The priniciple of Causality, Logic & Scientific Observation.

[warpspeedpetey]

So you are endorsing M-Theory?

no, they will just have something else next week, that deal undergoes permutations about as often as as the tides. they cant seem to make up their mind. you may be interested in the history of string theory derivatives. its pretty funny.

The notion that other universes exists and that they in turn may create additional universes?

thats the many worlds interpretation of QM, one of many, and not really held in high regard.

as a cosmological matter, it still doesn’t avoid first cause

Or are you talking about how black holes might be the source of additional universes?

same problem as above.

no im refering to the idea that since something physical cannot cause itself, the only other possibility is something non-physical
as a cause.

therefore the first cause of our observed universe must necessarily be non-physical

im a little sleepy, does that make sense?

 

[Leela]

I think you will find that most atheists are squarely in the “don’t know but lots of people are working on it” category. You would think that by now people would have realized the futility of the God of the Gap approach to science.

I agree and count myself in this camp.

I don’t think we are in a position to know if we have even asked meaningful questions about the origin of the universe let alone claim we have answers. Does the universe have a beginning? If time is part of the universe, and time is a concept presupposed for using words like “beginning,” does it make any sense to talk about the begining of the universe? To do so requires us to imagine being able to stand outside of time, a gods-eye-view, so it seems to me that the question pretty much presupposes the existence of a god and can’t then be taken as proof of God. But I don’t know, and I’m not at all convinced that anyone does.

Best,
Leela

 

[cerad]

no im refering to the idea that since something physical cannot cause itself, the only other possibility is something non-physical
as a cause.

therefore the first cause of our observed universe must necessarily be non-physical

im a little sleepy, does that make sense?

So I guess all you need to do now to claim your Nobel prize is to:

1. Demonstrate the existence of “non-physical” things.
2. Produce a plausible mechanism showing how the non-physical can create the physical.

 

[Nebogipfel]

It seems like you’re parroting John Allen Paulos’’ regurgitation of Bertrand Russell’s butchery of the argument from causality.
Hume, Russell, Paulos (and others) have uncritically perpetuated this straw man. No credible metaphysician has ever articulated the argument from causality that way. It violates the principle of sufficient reason (not to be confused with the rationalist principle of sufficient reason).

That’s just a restatement of the ontological argument in more words. You’re saying that God must exist, otherwise he wouldn’t be God. It’s a circular argument. Perhaps metaphysics is not all its cracked up to be?

 

[1holycatholic]

I agree and count myself in this camp.

I don’t think we are in a position to know if we have even asked meaningful questions about the origin of the universe let alone claim we have answers. Does the universe have a beginning? If time is part of the universe, and time is a concept presupposed for using words like “beginning,” does it make any sense to talk about the begining of the universe? To do so requires us to imagine being able to stand outside of time, a gods-eye-view, so it seems to me that the question pretty much presupposes the existence of a god and can’t then be taken as proof of God. But I don’t know, and I’m not at all convinced that anyone does.

Since infinite past time is logically impossible you’re in a pickle.

 

[1holycatholic]

That’s just a restatement of the ontological argument in more words. You’re saying that God must exist, otherwise he wouldn’t be God. It’s a circular argument. Perhaps metaphysics is not all its cracked up to be?

What are the four causes?

 

[Leela]

Since infinite past time is logically impossible you’re in a pickle.

Really? I can see how anything that exists in time could be said to have a beginning, which is to say that it started at some point in time, but how could time start at some point in time?

And why is it logically impossible for time to be infinite? I’m not saying I think it is infinite, I’m just saying I don’t know, and I don’t even know if it makes sense to ask if it is infinite or not.

Best,
Leela

 

[Nebogipfel]

pure logic and observed reality never disagree, if they do the fault is usually in the interpretation of the fobservationall evidence, not in the mathematics of logic. or at least thats my opinion.

frankly the excuses for atheism are easily refuted.

thats why we dont understand the resistance from people who claim to be rationalists.

we are rationalists and we belive in G-d because that is where the evidence leads.

Sorry, I can’t unmangle the quote tags here, bear with me.

You are saying that the physical universe must have had a non-physical (and actually, I’m not sure what you mean by that) cause, and that cause must have been God.

So vaccuum fluctuations, quantum effects and anything else which we can measure are “physical”, and all these things must have had a “non-physical” cause.

But why is it so unreasonable to ask what caused the non-physical cause? You’re just defining the problem out of existence. Fair enough, if you find that a satisfying answer - I don’t; I stand with MegaTheron in saying that this is a magic explanation that actually explains nothing.

Why use the label “God” for this thing-which-caused-the-Universe? Why not just call it “the cause of the Universe”?

Calling it “God” calls up a whole load of other cultural baggage which has accreted to that word over the millennia.

If this non-physical cause is so utterly unlike anything which exists in the physical universe (and surely this must be the case, as it is not part of the physical universe), then how can anything be known about it at all? How could it possibly have desires, goals or emotions that are anything like those of a human being, much less concern itself with what people’s burnt offerings smell like, or whether people gather up sticks on the sabbath?

Most religious folk seem pretty convinced that the intelligent, self-aware universe-creating agency which they call “God” has a lot in common with human beings.

Perhaps this is OT, but you did say that most “excuses” for atheism could be easily dismissed, so I think you opened out the field there…

Incidently, I thought things like the Casimir effect demonstrated that force and energy can arise directly out of vacuum fluctuations. But I’m not an expert in these things - I’m willing to be corrected.

And on a last note: The ontological argument can be used to prove that the perfect ice cream sundae must exist somewhere. I hope someone has it in a freezer…

And now it’s time for bed… until the morrow…

 

[Nebogipfel]

What are the four causes?

The four causes of what? Oh, you mean the efficient cause, formal cause and the other two whose names escape me? I can’t remember offhand.

It is true that I have never formally studied philosophy and metaphysics, so perhaps I really don’t know what I’m talking about. I’m sure you will enlighten me if this is the case.

On the other hand, physics has moved on a bit since Aristotle’s day; I’m not sure that the idea of Aristotelian substances is still at the cutting edge.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So I guess all you need to do now to claim your Nobel prize is to:

1. Demonstrate the existence of “non-physical” things.
2. Produce a plausible mechanism showing how the non-physical can create the physical.

the first contention is demonstrated by the existence of physical things, thats the point of Thomistic First Cause. they must necessarily exist, there can be no other cause.

much the same way one runs a criminal investigation, all the suspects can be eliminated but one. in this case its extrememly easy since there are only 2 possibilities, the physical, and the non-physical. we know that the physical cannot be self creating. therefore it was Col. non-physical in the library with the pipe wrench

as to the second, that mechanisms explanation, is why i have yet to visit Stockholm.

however we can prove that no physical explanation is possible. we have managed to rule out any possible physical cause. i would say that the triumph of that makes Aquinas worthy of any cosmological or metaphysical nobel they may yet make.

further, an explanation of such a mechanism by a being only capable of observation of the physical is nigh impossible. as explaining a computer to a deep amazon tribesmen, i wouldn’t know it even if i saw it. neither would anyone else.

as its an impossible task for one in our physical state, i think the nobel people are being quite mean spirited

 

[reggieM]

1. Demonstrate the existence of “non-physical” things.

Common human experience shows that non-physical things do exist. “Thoughts” are non-physical things. They cannot be observed or measured for size, shape, weight, length or any other physical characteristics.

But we know that thoughts are the Causes of physical things. Thoughts (and other non-physical things like “the will of man”) are the causes behind human creations.

So, we know that non-physical things exist and that they are the Cause of created things. The thoughts of an architect are the cause of the building, etc.

The non-physical (thoughts, will, desires) move the physical (human body) to create things which did not exist previously.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You are saying that the physical universe must have had a non-physical (and actually, I’m not sure what you mean by that) cause, and that cause must have been God.

by non-physical i simply mean something that is not physical, i.e. doesnt act within the confines of physical laws, it lacks physical substance. i prefer the metaphysical definition of ‘supernatural’ but as i spend a lot of time talking to physicists, engineers and chemists, they cant quite wrap their head around it without reference to ghosts et al. so i simply say ‘non-physical’. it makes it easier.

So vaccuum fluctuations, quantum effects and anything else which we can measure are “physical”, and all these things must have had a “non-physical” cause.

‘measurement’ has little to do with it, rather physical things are those which act in accord with or whose behavior is in any manner predictable from those physical laws. measurement is too imprecise a definition.

further, vacuum fluctualtions and other QM theory are just that, theory. there are alot of equally valid QM interpretations

that aside, those things are physical in nature, and therefore require a cause.

But why is it so unreasonable to ask what caused the non-physical cause? You’re just defining the problem out of existence. Fair enough, if you find that a satisfying answer - I don’t; I stand with MegaTheron in saying that this is a magic explanation that actually explains nothing.

it is unreasonable to ask that because it is the presupposition, with no evidence or logical argumentation, that the non-physical must be subject to the same laws as the physical.

its like saying that someone in a foreign country is subject to your laws. why should they be?

we know causality applies to physical objects, there is nothing that says it should apply to the non-physical, so that is a baseless assumption.

im sure that you dont like baseless assumption either.

Why use the label “God” for this thing-which-caused-the-Universe? Why not just call it “the cause of the Universe”?

Calling it “God” calls up a whole load of other cultural baggage which has accreted to that word over the millennia.

im entirely happy to use the term ‘non-physical’. but as G-d is the only non-physical object of sufficient power to cause creation that we have any knowledge of, than. its really a half a dozen of one, 6 of another situation.

that said, ‘non-physical’ is fine too. im not married to any particular vernacular.

If this non-physical cause is so utterly unlike anything which exists in the physical universe (and surely this must be the case, as it is not part of the physical universe), then how can anything be known about it at all? How could it possibly have desires, goals or emotions that are anything like those of a human being, much less concern itself with what people’s burnt offerings smell like, or whether people gather up sticks on the sabbath?

let me say this covers a larger range of subject matter than MoM intended in the OP, im happy to discuss it, but a proper treatment of theology takes reams and centuries.

that said i think the real argument is not about the existence of
G-d, but rather who is G-d?

Most religious folk seem pretty convinced that the intelligent, self-aware universe-creating agency which they call “God” has a lot in common with human beings

.

thats because of thousands of years of experience with G-d. most people arent metaphysicians, or cosmlologists. but if you dont even believe in the existence of G-d, you cant really be expectede to understand why they think in those terms, but as i assure you that we are no more intelligent or educated than the norm of them, then we must assume that they have sufficient reason to do so.

Perhaps this is OT, but you did say that most “excuses” for atheism could be easily dismissed, so I think you opened out the field there…

sure, just give me a specific objection and i can give you the refutation. that or look it up, if you have something really original.

Incidently, I thought things like the Casimir effect demonstrated that force and energy can arise directly out of vacuum fluctuations. But I’m not an expert in these things - I’m willing to be corrected.

the most basic problem is the idea of ‘vacuum’ an area with dimension, lacking objects, to some thresh hold with in it.

where does this vacuum come from, it still needs a cause as something with physical properties, such as dimension.

a vacuum is not nothing, it is something. VP fails before it even gets started from a metaphysical view.

And on a last note: The ontological argument can be used to prove that the perfect ice cream sundae must exist somewhere. I hope someone has it in a freezer…

Aquinas, wasn’t enamored of the ontological argument either.

you may be confusing Thomistic thought for the ontological argument.

 

[1holycatholic]

The four causes of what? Oh, you mean the efficient cause, formal cause and the other two whose names escape me? I can’t remember offhand.

It is true that I have never formally studied philosophy and metaphysics, so perhaps I really don’t know what I’m talking about. I’m sure you will enlighten me if this is the case.

On the other hand, physics has moved on a bit since Aristotle’s day; I’m not sure that the idea of Aristotelian substances is still at the cutting edge.

Physics is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

The second way…

You ought to read a book that explains the subject.

 

[1holycatholic]

And on a last note: The ontological argument can be used to prove that the perfect ice cream sundae must exist somewhere. I hope someone has it in a freezer…

No, it can’t. Read Proslogion, with the Replies of Gaunilo and Anselm.

 

[1holycatholic]

Really? I can see how anything that exists in time could be said to have a beginning, which is to say that it started at some point in time, but how could time start at some point in time?

And why is it logically impossible for time to be infinite? I’m not saying I think it is infinite, I’m just saying I don’t know, and I don’t even know if it makes sense to ask if it is infinite or not.

Potential and actual infinities have already been explained to you. :coffeeread:

P.S. Deism (dei == God) isn’t atheism (no God).

 

[MindOverMatter]

MindOverMatter claims to have put me on ignore. So for the benefit of other readers:

Well…sometimes people irritate me, and the best thing to do is simply ignore them for a while. But for the sake of the needy and for warpspeedpetey’s entertainment, i am going to engage in philosophical warfare.

That is interesting – the only idea about origins that actually posits “something came from nothing” is the religious creatio ex nihilo.

Creation ex nihilo, only means that God did not create it out of something that preexisted the Universe, like a painter using paint to paint a picture. Rather; God created the Universe through and because of his own nature of being. When i say “out of nothing comes nothing”, it is simply to say that nothing can come to exist on a foundation of nothing, since there is no such thing as nothing. Therefore anything which comes to exist, has to have a cause.

This is just a logical and inescapable fact. And unless you say that there is and infinite chain of potentiality with no ultimate cause (an argument you admitted to me as flawed in another thread), then you must admit an eternal transcendent Unmoved-Mover.

The explanation “God did it” asserts that something did come from nothing.?

No it does not assert that something came from nothing. It asserts that everything came from God.

– by magic ?

Its this kind of straw-man argument that made me want to ignore you in the first place.

(i.e. by some mysterious process that we know nothing about).?

If we are talking about something that transcends space-time and matter, then it is unreasonable to think that we can comprehend all aspects of God or put superficial limits on a being that is by its very nature the root cause of all natural laws of physics.

In any case it is not necessary to understand the mechanism if the mechanism itself has to exist by force of logical necessity.
To say otherwise is really to reveal an underlying prejudice; nothing more.

It’s a non-explanation.

Simply asserting as such, can never in anyway undermine what is stated by force of logic.

Meanwhile, the Big Bang theory does not posit the universe coming from nothing.

WarpSpeedPetey is the greater authority on this but i will play my hand none the less.

The universe is expanding. The Big Bang posits the understanding that if we rewind history, the Universe, in respect of physical necessity, will shrink to an infinitesimal point, beyond which, there is no time, space or matter. Before the infinite point is reached, it must be the case that we eventually come to an event that has no physical explanation; as in, no preceding physical cause. Thus we have something in motion that has **no **physical reason to be in motion. In fact; we have potentiality with out a cause.

In line with the two principles of the original post, this is not possible. Therefore it follows necessarily that any explanation of the Universes existence would require a transcendence of time, space and matter altogether.

Therefore naturalism is and was a fundamentally flawed position before you ever existed or chose to be a naturalist. The only way to remain a naturalist is simply to give up logic altogether. But if you do that, then you give up the very tool of interpretation which underlines all scientific investigation. And if you still choose to use that tool in spite of Aquinas, then you are prejudiced. You do not deserve to be called rational.

The Big Bang is simply the expansion of the universe into its current state.

Again, you are asserting something. But you are offering no evidence or logical reasons why this would undermine the principles and arguments that i and the other Generous posters have given you?

This is obviously just another assertion which you made just because it is pleasing to your mind.

The problem is that we’re trying to discern what came before the Big Bang – and before Planck time (roughly the first ten seconds of the universe’s existence), we don’t know anything about what the natural “rules” or “laws” were. Until we have a theory of quantum gravity, it’s impossible to say anything for sure.

We know that there was no physics before the first event. That is all we need to know.

At any rate, I think it’s likely the “thing” which preceded the universe in its current form – quantum state or not, some natural thing – always existed.?

Based on what? Did you read the first post properly?

To be continued…

 

[MindOverMatter]

We know that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so there is a factual basis for saying that the universe (in some form) always existed.

If the laws of physics were a-prior “ultimate reality”, then I would have to agree with you. Energy cannot be created or destroyed by anything “natural”. So there really is no necessary contradiction in stating that God is the cause of energy, if God is the cause of the laws of physics. God by definition, is Ultimate-Reality. It is your Job to show us why we must accept your contention that the Universe is Ultimate-Reality. Simple assertions are not enough.

There are major contradictions however, in stating that there is an infinite duration of time—or physical events—before this moment. It is therefore also a contradiction to say that something can be in motion without a transcendent unmoved-mover.

What caused it to expand into its current form?

An unmoved-mover.

Have any evidence to suggest what it was? If you do, there’ll be a Nobel prize waiting for you.

Isn’t the Nobel prize given to people who make breakthroughs in understanding how the Universe works now that it exists? That is and was the true purpose of science. Understanding Creation. At least thats what it was before naturalism and scientism came to muddy the waters.

The one and most important Metaphysical question that underlies all of the Thomistic arguments is “why is there something rather then nothing?” Science cannot possibly answer why physical reality exists, because you have to transcend that which you are trying to measure or explain. The question in itself, is affirming the fact that physical reality cannot be in the process of explanation. The only way to disarm the question is to show us an a-prior reason for why one cannot ask it; otherwise, so long as God is even a logicall possibility, the question rules out physics as an explanation altogether. In that case you would no longer be in the realm of scientific investigation. You would instead be doing metaphysics; which unfortunately is not your strong point. So you probably won’t be getting a Templeton prize any time soon.

So far as the principle of causality is concerned, in order for the Universe to explain its own existence, it would have to come before its existence. Which is absurd.

On a side note, i just want to say a big thank you to all those who have participated and help me out. This has been a great thread so far.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The one and most important Metaphysical question that underlies all of the Thomistic arguments is “why is there something rather then nothing?” Science cannot possibly answer why physical reality exists, because you have to transcend that which you are trying to measure or explain. The question in itself, is affirming the fact that physical reality cannot be in the process of explanation. The only way to disarm the question is to show us an a-prior reason for why one cannot ask it; otherwise, so long as God is even a logicall possibility, the question rules out physics as an explanation altogether. In that case you would no longer be in the realm of scientific investigation. You would instead be doing metaphysics; which unfortunately is not your strong point. So you probably won’t be getting a Templeton prize any time soon.

what i dont understand is why when such a simple undeniable concept as this is presented, its not good enough, some how something must exist that needs no cause, but it cant be G-d.

that is a complete denial of rationalism, the very basis of our sciences and mathematics.

it leads me to believe that the logic is less important than the outcome.

 

[Leela]

Potential and actual infinities have already been explained to you. :coffeeread:

…something like time can’t be infinite because infinities don’t really exist?

 

[Nebogipfel]

what i dont understand is why when such a simple undeniable concept as this is presented, its not good enough, some how something must exist that needs no cause, but it cant be G-d.

Because this is just playing with word meanings. Even if I accept that something caused the universe, I really don’t see any reason to stick the label “God” on it. Except in the circular sense of saying, God is that which, by definition, created the universe.

that is a complete denial of rationalism, the very basis of our sciences and mathematics.

Why? From where I stand, it’s just refusing to make the unwarranted leap from “something caused the Universe” to "that something is God, and specifically, the Christian God.

it leads me to believe that the logic is less important than the outcome.

Yes, I am often told that my failure to believe in God is a result of me not wanting to take responsibility for my actions, or not wanting to face up to being “sinful”, or even more absurdly that I do believe in God, but just won’t admit it.

If people wish to think that about me, then there’s not a lot I can do to dissuade them, except to say that it ain’t so.