Various mechanisms have been proposed including yon multiverses, plus universes born from black holes, etc.
All of those have been widely rejected. No model of the origin of the universe out of a black hole, and no physical multiverse model has achieved wide acceptance among physicists, despite the fact that the frantic search for some way to extend the universe to past infinity has constituted much of the study of physics over the 20th century.
However, more importantly, even on the black hole or multiverse models, each still has an expansion rate of greater than 0, and so must have an absolute beginning.
Not if the universe is eternal.
However, the universe is not eternal. We know this, firstly, because the universe is not necessary in its existence, and secondly, because it’s impossible for an infinite series of events to be formed by successive addition. Past events are real events, and would therefore need to be actually infinite in number in order for the eternity of the universe to be feasible.
To paraphrase Saint Thomas Aquinas, “If there were an infinite number of moments in the past, we would never have arrived at -this- moment.”
The cause is either necessary or contingent, it can’t be both.
I agree. What’s the problem, exactly?
If your first cause can flip a coin then the universe could too, and your separate cause is redundant.
The problem with this is that the universe -is not- the First Cause, and we know this for independent reasons. I am -not- claiming that the First Cause can become contingent, or “enter into time,” or anything else like that, but rather that it need not make its decisions -solely- on the basis of its necessary existence, which indicates that it possesses freedom of the will.
Nope, I’m saying that Eastern philosophers and also some Western philosophers disagree on the uncaused cause for various reasons. In fact, a few weeks ago I fell over a recent survey of professional philosophers and it turns out most are atheists, so they certainly don’t find your conclusion inescapable.
Well, then maybe you should invite one of them over to post the next reply, because I’d be very interested in hearing their arguments and evidence, so that I could engage with it. What I will not do, and feel no need to do, is fall victim to the Argumentum ad Populum, which you are, again, making use of here. “The majority of X group believes it, so you should to.” Garbage. You should only believe something if you have better reasons to believe it than you have to believe the reverse of it.
Cyclic models are incompatible with the inflationary hypothesis, but it’s not the only one in town.
So which model are you trying to defend, exactly. You keep dancing from one failed model to another, as if unwilling to make a claim and stick to it. Meanwhile, I have made several claims, and never backed off from them.
If you want to have a serious discussion on this subject, please start by ironing out which position you’re defending.
The only problem for those who try to tell science what it can’t study is that scientists go ahead and do it anyway.
No, that’s not a problem for me, or for those like me. It’s a problem for the scientists, because when scientists begin to make judgments on things far outside their legitimate competency, you get trash like “The God Delusion,” or logical fallacies of various types. Sometimes, a scientist will even obscure the truths of science, in their pursuit of non-scientific truths. I could drop further names on this point, but clearly, whenever this happens, it is the scientist who is at fault, and who suffers, for failing to realize the limitations of his own craft.
None of this has to do with the nature of ideas. This is only about how the brain processes various intellectual impulses, but it can’t tell you what an idea -is.-
You’ll have no success trying to tell philosophers what they can and can’t know either - philosophers can hold with empiricism or rationalism (or neither).
-Anyone- can hold to empiricism or rationalism (though I would maintain that they can’t do it consistently,) so there’s nothing special about that. Frankly, beliefs are a dime a dozen. Let’s hear their arguments in favor of these positions, and against the criticisms of them.
You’ll find lots of people who believe in free will. In fact you seem to be arguing that your first cause had free will to create the universe. Now where did that pesky cause and effect go?
Nowhere. Without free will, certain types of effects would be impossible. However, causes aren’t any less causes just because they’re set in motion by a being with free will.
For example, when a lumberjack cuts down a tree, and it falls, and he asks you why it fell, you could answer “gravity,” which is one cause of the tree falling, or you could answer “because you cut it down,” which is another cause. However, the latter cause remains a cause, even though it was set in motion by free will.
Sorry for delay in replying, got a lot going on at present, might be a while before I can get back.
By all means, take your time. I prefer to engage with thorough and well-considered responses, and I’m frankly in no hurry myself.
