the argument that a multiverse needs a cause is the same argument that a universe needs a cause. Yes, OUR chain of events might be caused by another chain of events, but that chain causing our chain would still require its own cause. Essentially, your objection doesn't even affect the argument, you are simply trying to make things so complicated we can't talk about it.
something can exist without a cause
This is not my argument.
To claim that all things have a cause is nonsensical -- how do you explain the laws of logic, do they have a cause?
I claim that anything that STARTS to exist has a cause. This is not the same as saying ALL things have a cause.
if you do not accept it as a law then God is no longer required.
Nothing can START without a cause. The idea that things start without a cause is inherently bs, as nothing uncaused has never been observed to START. Think about it, if things can start without a cause then why doesn't this happen all the time? If matter caused itself, why doesn't it pop into existence everywhere? Because it is limited, the matter we see today is caused by previous instances of energy, this means that there is a loop: energy causes matter which causes energy which causes matter which causes energy which causes...................................infinity.
But when does this loop stop? Did matter (or energy) cause itself? Can things pop into existence to then start causing other things to exist? No, that's nonsensical.
Consider this problem:
- Energy is independent (aka eternal), and no more or less can exist of it from one instance to another
- Our universe is expanding
- Thus, if energy is eternal, it should be infinite distance between some energy and some other energy.
- Alternatively, one would need to say that energy existed eternally, but our universe did not, which is nonsensical as energy is just a WAVE in the universe-field, according to quantum field theory.
In conclusion, if we accept that something independent started the chain of causality, we are NOT undermining the law of causality, neither are we allowing energy to be uncaused, and neither do we make God unnecessary. There are still only two candidate causes for reality: "God, or something similar", and "no cause". So either you claim that nothing can cause something, or you accept that God or something similar exists, or you deny the laws of logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The Big Bang, a soup of energy that expanded and became our universe.
Where did this initial state come from? Here are the alternatives:
1. The universe existed BEFORE Big Bang
- Variants include a multiverse, a cyclic universe, and all possible scenarios of pre-universe universes
- The meaning of this alternative is simply that causality and time existed before Big Bang, in another form
- In other words, this theory suggests BB has a caused cause: a previous iteration of energy and time
2. The universe did NOT exist before Big Bang
- This option asserts that God, or something god-like, created the universe
- This option means that time and causality starts at Big Bang
- This options means that BB has an UNCAUSED cause
These are the only alternatives if we accept that "nothing" is not a valid cause.
I don't understand why you keep claiming that these options must be demonstrated. I have explained why any other alternative is logically impossible. Please raise a logical objection that makes the conclusion not self-evident before you demand an empirical demonstration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am just evaluating how valid and sound your argument can be said to be.
You are a truly honest discussion partner.
I think you are no longer evaluation the argument, but the implications -- because the very existence of an independent being starting causality is the conclusion of the argument, not its premise. After accepting a first cause exists, we have different candidates for what an independent being might be. Why favour one over another? Why say God over energy, or the other way around? Indeed, this is where the interesting part starts.
First of all, can it be OUR universe? The answer seems to be no. An infinitely inflating universe is not possible, as every piece of energy would be infinitely far apart if that was true -- but energy is close together as observed today. Can it be a multiverse? Can energy come from a multiverse? Well, the same problem applies, even greater this time. How can infinite production of new universe make sense if energy "cannot be created or destroyed"? If energy is eternal, it cannot be produced either by quantum laws nor a multiverse. Therefore, if energy is not infinitely spread out, energy is not eternal. And energy also cannot "create" a universe, as energy is actually a wave on the fabric of spacetime, according to Quantum Field theory. Thus, energy cannot be independent, as they relly on the existence of the universe. Universes and multiverses cannot be independent either, as infinite expansion is nonsensical.
If quantum laws can create energy, then energy can indeed be created and destroyed, which makes it NOT independent, but dependent on the process that created them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Your proposed first mover is still unfalsifiable and therefore dismissable.
Well, look at it this way:
- Something exists because it has been caused
- Something exists independently of any external cause
If we connect those two premises, we explain reality:
- Something independent always existed (by nature of being independent)
- Before anything was caused, nothing caused could exist
- Thus, the cause for the first caused thing could NOT be caused itself
- Therefore, the cause for the first caused thing must itself be uncaused
- Conclusion: An uncaused thing caused the first caused thing, and started the chain of causes
This solves the paradox that infinite causes are logically absurd. It also explains why dependent things exist. Dependent things are dependent upon other dependent things, but this line of dependence is not infinite (which would be absurd), but it is grounded in something independent. (or in other words, the tower of causality has a foundation, it isn't infinite, which means the tower of causality makes sense rather than being absurd.). This is the only valid explanation so far for WHY caused things exist. And remember, there is only a single alternative: "the first caused thing had no cause" -- a theory so abstract and weird and non-intuitive that accepting it would be intellectual suicide. To require empirical evidence for an unchallenged theory is NOT being "critical", it is to purposefully reject the truth or at least the closest to the truth we can come.
Therefore, it falls upon the opposition to provide a better explanation for reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok then (some) things can exist without a cause and we do not know what things these might be.
Exactly. This is the starting point for meaningful discussion between all worldviews.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I agree being caused by nothing would be nonsense.
Fine you agree.
God, or something god-like, is not caused by "nothing" -- they aren't caused at all, they are INDEPENDENT on any cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I do not mean to insult your intelligence by proposing that you actually believe what you just said.
Your claim is ridiculous. SOMETHING EXISTS, AND THIS SOMETHING IS A CHAIN OF CAUSES -- this is a basic observation known to all generations.
There are only three options to explain such a chain of causes: God, something god-like, or no cause.
Why require empirical evidence that there is an explanation of reality when the existence of reality is objectively true?
It is like saying that without empirical evidence, you wouldn't believe that you yourself existed. Your very existence debunks your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You immediately invalidate your own argument that things cannot exist without a cause.
OBJECTION: My argument is not that things cannot exist without a cause, but that things cannot START without a cause. God, or the other optionional causes, do by definition have no beginning. Therefore, it doesn't invalidate the argument.
BECAUSE we do not observe anything causeless
OBJECTION: The evidence is not based on sciene alone, but also on irrefutable philosophical evidence. Nothing cannot cause something. Only something can produce something. This means that anything CAUSED is caused by something previous. From this, we can derrive that anything that STARTS, is caused. I am not making the argument that everything is caused, that would be to undermine the verry notion of existence. I am making the argument that there are three types of things:
- Nonexistent things
- Caused things
- Uncaused things
The first group MUST exist, by philosophical necesity.
The second group we observe
The third group MUST exist if the second group is observed
In other words, there are no logical fallacies in the argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
special pleading
Not at all. "Everything has a cause, except things that by definition have no cause", is not special pleading, it is a logical NECESSITY.
If I claimed that "everything has a cause, except my religious view of God, as described in my religion", that would not be a special pleading either, it would simply be a false syllogism. One CAN in fact imagine a God that isn't my specific religious image of God. So the logically necessary conclusion of a first cause does not prove the existence of "my" God, it simply proves the existence of something god-like.
Why could the universe itself not simply be independent then?
Because an infinite universe is absurd even in principle. An infinite expansion could never lead up to a specific point, which makes the existence of "now" impossible.
Why could all the matter/energy not simply be independent then?
Energy that exists IN the universe cannot be the thing that CAUSES the universe. Also, consider a photon. Its existence is DEPENDENT on the sun, which means that it isn't independent. You can trace the history of interactions between energy back to infinity. This creates the same problem an infinity of causes being absurd.
Perhaps it was just a tiny dissonance...set off the "avalanche" of "reality".
Unfortunately, such an event would require a cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Independent: not requiring or relying on something else
I exist BECAUSE I was born. I relly on my birth for my existence. My birth relies on the BB happening. This chain of "dependencies" is the chain of "events" I am talking about.
God is not dependent upon something else. God exists regardless of what else exists. This trait is necessary for a first cause to have. Why you might ask? Because anything with dependence has a cause. You cannot be the "first" cause if some cause came BEFORE you. Therefore, the first cause cannot be caused by something else, it is by definition the "first" cause.
Again, consider our options.
- God, or something similar, created the chain of causes
- The chain of causes has no cause
God is the CREATOR of the chain because he is the starting point. God caused the universe, or the multiverse, or whatever. But he himself has no cause.
In other words, everything in that chain of causes HAS and IS a cause. I am born, I give birth and die (analogy for all states of energy).
God is the only link in the chain that has no cause. You can follow the chain backwards, find my grandparents, the big bang, the multiverse big bang, but in the end, you will arrive at something that has no cause. We call this "thing" INDEPENDENT. Yes, it might not be God, but it MUST have the god-like property of independence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Fair enough, let us deduce a MINIMUM trait that God, or anything similar, would have.
INDEPENDENCE.
God, or anything we would be able to call "god-like", would exist independent of all other things.
Please debunk this trait, that is, explain why God is not independent, or why something not independent could create the chain of causes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You missed choice number 4; an option we have not thought of.
Either the chain of causes is eternal, or it isn't
Either the universe has a cause, or it doesn't.
God, not being caused, would not be a part of the universe. Anything that is "similar" to God is not a part of the universe.
By universe, I mean the chain of causes. In other words, anything that is caused is a part of the universe.
There are four possible alternatives then:
- Eternal universe without cause
- Eternal universe with cause
- Finite universe without cause
- Finite universe with a cause
As stated earlier, eternal universes have no bearing in reality, the idea is impossible even in principle.
We have now two options:
- Finite universe with a cause
- Finite universe without a cause
In other words:
- Finite universe caused by God
- Finite universe caused by something else than God (something similar to God that isn't God)
- Finite universe with no cause.
The "fourth" alternative doesn't exist. It is simply an appeal to ignorance or an attempt at duplicating option 2.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Your supposed "alternatives" are not alternatives, but variants of category two. The third category of causes just extends the chain, it must end eventually.
Here is a logically sound explanation for the alternatives:
- The religious image of God has by definition the needed traits to exist eternally and start the chain of causes.
- Something that is not God, which shares those qualities, could also start the chain of causes.
- If the cause has no end, then it is absurd and the theory should be discarded as illogical and self-contradictory (infinite universes are impossible in principle.
- If the chain has no cause, it cannot have a start by definition. But if it had, it would create the paradox described earlier: why does Nothing seem restricted to create universes, not pink flying elephants.
In the end, the only viable option is that the cause of the chain is either God, or another being with those special traits of God.
In other words, the traits God is claimed to have MUST exist, and they MUST belong to some being that started the chain of causality.
This is basic logic, invented thousands of years ago.
If your supposedly "scientific" position contradicts the philosophy that created science, it is self-contradictory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
We know that a chain of causality exists, and have three ways of explaining it:
- God started the chain of causality
- Something similar to God started the chain of causality
- The chain of causality never ends
- This third option is nonsensical, This vide will gladly explain why an eternal universe is absurd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vybNvc6mxMo
If you claim that the universe has no cause, then you must explain why things don't appear anywhere. Nothingness has no trait and cannot be restrained. If nothing has the potential to create something, then we would observe something from nothing inside our universe. If nothing can only create universes, then that nothing is restrained by some law. And if nothing can be restrained, it has a trait, making it SOMETHING.
Therefore, the only two options left for why the chain of causality exists are:
- God
- Something similar to God
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Why is a theoretical first cause not subject to change?
If it was, it would not be the *first* cause objectively. For an objective first cause, it must be unchanging.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I mean you can claim it just began just because it happened to spontaneously happen but that's speculation too. And I find inanimate forces and events spontaneously creating universes, planets, solar systems, ecosystems and animate creatures too far fetched to accept.
Well stated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Science is based on logic.
1. If Earth is round we expect to be able to orbit it
2. We do orbit it with satellites
C. Eart is round
If science denies logic or philosophy, it also denies itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
You don't know the nature of what's being discussed
Yes. It's an uncaused cause. It is not caused, but it caused another event to happen. We know that since it is not caused, it has no beginning and thus is eternal. Remember that this first cause is hypothetical, so you cannot use an appeal to ignorance to debunk its existence. Hypothetically, must such an uncaused cause exist? Its a purely logical and philosophical question, but the answer can also be applied to our understanding of non-hypothetical things like energy.
cause and effect is a temporal concept; because, the cause must precede the effect.
This is counterintuitive. The very word "precede" is a time-based word. In fact, causality doesn't need time to exist -- time is simply a product of a consistent causality that exists within our universe. But time doesn't evidently exist within our universe either, as Intelligence_06 will gladly explain.
it isn't justified to apply that same concept to 1) a Universe with no time, and 2) a Universe that would be governed by quantum laws that we haven't fully worked out.
1)
A universe with no time cannot exist. If things interact then causality is real and time would be created as a result
2)
It doesn't matter which laws govern a universe, because the very existence of law creates causality. In other words, if quantum laws governed a pre-big-bang universe then causality must have existed. Consequently, an infinite array of causes must have existed. The only way to dodge this problem is by saying that ENERGY or LAWS came into existence, but then how does that happen?
The only reason time is known to be linear is because the second law of thermodynamics does not look the same going backwards as it does forward.
Time is the order in which events happen. For any event Y, we could calculate the cause X, and if we continue on this algorithm we would "time travel" back to the big bang and beyond. Entropy is a product of time, there would be no rise in entropy if time flowed in both directions or flipped between flowing forward and backwards. Time being linear is a complicated thing to say as "linear" is a word we use to describe space, and time isn't 3 dimensional but one dimensional.
Time and space didn't exist pre-expansion, so this is just not applicable.
"Expansion" requires both time and space. This argument is not valid.
I'm not claiming that Quantum Mechanics is acausal, only that quantum fluctuations are acausal.
Quantum fluctuations, according to you, are a result of "quantum laws that we haven't fully worked out". Therefore, they are not evidently acausal they simply are ruled by causes we cannot yet understand or study. In the ancient era of mankind, it would be a wrong statement to claim that lightning strikes were acausal simply because they seemed random. Similarly, to claim that quantum fluctuations or wave-particle behaviour are acausal is incorrect today. In fact, the wave and random properties of quantum mechanics can be visualised by physical waves. This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there are most likely causal laws that define quantum mechanics. Randomness is simply a product of complexity, just like throwing a dice creates randomness even though the dice follows strict laws of motion.
Quantum fields vibrate gently, randomly; and, sometimes this produces enough energy to create a particle, which we call a "virtual particle."
You admit that the virtual particle has a cause: quantum fluctuations.
The reason is, as I'm aware, that the vacuum energy outside the plates was greater than the vacuum energy between the plates, forcing them together.
Again, more causality in quantum mechanics.
The Universe is cyclic, being both eternal and caused.
I am not going to point out all the scientific flaws such a theory would cause. This theory of a "cyclic" universe is not solving the problem. A universe that has always existed and is always expanding is no different from a universe that is cyclic -- both are constantly causing themselves, which means that they are an infinite array of causes, violating the law that nothing can come into existence without an EXTERNAL cause. (again, I am not trying to prove God, as he would also violate this law).
" You've been using "first cause," "ultimate reality," and "god" interchangeably.
"First cause" and "ultimate reality" have been used interchangeably. But don't tell me that "god" is the same as those. You don't get it, if god doesn't exist then some other ultimate reality or first cause must exist -- for example an eternal universe. But the problem both god and all other hypothetical first causes face is that they must be static in order to be uncaused, but also dynamic in order to cause something.
Like I said, "before" is a time word,
I explicitly stated what I meant by it in this context. "Before" means that A caused B, time is not necessary. In other words, if A caused the universe then it came before the universe, even though time starts to exist when both A and the universe already exist. Consequently, time is not dependent upon the universe, but dependent upon existence itself. If a change happens (even quantum change), time progresses. Yes, time might not be linear, but it would still always flow.
The syllogism fails.
It doesn't. Until you take a look at the requirements such a first cause would have to meet then the syllogism stands. But I am myself trying to defeat it, by applying reason to the first cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
A + B = C
more like
P1: A = B
P2: B = C
C: A = C
There is no logical fallacy in my syllogism.
First problem: The syllogism assumes a lopsided existence
It assumes causality, which we actually observe everywhere we look.
The universe is assumed "eternal," but it is claimed to have had a beginning
The universe does indeed have a beginning. The question is, what came before it? A new chain of causes like a multiverse, or a first cause like God.
We don't assume it to be "eternal", we assume causality. The second premise deals with the notion of "nothing can cause itself", which would conclude that an infinite array of causes are indeed impossible. However, my argument was that any first cause would indeed also have a history of INTERNAL causes. Imagine if God is a human that created the universe. Yes, the universe has a beginning, and God might be eternal, but he has a history of thoughts that led up to his creation of the universe. Any eternal being able to decide to be the first cause is itself NOT eternal, as its past self had a different set of thoughts.
Second problem: There is no time. Time is a human construct
A nice definition of time from PBS Spacetime is as follows. Time = the speed of causality. One can imagine time as the rate at which things interact and change happens. This definition of time is OBJECTIVE because all change, even a multiverse or the thoughts of God would cause time to flow. If there is change at all, time flows. In our universe, time is the speed at which two Planck voxels can interact, for example by exchanging a photon. The problem with the notion of a first cause like God is that he is literally thinking, meaning his thoughts not being random must follow orderly. Thus, in his mind *time* must exist.
Time exists regardless of whether or not time is infinite.
Third problem: There are many generations of Gods, not just a single God.
This seems like Hinduism. Are you saying that God created our spirits, then gives us God-power when we serve him, so we can create new universes? This seems obviously similar to the multiverse theory, so I don't know if science or philosophy supports this idea.
a circle, which, when turned to its side, were we able to have a better view, it is an extended, eternal helix in which there is no beginning point of regression
We can identify the direction of movement in such a circle, by tracking the movements of individual points. But why assume that the helix is infinite when we already know that everything in it, is not. For example, assume our universe is one "pulse" of such a helix. Why would the helix not be a "pulse" of something even larger, possibly a higher dimension yet again. It seems "infinitely" regressive. That is the problem with the multiverse theory. When we assume infinity in time we must also assume infinity in an infinite number of dimensions.
That's eternity, folks, and maybe that helix is not a single tube, but infinite tubes extending eternally in all directions...
Exactly.
The end result always becomes, well...infinite. This further validates premise 1: every event has a cause.
But if every event has a cause, then what thing caused itself? The universe causing itself is no harder to believe than an infinite number of helixes causing their own existence.
What become the reason for existence, and precisely, what is wrong with premise 2.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
You don't know the nature of what's being discussed
Yes. It's an uncaused cause. It is not caused, but it caused another event to happen. We know that since it is not caused, it has no beginning and thus is eternal. Remember that this first cause is hypothetical, so you cannot use an appeal to ignorance to debunk its existence. Hypothetically, must such an uncaused cause exist? Its a purely logical and philosophical question, but the answer can also be applied to our understanding of non-hypothetical things like energy.
cause and effect is a temporal concept; because, the cause must precede the effect.
This is counterintuitive. The very word "precede" is a time-based word. In fact, causality doesn't need time to exist -- time is simply a product of a consistent causality that exists within our universe. But time doesn't evidently exist within our universe either, as Intelligence_06 will gladly explain.
it isn't justified to apply that same concept to 1) a Universe with no time, and 2) a Universe that would be governed by quantum laws that we haven't fully worked out.
1)
A universe with no time cannot exist. If things interact then causality is real and time would be created as a result
2)
It doesn't matter which laws govern a universe, because the very existence of law creates causality. In other words, if quantum laws governed a pre-big-bang universe then causality must have existed. Consequently, an infinite array of causes must have existed. The only way to dodge this problem is by saying that ENERGY or LAWS came into existence, but then how does that happen?
The only reason time is known to be linear is because the second law of thermodynamics does not look the same going backwards as it does forward.
Time is the order in which events happen. For any event Y, we could calculate the cause X, and if we continue on this algorithm we would "time travel" back to the big bang and beyond. Entropy is a product of time, there would be no rise in entropy if time flowed in both directions or flipped between flowing forward and backwards. Time being linear is a complicated thing to say as "linear" is a word we use to describe space, and time isn't 3 dimensional but one dimensional.
Time and space didn't exist pre-expansion, so this is just not applicable.
"Expansion" requires both time and space. This argument is not valid.
I'm not claiming that Quantum Mechanics is acausal, only that quantum fluctuations are acausal.
Quantum fluctuations, according to you, are a result of "quantum laws that we haven't fully worked out". Therefore, they are not evidently acausal they simply are ruled by causes we cannot yet understand or study. In the ancient era of mankind, it would be a wrong statement to claim that lightning strikes were acausal simply because they seemed random. Similarly, to claim that quantum fluctuations or wave-particle behaviour are acausal is incorrect today. In fact, the wave and random properties of quantum mechanics can be visualised by physical waves. This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there are most likely causal laws that define quantum mechanics. Randomness is simply a product of complexity, just like throwing a dice creates randomness even though the dice follows strict laws of motion.
Quantum fields vibrate gently, randomly; and, sometimes this produces enough energy to create a particle, which we call a "virtual particle."
You admit that the virtual particle has a cause: quantum fluctuations.
The reason is, as I'm aware, that the vacuum energy outside the plates was greater than the vacuum energy between the plates, forcing them together.
Again, more causality in quantum mechanics.
The Universe is cyclic, being both eternal and caused.
I am not going to point out all the scientific flaws such a theory would cause. This theory of a "cyclic" universe is not solving the problem. A universe that has always existed and is always expanding is no different from a universe that is cyclic -- both are constantly causing themselves, which means that they are an infinite array of causes, violating the law that nothing can come into existence without an EXTERNAL cause. (again, I am not trying to prove God, as he would also violate this law).
" You've been using "first cause," "ultimate reality," and "god" interchangeably.
"First cause" and "ultimate reality" have been used interchangeably. But don't tell me that "god" is the same as those. You don't get it, if god doesn't exist then some other ultimate reality or first cause must exist -- for example an eternal universe. But the problem both god and all other hypothetical first causes face is that they must be static in order to be uncaused, but also dynamic in order to cause something.
Like I said, "before" is a time word,
I explicitly stated what I meant by it in this context. "Before" means that A caused B, time is not necessary. In other words, if A caused the universe then it came before the universe, even though time starts to exist when both A and the universe already exist. Consequently, we have two options:
- Time doesn't exist, then A causes the universe and then time starts to exist -- A is the first cause
- A caused B who caused C (another type of time exists) ... then X causes the universe -- the first cause either is unknown or doesn't exist
The syllogism fails.
It doesn't. Until you take a look at the requirements such a first cause would have to meet then the syllogism stands. But I am myself trying to defeat it, by applying reason to the first cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You know that the earth is not round.
Actually, its shape is that of a twinkly-star.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No, prove to me that a single event had no cause - prove to me that ONE SINGLE EVENT was "not involving causation or arising from a cause"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
It doesn't claim what started the expansion, that is unknown.
I don't try to answer that question. I simply claim that there is an answer, although humans might never access it.
asking what came before the big bang is probably a meaningless question, because there can't be a "before" time
"Before" is used to display causality. If A caused B then A came before B, even if time doesn't exist before C is created by B.
Depends how you define god
You miss the point I was making. I said that if we believe the universe is eternal then the universe would have the attributes religious people put on God: independent existence (aka the universe exists because it does, not because God or any other thing lets the universe exist.), being the first cause, being eternal. Again, stop worrying, I am NOT trying to place some theistic trap. In this debate, I don't even care whether or not God exists. So please stop critiquing me for "hiding" fallacies and secretly arguing for God in this.
Cyclic Cosmology defeats your second premise since that is literally an endless chain of Universe-Causing events. No "god" necessary.
Again, the only reason why no "god" is necessary is that the universe has the traits that god typically has. Instead of god creating the universe the universe simply has always existed, such as gods role typically is. Again, don't take this as argumentation for god.
First, these are just the same option stated twice.
Sorry, I meant that these are the options:
- The universe is eternal
- The universe has a beginning but no cause
there could be a cause, but there are not any definitive answers as to what that would be
Then we agree. I believe that the laws of logic are always active and that every event has a cause. "Could" is a weak word, but still fine.
Causality isn't undermined, it just doesn't apply where it doesn't apply.
Where doesn't causality apply? Where can you prove that an event had no cause? To use the Big Bang or quantum mechanics would simply be an appeal to ignorance. It would be like saying: "since we have not yet crafted a waterproof theory for this phenomena we can assume it is acausal."
Well, I read a bit on the Wikipedia site you provided and found that there are actually causes that can explain quantum phenomena. One example: "Since the value of this energy depends on the shapes and positions of the materials, the Casimir effect manifests itself as a force between such objects." Also, the cause is simply hidden from us, as the quantum fields are impossibly small and hard to study. Can you provide evidence that quantum mechanics is acausal? If you cannot, then we should take the default position that quantum physics are causal, like literally any other field of science. Furthermore, the particles popping in and out of existence always happens in a pair of negative and positive particles, which proves that it is not completely random or acausal, it is controlled by a hidden quantum mechanism or maybe the first law of thermodynamics.
Please explain how quantum fluctuations and vacuum energy states fit into your paradigm.
I am sorry, Sum, but I fail to see how the new and controversial field of quantum mechanics should be used to declare that some parts of the universe are acausal. Simply because we don't fully understand the mechanisms yet, it doesn't mean that quantum science is acausal. After all, why can we create such beautiful and accurate mathematical wave-functions if quantum particles behave in an acausal way?
The fact that some events are acausal does not mean that all events are acausal.
It is NOT a fact that some events are acausal. Prove it to me, show me research that concluded that parts of the universe does not make sense and is acausal.
Causality doesn't necessarily exist in the absence of time.
Time is the dimension of space that makes it possible for multiple causal events to be understood in the context of each other and to get a standard of measurement for the order in which changes happen.
Acausality is the absence of a cause, not a cause in itself
Acausal: not involving causation or arising from a cause [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acausal]. Acausality means that an event did not have any cause whatsoever and that the event happened independent of the causes and prevention placed by the environment. A purple elephant spawning in my room can be classified as acausal, but neither waves on the ocean nor waves in the quantum fields can be called acausal.
"Unknown" is far more appropriate than "god,"
I would prefer "first cause" or "ultimate reality" since that better encompasses the nature of the thing being discussed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Why is a theoretical first cause not subject to change?
Imagine the first cause. If it is changing, then each change is the cause of the next one. Therefore, the first cause would not really be the first cause, the previous iteration of the first cause would be more "first". You could continue tracing the changes longer and longer back in time. Just as with the universe, you would find that it had a beginning, or possibly you could track the iterations back into eternity. And if you can track the changes in the "first cause" back to eternity then there is no real first cause.
Therefore, the first cause must be unchanging. If it is changing, it must be called simply "a/the cause".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You rejected the first premise: Any event has a cause. That premise doesn't require time to exist, it just requires cause A to force onto the world effect B.
I apologize for misinterpreting your position. I thought you denied the logical law of cause and effect. But if you accept it, then we agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok. Show me a few examples of events that had no cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What I get from your argument is this:
- Universes does not pop out of nowhere, as the laws of logic say
- The laws of logic where not present before the Big Bang
- The Big Bang started before the laws of logic and thus could happen without a cause
According to Newton's law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created -- this makes the Big Bang impossible the same way time doesn't exist before Big Bang. It's not science vs speculation, its a contradiction in science that can only be solved through philosophy. I do understand your argument, physical spacetime doesn't exist outside of the Universe. But I can't see why the laws of logic don't apply before the Big Bang simply because time, a measure of the physical, doesn't exist. Think about the edge of our universe, and the void out universe will expand into. In that void, do the laws of logic not apply? Can a flying pink elephant suddenly pop out of nothing? If that is the case, then why is there logic and order inside our universe? To me, all of these questions must be sufficiently answered before I accept the claim that logic only exists after the BB.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How do we determine the difference between an event that has no cause or one whose cause is unknown?
It's simple, all events have a cause or no events have a cause. Therefore, since SOME events have a cause we know that all events have a cause.
We can measure time from there and still expect subsequent events to happen.
Yes, time flows forward. But when a system like a universe has a clear beginning it must have a cause. This is because no object can be its own cause, and no object can come into existence by itself. Therefore, anything with a beginning must have a cause -- if causality is true, which it obviously is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
it is a god of the gaps fallacy
Please stop saying that. I am not trying to prove God, I am trying to discuss philosophy -- specifically the philosophy of causality. My usage of the word "ultimate reality" is not synonymous with "universe". Yes, this is speculation but that is what philosophy is about. I know that we cannot look outside of our universe, but that cannot stop us from using reason.
I am discussing the claim that the universe needs a cause because it has a beginning. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy must be conserved -- It cannot pop out from anything or disappear. The BB theory, or YEC, or literally any theory involving the creation of energy would contradict this basic observation. The only way creation of energy doesn't defy logic is if there is some cause behind it. Alternatively, we could reject the second law of thermodynamics and say that energy can appear out of nowhere for no reason. But that would, again, mean that logic as a concept has to fall apart.
I do not understand what you mean by causality not existing outside of this universe. Let's be honest, "randomness" doesn't exist, it is simply a product of complex rules being followed, as when you roll physical dice. "Acausality" is simply our way to describe an event that we cannot explain. But ultimately, all seemingly acausal events are actually causal. Therefore, if causality doesn't exist outside of our universe then the Big Bang was neither causal not acausal -- so it never happened. If this universe started to exist and is still growing, there must surely be a reason.
If the Big Bang happened without a cause then that would contradict the laws of logic. And if non-causes could create effects then we would clearly see those effects. Yes, science didn't exist before the Big Bang, but what about the laws of logic? If the laws of logic don't exist outside of our universe then outside of our universe is filled with all events, because there would be no law of causality that disallows a pink flying elephant inside a parallel dimension. In short, if the laws of logic don't apply outside our universe then nothing makes sense. Because of this, I think it is reasonable to accept the laws of logic as universally valid. A=A, this should work in any world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Is God a computer program running reality? I have never heard anything like this before.
Created: