Checkmate in 3 moves

[CatSci]

For a finite thing to have existence, by definition it first must have a beginning.

Well I spent the last few pages here trying to explain how an finite, yet unbounded, universe could exist without a beginning. Like the Hartle-Hawking proposal. If there’s anything in particular about that you want to discuss then fire away, but I’m not going to do it all over again.

I believe that to assume the universe existed without a beginning is inconsistent with logic, reason, and science. But I believe it’s reasonable to assume that if a pre-existent God existed before the creation of the universe, with nothing else existing, that this pre-existent God could create from this nothing the universe.

Sure, an omnipotent being could do anything (by definition).

Creation ex nihilo is not the same thing as creating a work of art or building a house (it is not the changing of one thing into another thing); rather, creation ex nihilo is the “very origin of existence,” a work that only an omnipotent God is capable of doing. God did not need a material cause to make the universe. In other words, God’s creating the universe out of nothing simply means that God did not create the universe out of something that He previously had lying around in eternity.

There’s that, but the point we were making was that because there’s God there doing the creating, then that’s not really nothing that the creation is comming from. As if creation ex nihilo implies no god or anything and then something. The phrase can be used to mean something else too though.

I think that God’s creation of the universe ex nihilo also serves to indicate that God, as the purposeful Divine Creator of the universe, is eternally separate and distinct from His creation.

Wouldn’t being “eternally seperate” negate any divinity in Jesus?..

“In the beginning God created heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1).

Lets not get into Genesis in this thread…

 

[davidv]

Well I spent the last few pages here trying to explain how an finite, yet unbounded, universe could exist without a beginning. Like the Hartle-Hawking proposal. If there’s anything in particular about that you want to discuss then fire away, but I’m not going to do it all over again.

{Snip}

However, the meaning of beginning as used here is different than one applied to divine creation. Divine creation explains how the mobius strip exists at all.

“beginning” as well a number of other terms (e.g., nothing, time) with multiple meanings are causing a lot of talking passed one another in this thread.

 

[CatSci]

However, the meaning of beginning as used here is different than one applied to divine creation. Divine creation explains how the mobius strip exists at all.

Something that explains every thing explains nothing. “God did it” tells us absolutely nothing about how the mobius strip exists at all. We are left with no better understand than before. What knowledge do we gain from saying that the mobius strip exists via “divine creation”?

What did God do? How did God do it? When did God do it? Where did God do it?

Adding God to those questions doesn’t makes them any more answered. Its an intellectual dead-end.

“beginning” as well a number of other terms (e.g., nothing, time) with multiple meanings are causing a lot of talking passed one another in this thread.

Some of those meanings are grounded in science. Others rely on obfuscation through metaphysics and epistomology where we get into meaningless concepts like a contingent actualization of potentiality… lol

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Sure, and the Theory of Gravity isn’t proof that there aren’t magic fairies dancing on everything and pushing them downwards.

You are having some kind of difficulty understanding the context in which an argument is made. I did not say that it may not be true. I said even if it was true: and then i explained why. Therefore your above comparison is a fallacious misrepresentation yet again.

Without a beginning there’s no need for some “cause”. It just is.

First of all, In the context of science, according to a strict adherence to the epistemological boundaries of the scientific method, a scientist can only conclude that which is true in the context of physical relationships. There is no need to explain the universe in terms of a physical temporal beginning or a physical cause, and thats if the hypothesis is even capable of rising to the factual level of a Scientific Theory. But this alone does not tell a scientist that the existence of change can account for its self or that the universe is not a contingent entity or that there are no other kind of causes out side of a temporal context. You are assuming without rational validation that the universe cannot be contingent if it does not have a singularity. That is not a conclusion of science, but rather that is a conclusion of scientism posing as science. Its false, and i have explained why its false and i am not going to do it again. The people reading the thread can make up their own minds.

I know, I know… that’s all you can keep saying: “but its finite and changes, so it must’ve began, so there has to be a cause”

It doesn’t matter if there is a physical beginning or not. In the first place i am not arguing for the existence of a temporal beginning or a temporal first cause. I am arguing for the existence of an ontological first cause; an ultimate reality upon which all things are dependent on for their potentiality. Regardless of whether there is a singularity or not, It does not change the fact that…

1. Change is the actualization of potential.
2. Change cannot exist unless potentiality is actualized.
3. Potentiality cannot actualize itself because its not an actual being.
4. In principle you cannot get potentiality out of nothing.
5. Therefore a potential being or state cannot become actual without cause.
6. No change can exist without a cause that is not itself the product of change.
7. If the cause is not the product of change, it is therefore not in space-time, since it is the cause of it.
8. If it is the cause of space-time, then it necessarily follows the fact that the source of all potentiality and possibility is not physical.

You haven’t address that the lack of a boundary eliminates this need.

You haven’t addressed the fact that you don’t understand the real implications of a no boundary condition, and that such being true doesn’t change the fact that motion is the actualization of potential. I am correct and reasonable to posit a timeless cause in order to sufficiently explain the actualization of potential, since out of nothing comes nothing and a physical body cannot move itself from potential to actuality.

Think of the old ant walking on a mobius strip. Its finite, it changes, but since there’s no boundary, we can’t say the strip “begins” anywhere and we can’t say that there’s some cause to that beginning of the strip.

So long as change exists, my argument being true does not hinge on the possibility of a physical beginning or singularity. It is still evident according to the fact of change that the universe does not get its effect from itself and therefore does not sustain itself in being. I have explained why and i am not going to do so again.

When a raindrop precipitates out of the vapor, its going to start falling to the earth, and there’s no intelligence needed for that.

A thing cannot move itself without a sufficient cause. Out of nothing comes nothing. You are still talking about a series of effects that are only mediums of change and not the cause of it. There has to be contingent processes involved; it doesn’t happen for no reason, and neither does it explain the existence of its change.

To be continued…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Why not? How could “intelligence” be needed in any way?

Because in principle out of nothing comes nothing.

1. If a quality is not present in the intrinsic and actual nature of something, then it cannot be the sufficient cause of that which is not already actual in its nature.
2. To say that it could be the case, is to suggest that it can get something out of nothing (a contradiction); that which is not already in its actual nature.
3. In principle if there is no change in something, then change is not an intrinsic attribute of its nature.
4. We see that things are changing, and we can say that things have different kinds of change according to their nature. But we cannot say that time is the intrinsic attribute of reality or somethings nature because time by definition is the actualization of potentiality or possibility; and therefore change in general needs a cause in order to be real, because potentiality cannot actualize itself. If an object is timeless (which it would be if it is not changing) then to be as such is its natural state. Therefore it is not a natural or intrinsic attribute of a thing that it should be changing. For if it was an intrinsic attribute, it would be impossible for change to occur relatively or otherwise since all potentiality would be timelessly actual in a things nature. Having no true duration, this is contradictory to the meaning and observation of change. In other words you would have to ignore the existence of change in order to say that time is an intrinsic nature of reality, which is meaningless and contradictory.
5. Therefore if an object is changing it cannot do so because of its own nature, since that which is only potentially real is not an intrinsic attribute of its actual nature. If a thing is in the process of time, then it is changed by something else that is either a medium to change or is the absolute cause of it. You cannot explain the fact of change by simply saying that there is change. Saying that it does not need to be explained does not cut it either since change is the actualization of potential, and potential is not self actualizing.

Too, intelligence as we know it requires brains…

We don’t know that all intelligence requires a brain; we only know that humans require a brain in-order for their intelligence to be actual since they are a part of the universe and its physical processes. And that fact does not matter, because so long as something cannot move by itself without the attribute of “intelligence”, we can know that where there is no intelligence there is no sufficient cause for change. I don’t have to prove that intellect can exist without physical dimensions; i need only show why such is necessary in order to explain the existence of change.

No, not in the slightest. Its logical and sound and true. How could it be otherwise? Are you saying that God’s existence is dependent on cosmological proposals?

If a cosmological proposal, is in fact true, and has metaphysical implications, then you cannot simply ignore it.

1. God cannot have a contradictory nature.
2. God is an intrinsically necessary reality and cause.
3. If its possible for “space-time” to exist by itself without the existence of God, then this fact would contradict the necessity of Gods intrinsic reality as a cause; and would therefore disprove the Catholic conception of God.

I am not saying anything irrational here.

If a cosmologist proposes a godless universe, then god cannot exist!? That’s irrational.

First of all you keep saying “cosmologists” or “cosmology” as if it lends weight to their philosophical ideas. Learn to differentiate between scientific statements, and philosophical ones. It doesn’t matter who is saying it or what their day job is.

Secondly, i am saying that if God is by definition a necessary cause, then the mere possibility of that being otherwise would be a disproof of his necessity. Since if God is truly necessary then there can be no possibility of the fact that he is not the cause of the universe.

That’s correct. But that being proposed doesn’t necessitate that being true. Its strange that you think god’s existence depends on what man thinks.

Its strange that you twist the context of my words and only heed to logic when it suites you.

But you’re assuming contingency… perhaps the Universe is an inevitability.

I have made no assumptions. I stick with the facts. Change is the actualization of potentiality, and potentiality cannot actualize itself. Thats a fact of logic and metaphysics.

That’s part of the deal with there being no point in time when the Universe did not exist.

No it is not.

It has to exist at all points in time, there is no contingency.

So long as change is evident and its intrinsic meaning is strictly observed, it is unavoidably evident that change is contingent. Saying that it has no beginning in the sense of a singularity makes no difference to the fact that there is a finite quantity of change in existence.

Unless its unbounded.

Its irrelevant. Thus your argument flies out the window yet again despite giving illusions to it being otherwise.

 

[JDaniel]

They could argue that the universe has existed at every point in time, that there was never a point in time that the universe did not exist (even tho past time is finite).

There has never been nothing. The only place nothing can exist is nowhere.

At every point in time, there is something somewhere.

CatSci:

That’s a straw-man.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

You’re right, and MOM2 has an error in this:

Reality did not become actual. As you noticed, that’s a cause and effect situation that would require a point in time when reality did not exist. But we know that reality has existed for all points in time so its already wrong from the get-go.

CatSci:

This is incorrect: another straw-man.

God bless,
jd

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Because in principle out of nothing comes nothing.

1. If a quality is not present in the intrinsic and actual nature of something, then it cannot be the sufficient cause of that which is not already actual in its nature.

Therefore since it cannot be the cause of its change, it either has to be moved by that which is changing, or it has to be moved by that which has a greater nature than its effect. Only a nature that transcends all finite dimensions can be the absolute cause of that which is finite. Thus the cause has to be infinite in every respect.

 

[CatSci]

It doesn’t matter if there is a physical beginning or not. In the first place i am not arguing for the existence of a temporal beginning or a temporal first cause. I am arguing for the existence of an ontological first cause; an ultimate reality upon which all things are dependent on for their potentiality.

Ooohh, I see, you’re not really saying anything at all. That “ultimate reality” could just be the Universe, itself.

I thought you were making an argument for some creator outside the Universe, or something.

1. We see that things are changing, and we can say that things have different kinds of change according to their nature. But we cannot say that time is the intrinsic attribute of reality or somethings nature because time by definition is the actualization of potentiality or possibility; and therefore change in general needs a cause in order to be real, because potentiality cannot actualize itself. If an object is timeless (which it would be if it is not changing) then to be as such is its natural state. Therefore it is not a natural or intrinsic attribute of a thing that it should be changing. For if it was an intrinsic attribute, it would be impossible for change to occur relatively or otherwise since all potentiality would be timelessly actual in a things nature. Having no true duration, this is contradictory to the meaning and observation of change. In other words you would have to ignore the existence of change in order to say that time is an intrinsic nature of reality, which is meaningless and contradictory.

Your using an old outdated view of time, that is: a medium for change that things inevitably pass through.

We now know that time is mearly another dimension of the Universe, like the spatial dimensions but a different kind. When you view the Universe as a 4-dimensional “object”, or manifold, you see that the Universe as a whole is unchanging. It has some 4-dimensional “shape” that when viewed through the time dimension gives rise to the appearance of change within it. It is this dimension-limiting view of time being a discreet thing that is causing problems.

Where you would see a star as a point-object that changes as it passes through time, the 4-d view of the Universe would see a star as an unchanging line. You would go on to describe how because the star is changing, yadda yadda yadda, but what you’re failing to see is that from the 4-d perspective, it is not changing. The whole actualization of potential run-around is meaningless in this context.

1. Therefore if an object is changing it cannot do so because of its own nature, since that which is only potentially real is not an intrinsic attribute of its actual nature. If a thing is in the process of time, then it is changed by something else that is either a medium to change or is the absolute cause of it. You cannot explain the fact of change by simply saying that there is change. Saying that it does not need to be explained does not cut it either since change is the actualization of potential, and potential is not self actualizing.

But the Universe as a whole is not changing through time, it isn’t actualizing, it just it and it just has some shape. At least, that’s what the proposed model suggests.

And that fact does not matter, because so long as something cannot move by itself without the attribute of “intelligence”, we can know that where there is no intelligence there is no sufficient cause for change.

That doesn’t make sense to me… things move by themselves without intelligence all the time. Like a raindrop falling from the sky. You say:

A thing cannot move itself without a sufficient cause. Out of nothing comes nothing. You are still talking about a series of effects that are only mediums of change and not the cause of it. There has to be contingent processes involved; it doesn’t happen for no reason, and neither does it explain the existence of its change.

Where’s the need for intelligence for a raindrop to precipitate and fall?

Change is the actualization of potentiality, and potentiality cannot actualize itself. Thats a fact of logic and metaphysics.

That fact only applies within the Universe, but not the Universe as a whole, itself.

 

[CatSci]

CatSci:

That’s a straw-man.

God bless,
jd

jd:

Unexplained assertions are a waste of bandwidth.

Have fun,
CatSci

 

[MindOverMatter2]

We now know that time is mearly another dimension of the Universe, like the spatial dimensions but a different kind. When you view the Universe as a 4-dimensional “object”, or manifold, you see that the Universe as a whole is unchanging.

Not only are you taking my words out of context and making straw-men, you are ignoring the context of relativity. Obviously if you view the sum total of all change you will not see any motion; but that is only relative to the fact that you are viewing physics from a holistic point of view. The 4th dimension only exist because there is such a thing as an evolution of time; otherwise the concept of time is meaningless. Since the existence of a 4th dimension is contingent upon the existence of change, and change is only meaningful as an actualization of potential, such being true does not change the fact that change exist and that change is the actualization of potentiality. As far as science is concerned you clearly don’t understand what a 4 dimensional object is in reference to the concept of space-time. Because to reject what i have said is to reject the existence of “change” therefore any meaningful sense of time and thus a 4th dimension. Scientists speak of a 4 dimension precisely because there is clearly such a thing as change, and they apply the concept of a 4th dimension to the universe because of the fact that space expands or evolves with change hence the term “space-time”. Space is 3 dimensions, with an addition of a forth dimension which is called time. And thus we still have an evolving universe. Therefore change is still the actualization of potential.

That fact that you got this wrong is reason enough to ignore anything else you have to say.

Stop using scientific theories if you don’t understand what they mean. No wander JDanial is accusing you of making straw-men, because thats is exactly what you are doing.

 

[CatSci]

Obviously if you view the sum total of all change you will not see any motion; but that is only relative to the fact that you are viewing physics from a holistic point of view.

That’s what the Universe is.

The 4th dimension only exist because there is such a thing as an evolution of time; otherwise the concept of time is meaningless.

No, there is only such a thing as “an evolution of time” because the 4th dimension exists. The concept of time has meaning, for us, because we are stuck as passing in the fouth dimension as a discreet medium (because our brains rely on entropy to function).

Since the existence of a 4th dimension is contingent upon the existence of change, such being true does not change the fact that change exist and that change is the actualization of potentiality.

Since you got the premise backwards, the existence of change is dependent on a 4th dimension (not visa versa), then your conclusion doesn’t follow.

As far as science is concerned you clearly don’t understand what a 4 dimensional object is in reference to the concept of space-time. Because to reject what i have said is to reject the existence of “change” therefore any meaningful sense of time and thus a 4th dimension. Scientists speak of a 4 dimension precisely because there is clearly such a thing as change, and they apply the concept of a 4th dimension to the universe because of the fact that space expands or evolves with change hence the term “space-time”.

That’s just not true. It comes from the math… pages and pages of math. That’s how they came to realize that time is an intrinsic part of the Universe, itself.

And thus we still have an evolving universe. Therefore change is still the actualization of potential.

Jibberish.

That fact that you got this wrong is reason enough to ignore anything else you have to say.

Good day, Sir.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That’s what the Universe is.

No, there is only such a thing as “an evolution of time” because the 4th dimension exists.

Thats false. If you speak of a 4th dimension purely in-reference to itself, then obviously** the 4th dimension is change**. However time does not exist by itself; but only in reference to space and energy. You were not simply treating it in reference to itself but rather you were taking space and time and treating it as a manifold and saying that because we can do this mathematically that such removes the need to say that there is any change; which is also false.

And yet here you are saying that change exists because of the 4th dimension.

Time and the 4th dimension is one and the same thing, so you cannot logically treat them as two things and say that change exists because of the 4th dimension. The 4th dimension is the sum total of all change perceived holistically. Therefore in reference to a, 4 dimensional manifold, i can say that it is meaningless to speak of time unless you agree that change exists, because it is only in respect of change that we can speak meaningfully of 4 dimensions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

“In physics, spacetime (or space-time, space time, space-time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space as being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions. According to certain Euclidean space perceptions, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.”

The concept of time has meaning, for us, because we are stuck as passing in the fourth dimension as a discreet medium (because our brains rely on entropy to function).

This is just your philosophical interpretation which has nothing to do with the scientific evidence and is not supported by it. Also it is meaningless to speak any experience of change or function at all if there is in fact no change. We are not separate from the universe.

Since you got the premise backwards, the existence of change is dependent on a 4th dimension (not visa versa), then your conclusion doesn’t follow.

I didn’t’ get it backwards, you treated time and space holistically, and i pointed out correctly that doing so does not change the fact that there is an evolution of space-time. Thus your conclusion does not follow.

That’s just not true. It comes from the math… pages and pages of math. That’s how they came to realize that time is an intrinsic part of the Universe, itself.

You are taking things out of context. When science says that change is a part of the universe it means only that space and time and energy are not to be treated separately, but rather they evolve together as one and the same object. It is not speaking of time as an intrinsic attribute in the metaphysical sense of the word; but it is saying that change does not exist separately from the fact that an object is changing; since change is the fact that something changing. None of this changes the fact that Change is the actualization of potentiality; and thus it is made of parts or states that are not necessary but are instead contingent. This could not be possible if time was something that was simply there without potential.

Treating space time as a manifold does not change the fact that space-time is evolving; otherwise you have removed any meaningful sense of time; and science does not support you in that respect.

Good day to you to Sir.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Its funny to me that the only way an atheist or philosopher can challenge the argument is by either saying that perhaps time is an illusion or by saying that perhaps a thing can come out of nothing by itself. In other words they have to ignore basic fundamental rational principles in-order to remain agnostic towards the existence of a first cause. Its like saying, maybe there could be a square-triangle, while holding a straight face.

In my book, this makes the argument rationally irrefutable.

 

[JDaniel]

Its called The Universe.

So, the universe did not begin 16.7 billion years ago?

The law says that matter/energy cannot be created

That means, “by the universe or by man.”

not that it can’t create itself.

Wouldn’t you think that whatever creates itself would already have existed?

The total energy of The Universe has existed for all points in time.

Hypothetically true, but, if science is correct and the universe had a beginning, then wouldn’t there possibly have been a duration before “time?”

Being “created” would require a point in time where it did not exist, and that just ain’t so.

So, the current cosmology is dead wrong?

“A valiant effort, but the premises aren’t true.”

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

No, it is saying the exact opposite of that: If there is no point in time in which the universe does not exist then it cannot “begin” as that implies a point of not existing, there’s no point before that first one to come from to be called a beginning.

Since its an endpoint in/of both time and space, it cannot have any temporal causality as perceived from within spacetime, itelf.

Are you familiar with the analogy that shows that the quesion is asking ‘what’s north of the north pole?’?

The explanation is that it is uncaused. There was never nothing. That the Universe just is.

And thus, all of the scientists that adhere to the Big Bang Theory are simply wrong?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t know and I don’t really think that matters for this. Instead of picking your side and then trying to make an argument that supports it, lets just look at what we can know and then let the conclusion follow from that.

I’m fairly familiar with Big Bang Theory. Think of the number of things that have to line up in order for you to have the particular combination of cards to make the hand that you’ve been dealt in a card game. In hind site it could be seen as practically impossible, but you’ve gotta get something. Perhaps the Universe is just as inevitable.

Not explanatory. That’s merely an escape attempt once boxed into a corner.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I am somewhat more thick skinned than to feel insulted by that and also I am happy to respect your offer to agree to disagree. It is not a big issue for me. Although my original threat still holds. I will simply provide the administrator with a list of your quotes to a variety of members as examples of rudeness. After all I merely have to convince the administrator that you are consistently impolite - I will leave it to you to defend each and every case with the administrator.

An academic friend of mine spoke of two tendencies in response to our beliefs being challenged. 1. Is for one to assume that the mistake is one’s own, that one has not understood. 2, The second is to assume that the other person has made a mistake and is wrong. He saw these as extremes and felt the correct attitude was to consider both possibilities. This struck me as sensible. My observation of you to date is that you have a strong tendency to fall into the extreme of category 2. I also think that you try to “mind read”. Examples are the suggestion that people have not understood you, are deliberately not wanting to understand or are being childish and all this quite early on in the debate. Remember you can not see the body language of the person and you know very little about their background and why they would respond to you as they do. It takes a while to get the “feel” of a person. Two people can use exactly the same words for very different reasons.

I assume and would be surprised if others did not also assume that usually people come into a debate believing they are right and the other is wrong and that this belief is mutual. It seems a very odd thing to feel compelled to tell someone that they are wrong or do not understand when this is implicitly understood. You can assume we know that you believe that because that is the standard position in any debate. What is more helpful is to identify the cause of the misunderstanding. This , of course , requires a lot of patience. You are an intelligent person and this means that you have a lot to give - but you need to work on your communication skills for people to fully benefit and be more receptive…

Nimeniton:

Yet, if he’s right and you have either, due to simple ignorance, or, due to an unwillingness that has as its basis an ulterior motive, failed to understand what potentiality means, as Aquinas uses it, then it is you that has been rude.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

It is a well-known defense posture that when one can no longer support one’s position by argument, then drop the argument, and attack the person.

That is the strategy of MatterLessMind.

The speed with which he does so is evidenced by the speed with which his views fail to hold up under scrutiny.

He cannot be faulted for weak thinking, but for his inappropriate reaction to superior thinking.

Instead of going to Forum Administrators, though, we should pray for him.

Curious:

How does an atheist pray?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Agreed with what you said before and you have said it better than me, It is , of course, possible to speculate that some one has potential for the future but the actuality remains uncertain whereas with the above you can do it with certainty with hindsight.

However, disingenuousness is far worse than any postulated rudeness on MoM2’s part. IMHO.

God bless,
jd