Science is worthless

[aspawloski4th]

You think spending on science is above scrutiny and accountability?

No, but not by far.

 

[wasmit]

OP

In order for event A to cause event B, A must occur before event B.

It is meaningless to talk about the “cause” of the universe, because the concept of cause cannot exist in the absence of time.

 

[wasmit]

Evolution as Philosophy

lol

 

[buffalo]

lol

 

[aspawloski4th]

Say, how is that drive over to Detroit these days? It used to be nice.

jd

That must have been before my time. I’m 41 and never know it to be nice. Heck it isnt even nice drving to Lansing for that matter.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

In order for event A to cause event B, A must occur before event B.

It is meaningless to talk about the “cause” of the universe, because the concept of cause cannot exist in the absence of time.

thats just another way to claim an eternal universe, with the same problems i pointed out in my last post.

 

[wasmit]

I am not claiming an eternal universe.

The universe cannot be eternal (in existence for infinite time), given that time has only existed for ~14b years.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I am not claiming an eternal universe.

The universe cannot be eternal (in existence for infinite time), given that time has only existed for ~14b years.

i know, thats the point, the unjiverse had a beginning, ergo it had a cause. if your saying it came into being without a cause, you would have to have a rational reason for that exception to causality, otherwise its the fallacy of special pleading.

is that what you meant? if so what is your resaon to support the special pleading?

 

[wasmit]

I am not claiming an eternal universe.

It is meaningless to talk about the “cause” of the universe, because the concept of cause cannot exist in the absence of time.

Yes, the universe had a beginning, however asking the question “what caused the universe” is meaningless. The concept of cause does not apply.

if your saying it came into being without a cause,

I’m not saying that either. The concept of cause does not apply.

“It[universe] was either caused or uncaused” is a false dichotomy.

you would have to have a rational reason for that exception to causality, otherwise its the fallacy of special pleading.

is that what you meant? if so what is your resaon to support the special pleading?

It is not an exception to causality in the sense of saying “everything has this property but this does not.” (e.g. every continent has at least one million human inhabitants, except antarctica)

It is an exception to causality because there is no causality.

 

[Drawmack]

and as long as you accept the following dogmas:

Adam and Eve are all humanities first parents, Eve came from Adam, they had bodily immortality, freedom from irregular desire and pain, and infused knowledge )aka preternatural gifts)

There is scientific evidence that all people share mitochondrial, hence the entire human race shares a mother. If a scientist denies a single motherhood of man, that scientist is denying evidence. Evidence, mind you, that we wouldn’t have without this worthless science.

If you’re going to say that someone must accept dogmas then you must provide references (NOT WIKIPEDIA) that these are in fact dogmas. I am not saying you are wrong, I am simply saying that you do not have the authority to proclaim dogma and therefore must provide references. The Church has officially state that one can accept the creation stories as allegory, so simply pointing to the Bible will not work.

Let me ask you this. Adam and Eve are the first humans. According to the Bible Adam was made from clay and Eve was made from Adam’s rib. If we accept the six day creation story is (or even can be) allegory, then is it not possible that Adam is the first human but that this first human is the end result of thousands (millions? billions?) of years worth of evolution and it was Adam who was the creation God had been working towards all that time? Thus, he was the first human imbued with a man’s immortal soul, but he actually evolved from lower life forms to a state where he was worthy of possessing a man’s soul? Being that this evolution started someone it is still correct that he was made from clay, just not the way that a potter makes a bowl from clay.

Then is it not possible that God, seeing that his creation was lonely because he was the only one with a human soul, created Eve?

 

[Drawmack]

and as long as you accept the following dogmas:

Adam and Eve are all humanities first parents, Eve came from Adam, they had bodily immortality, freedom from irregular desire and pain, and infused knowledge )aka preternatural gifts)

There is scientific evidence that all people share mitochondrial, hence the entire human race shares a mother. If a scientist denies a single motherhood of man, that scientist is denying evidence. Evidence, mind you, that we wouldn’t have without this worthless science.

If you’re going to say that someone must accept dogmas then you must provide references (NOT WIKIPEDIA) that these are in fact dogmas. I am not saying you are wrong, I am simply saying that you do not have the authority to proclaim dogma and therefore must provide references. The Church has officially state that one can accept the creation stories as allegory, so simply pointing to the Bible will not work.

Let me ask you this. Adam and Eve are the first humans. According to the Bible Adam was made from clay and Eve was made from Adam’s rib. If we accept the six day creation story is (or even can be) allegory, then is it not possible that Adam is the first human but that this first human is the end result of thousands (millions? billions?) of years worth of evolution and it was Adam who was the creation God had been working towards all that time? Thus, he was the first human imbued with a man’s immortal soul, but he actually evolved from lower life forms to a state where he was worthy of possessing a man’s soul? Being that this evolution started someone it is still correct that he was made from clay, just not the way that a potter makes a bowl from clay.

Then is it not possible that God, seeing that his creation was lonely because he was the only one with a human soul, created Eve?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is meaningless to talk about the “cause” of the universe,
because the concept of cause cannot exist in the absence of time.

Yes, the universe had a beginning, however asking the question “what caused the universe” is meaningless. The concept of cause does not apply.

I’m not saying that either. The concept of cause does not apply.

“It[universe] was either caused or uncaused” is a false dichotomy.

It is not an exception to causality in the sense of saying “everything has this property but this does not.” (e.g. every continent has at least one million human inhabitants, except antarctica)

It is an exception to causality because there is no causality.

unfortunately, we see a big bang, that looks like empirical evidence that such an idea is false. something did occur prior to the formation of physical laws. if no causality existed, then no BB would have been possible.

unless you are saying the universe is uncaused or didnt need a cause, which is what it really seems to me.

to say there was no causality belies the obvious refutation, that if such were true, then we couldnt be here, unless your claiming the universe is eternal, which is the same as saying it is uncaused or didnt need a cause.

causality wouldnt seem to be dependent on physical laws, if it was, there could have been no big bang.

 

[buffalo]

There is scientific evidence that all people share mitochondrial, hence the entire human race shares a mother. If a scientist denies a single motherhood of man, that scientist is denying evidence. Evidence, mind you, that we wouldn’t have without this worthless science.

If you’re going to say that someone must accept dogmas then you must provide references (NOT WIKIPEDIA) that these are in fact dogmas. I am not saying you are wrong, I am simply saying that you do not have the authority to proclaim dogma and therefore must provide references. The Church has officially state that one can accept the creation stories as allegory, so simply pointing to the Bible will not work.

Let me ask you this. Adam and Eve are the first humans. According to the Bible Adam was made from clay and Eve was made from Adam’s rib. If we accept the six day creation story is (or even can be) allegory, then is it not possible that Adam is the first human but that this first human is the end result of thousands (millions? billions?) of years worth of evolution and it was Adam who was the creation God had been working towards all that time? Thus, he was the first human imbued with a man’s immortal soul, but he actually evolved from lower life forms to a state where he was worthy of possessing a man’s soul? Being that this evolution started someone it is still correct that he was made from clay, just not the way that a potter makes a bowl from clay.

Then is it not possible that God, seeing that his creation was lonely because he was the only one with a human soul, created Eve?

I never use Wikipedia. I use Catholic sources.

 

[wasmit]

It is meaningless to talk about the “cause” of the universe,
because the concept of cause cannot exist in the absence of time.

How do you know that if no causality existed, then no BB would have been possible ?

unless you are saying the universe is uncaused or didnt need a cause, which is what it really seems to me.

That is not what I am saying. This is outlined in my previous post.

to say there was no causality belies the obvious refutation, that if such were true, then we couldnt be here,

how do you know?

unless your claiming the universe is eternal, which is the same as saying it is uncaused or didnt need a cause.

That is not what I am saying. I replied to this in my previous posts.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How do you know that if no causality existed, then no BB would have been possible ?

looks like the effect of a cause to me. are you making a special plea that it was uncaused?

That is not what I am saying. This is outlined in my previous post

.

sure, but the point was refuted, causality is obviously not dependent on time, if it was then the BB couldnt have occured, unless you are saying it is uncaused. which i guess you arent.

how do you know?

first cause occured prior to the formation of the physical laws, so it is meaningful to talk about causality outside of our universal constants, because we have an example of it prior to the formation of physical laws.

 

[wasmit]

[the BB event] looks like the effect of a cause to me. are you making a special plea that it was uncaused?

Saying “it looks like the effect of a cause” does not mean that it is the effect of a cause.

It is not an special pleading in the sense of saying “everything has this property but this does not.”

It is a justified exception because there is no causality.

sure, but the point was refuted, causality is obviously not dependent on time,

To refute my point that the concept of causality requires the existence of time, You would need to demonstrate that an event B was caused by A independent of their occurance in time. Specifically where B occurs before A. You have not done this, so my point holds.

if it was then the BB couldnt have occured, unless you are saying it is uncaused. which i guess you arent.

Why could the BB event have not occured if causality requires the existence time?

You haven’t shown that the BB event could not have occured if causality requires the existence of time.

first cause occured prior to the formation of the physical laws, so it is meaningful to talk about causality outside of our universal constants, because we have an example of it prior to the formation of physical laws.

“first cause occured prior to the formation of the physical laws” is nonsensical, as the start of time and the formation of the physical laws occured at the same instant event. There is no such thing at “Prior”, or “Before” the BB event (which was the formation of the physical laws)

---

Overall, my objection to your first cause argument relies on the concept of cause requiring the existence of time.

Conversely, your first cause argument relies on the truth of your statement “causality is obviously not dependent on time”, or, cause existing while time does not.​

Would you agree with this assessment of our two positions? If so, we should focus on this issue, instead of other peripheral issues which will eventually lead to this issue anyway.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Saying “it looks like the effect of a cause” does not mean that it is the effect of a cause.

It is not an special pleading in the sense of saying “everything has this property but this does not.”

you are saying that the universe is not subject to causality, while everything else is. that is pretty much the standard special pleading

It is a justified exception because there is no causality.

before time began there was the BB, they would seem to be independent

To refute my point that the concept of causality requires the existence of time, You would need to demonstrate that an event B was caused by A independent of their occurance in time. Specifically where B occurs before A. You have not done this, so my point holds.

i dont know why i need to do that, we have the evidence that the cause of the BB occured before time began.

“first cause occured prior to the formation of the physical laws” is nonsensical, as the start of time and the formation of the physical laws occured at the same instant event. There is no such thing at “Prior”, or “Before” the BB event (which was the formation of the physical laws)

the cause of an effect occurs prior to it, the cause of the universe occured prior to its creation, we can reference things prior to time in relation to the beginning of time. not 2 events, both timeless.

---

Overall, my objection to your first cause argument relies on the concept of cause requiring the existence of time.

first cause was prior to the BB, cause and effect cant happen exactly simultaneously.they couldnt have then occurred as one event.

Would you agree with this assessment of our two positions? If so, we should focus on this issue, instead of other peripheral issues which will eventually lead to this issue anyway.

not particularly, basics metaphysics is fine, but the OP is what i care to address. i have gone over these same arguments so many times it isnt funny. so id rather talk about the OP

 

[wasmit]

you are saying that the universe is not subject to causality, while everything else is. that is pretty much the standard special pleading

That is not what I am saying.

before time began there was the BB, they would seem to be independent

You cannot validly say “Before time began”. The word “before” requires time.

Saying “before time began there was the BB [event]” implies that time began after the BB event. Which is false.

How are the beginning of time and the BB event independent?

i dont know why i need to do that, we have the evidence that the cause of the BB occured before time began.

You cannot validly say “Before time began”. The word “before” requires time.

Specifically what evidence is there that the cause of the BB occured before time began?

the cause of an effect occurs prior to it,

Finally, something we agree upon!

the cause of the universe occured prior to its creation,

There is no “prior” or “before” the start of the universe.

we can reference things prior to time in relation to the beginning of time. not 2 events, both timeless.

You cannot validly say “Before time began”. The word “before” requires time.

first cause was prior to the BB,

You cannot validly say “Before time began”. The word “before” requires time.

cause and effect cant happen exactly simultaneously.

please demonstrate this. This is false as far as i know.

not particularly, basics metaphysics is fine, but the OP is what i care to address. i have gone over these same arguments so many times it isnt funny. so id rather talk about the OP

I’d rather not go back to the OP, if we do, we’ll just end up in the same position we are right now, just 4-6 posts in the future.

We seem to be at an impasse. I’ll state my position and what I think your position is, and see what you think.

me:
(1)the cause of an effect occurs prior to it, →
(2)Therefore, the concept of cause requires the existence of time. →
(3)Therefore, If time does not exist, cause can not exist. →
(4)Time started at the BB event
(5)Therefore, It is meaningless to consider the cause of the BB event.

Where I think you are:
-The universe was caused by something
-the cause of the universe occured prior to its creation

 

[wasmit]

looks like the effect of a cause to me. are you making a special plea that it was uncaused?

sure, but the point was refuted, causality is obviously not dependent on time, if it was then the BB couldnt have occured, unless you are saying it is uncaused. which i guess you arent.

first cause occured prior to the formation of the physical laws, so it is meaningful to talk about causality outside of our universal constants, because we have an example of it prior to the formation of physical laws.

you are saying that the universe is not subject to causality, while everything else is. that is pretty much the standard special pleading

before time began there was the BB, they would seem to be independent

i dont know why i need to do that, we have the evidence that the cause of the BB occured before time began.

the cause of an effect occurs prior to it, the cause of the universe occured prior to its creation, we can reference things prior to time in relation to the beginning of time. not 2 events, both timeless.

first cause was prior to the BB, cause and effect cant happen exactly simultaneously.they couldnt have then occurred as one event.

not particularly, basics metaphysics is fine, but the OP is what i care to address. i have gone over these same arguments so many times it isnt funny. so id rather talk about the OP

I found a self-contradiction, from one post to the next.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That is not what I am saying.

maybe you dont think you are. ive been doing this a long time and i know where all the common arguments lead.

if i am way off here than telll me what you mean specifically.

You cannot validly say “Before time began”. The word “before” requires time.

Saying “before time began there was the BB [event]” implies that time began after the BB event. Which is false.

How are the beginning of time and the BB event independent?

sure you can say before and prior to time beginning, the beginning of time being your temporal reference point.

as to the timeline of the BB you may want to google it, the physical laws didnt form out of BB until a planck time after physicists say the BB occurred.

you can find more specif info on the web.

You cannot validly say “Before time began”. The word “before” requires time.

Specifically what evidence is there that the cause of the BB occured before time began?

as above google it.

Finally, something we agree upon!

There is no “prior” or “before” the start of the universe.

You cannot validly say “Before time began”. The word “before” requires time.

You cannot validly say “Before time began”. The word “before” requires time.

as above your temporal refernce point is the beginning of time.

please demonstrate this. This is false as far as i know.

whats to demonstrate? its proven trillions of times per second, cause is prior to effect, simultaneous events cannot be eachothers cause, because they are simultaneous.

I’d rather not go back to the OP, if we do, we’ll just end up in the same position we are right now, just 4-6 posts in the future.

i would, i am not trying to cover basic metaphysics, this OP is about sciences ability to provide a natural explanation. the current course of the conversation doesnt seem to make a difference in regard to that. it doesnt seem to affect the premise or conclusion of the OP.

We seem to be at an impasse. I’ll state my position and what I think your position is, and see what you think.

me:
(1)the cause of an effect occurs prior to it, →
(2)Therefore, the concept of cause requires the existence of time. →

why do you think there is a causal relationship between causality and time? aside from what seems to be contradictory evidence, it would seem to be difficult then for the BB to have occured at all, if causality requires time, and time began in the BB, then how did the BB occur?

if you are not saying the universe may be uncaused, then what cause do you suggest could work in the absence of time? in light of time being needed for cause?

you are saying, unintentionally, that the universe is uncaused, your reason for the special plea is the absence of time, but that absence would preclude any event whatsoever.

does that explain why your really claiming an uncaused universe?

(3)Therefore, If time does not exist, cause can not exist. →

maybe you have some evidence of this? it precludes anything from happening at all.

(4)Time started at the BB event

not what physics says.

(5)Therefore, It is meaningless to consider the cause of the BB event.

of course it has meaning, we can talk about things in relation to the beginning of time becuase it means something to be prior to that beginning. we simply use that as our reference point.