Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[ynotzap]

I give you a simple, but correct analogy. If you wish to talk to me, you MUST use a language I can understand. If you would initiate a conversation in ancient Sanskrit, it would be gobbledygook to me. So, if God wishes to reveal himself to me, then he MUST use a method that I can see and comprehend. I emphasize the word: “MUST”. And that is simply an obvious requirement, and not some lack of “humility”.

Since God never chose to reveal his ethical principle to ME, in a fashion that I can understand, all I can do is to follow my principles. And those principles are almost indistinguishable from yours - except the “worshipping” part. If that is not enough for God, then - tough luck.

In either case it a wasted time. Mind you, I am NOT talking about “meditative” prayer, but about “supplicative” or “intercessory” prayer.

If there is someone, who knows nothing about me, who does not even know if I exist or not, then I would not expect that person to “love” me. The first requirement to develop a relationship is to make sure that both parties exist and they both KNOW about the existence of the other.

Let’s leave the mythology out of this.

By the way, thank you for using paragraphs.

You are welcome, and if that’s what you think, and determined, thy will be done, and if you say so,so be it. On the lighter side, it reminds me of a joke.

An atheist was walking through the woods when a bear spotted him and gave chase. He caught up to him, and knocked him down and was about to give the atheist the “death blow” The atheist cried out “God help me” A voice was heard, and said, “Why should I help you, you have always denied my existence. The atheist replied " I heard that you were all forgiving, and merciful, and if you desire to not be that way, you can at least make the bear a christian, The voice said “So Be it” and vanished. The bear suddenly brought his paws together, knelt down and prayed” Bless us Oh Lord for these thy gifts we are about to receive from thy bounty…"

 

[PRmerger]

Right back atcha.

Oh, but Taffy, did you forget again that this is not my paradigm but yours?

You keep claiming the right to re-define things.

“Nothing” is now a low level quantum field!
“Marriage” is now a legalized friendship between 2 members of the same sex!
"A penny is now a million dollars!
This is now a circle!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I have maintained, and always maintained, that you (and I) don’t get to redefine marriage, redefine “nothing”, redefine what a square is.

That’s your game.

And, again, go see how re-defining a penny into a million dollars works for you.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, then, as requested, until you come up with a better explanation of exactly how the universe came to exist, that is my answer to you.

Not sure what your point is.

It *sounds *like you’re asserting that if a person can’t identify “exactly” how the universe came to exist then this means that God doesn’t exist?

Is that your point?

 

[Bradski]

No, you are wrong. I am saying that one thing can exist in two places not because it is logical and common sense, but based on experimentation. These things are NOT logical and do NOT conform with our common sense, but these common perceptions are trumped by the reality of physics. Likewise receding light beams or virtual particles.

But YOUR argument is that because something appears to counter common sense and appears to be illogical, then YOU must be right, simply because of that fact. If you are right, then we can use your argument to re-write quantum physics and relativity. PR says it’s not logical, THEREFORE Feynman and Bohr et al are wrong. PR says it’s not common sense, THEREFORE Einstein and Hubble are wrong.

This is extraordinarily simple to put to rest. Just answer the following:

Can the fact that a particle can be in two places at the same time be described as common sense? Can it by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever be described as logical?

Now you know that there’s only one answer to that. And I know that you know that there’s only one answer. And everyone reading this knows it as well. But I can’t see you answering it because the moment you do you dismantle your own argument.

 

[Wesrock]

Nice of you to make fallacious logical arguments for us so that you can reply to points that were never made.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Can the fact that a particle can be in two places at the same time be described as common sense? Can it by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever be described as logical? . . .

It is logical and common sense when one understands something of the nature of particles, time and space as matter manifests itself at the extremes of its smallness; or largeness, for that matter, where the speed of light is the constant and there is no true state of rest in this relative universe, ever in transition. Reality is what it is and it all makes sense once we catch on.

 

[Solmyr]

On the lighter side, it reminds me of a joke.

The joke is good, even though I knew it.

 

[Bradski]

Nice of you to make fallacious logical arguments for us so that you can reply to points that were never made.

And that was in reference to…?

It is logical and common sense when one understands something of the nature of particles, time and space as matter manifests itself at the extremes of its smallness; or largeness, for that matter, where the speed of light is the constant and there is no true state of rest in this relative universe, ever in transition. Reality is what it is and it all makes sense once we catch on.

Well considering that you neither understand nor comprehend quantum physics, it therefore by your own admission appears not to comply with common sense and does appear illogical.

Maybe I can put your point in another way: ‘Anything that appears to defy common sense and appears illogical could mean that we just don’t understand what’s happening’.

Thanks. Tell PR, can you?

 

[Solmyr]

What we say is that “what comes into existence must have a cause,” or “what is contingent must have a cause.”

And these both are unsubstantiated metaphysical assumptions.

Aquinas committed the same error. He correctly started by observing that some objects’ movement (or change) was caused by another object. Then he attempted to generalize and asserted that the movement or change is ALWAYS caused by something else. A typical error of “since no one has ever seen a black (or purple-yellow polka dot colored) swan, therefore black (or purple-yellow polka dot colored) swans cannot exist”.

He had no idea that motion and change are integral part of the universe. He never heard of Brownian motion or radioactive decay, or the theory of special relativity… etc.

 

[Bradski]

And these both are unsubstantiated metaphysical assumptions.

Aquinas committed the same error. He correctly started by observing that some objects’ movement (or change) was caused by another object. Then he attempted to generalize and asserted that the movement or change is ALWAYS caused by something else. A typical error of “since no one has ever seen a black (or purple-yellow polka dot colored) swan, therefore black (or purple-yellow polka dot colored) swans cannot exist”.

An engineer, a philosopher and a physicist are on a train and they pass a field with a single sheep in it.

‘Look’, says the engineer. ‘A black sheep. All sheep in this part of the world must be black’

‘No’, says the philosopher. ‘It just means that all sheep in this field are black’.

‘Good grief’, says the physicist. ‘You are both wrong. It simply means that in regard to that particular sheep, the side which we can see is black’.

Thank you. I’m here all week. Try the veal, it’s delicious.

 

[Wesrock]

He had no idea that motion and change are integral part of the universe. He never heard of Brownian motion or radioactive decay, or the theory of special relativity… etc.

Motion and change being an integral part of the universe was incredibly important in Aquinas’ metaphysics, nor do any of the science you cited undermine his metaphysics.

And unsubstantiated? Hah!

Oh, and Bradski, nice strawman, again.

 

[Solmyr]

Thank you. I’m here all week. Try the veal, it’s delicious.

Yes, it is.

A mathematician, and physicist and an engineer are presented with the problem to prove that all positive integers are prime numbers.

The mathematician says: “One is a prime, two is a prime, three is a prime, four is not a prime, so the theorem is false.”

The engineer says: “One is a prime, two is a prime, three is a prime, four is a prime, five is a prime, six is a prime… so the theorem is true.”

The physicist says: “One is a prime, two is a prime, three is a prime, four is not a prime, five is a prime, obviously “four” is just a measurement error, so the theorem is true.”

 

[Wesrock]

Also, space, time, quantum fabric, the laws of physics. These are all something. When a metaphysician says the universe cannot come from nothing, he means nothing. Space is a thing. Time is a thing. A law of physics is a thing.

The correct response isn’t to claim that something can come from nothing by pointing to a vacuum. A more consistent response would be to declare that the vacuum (or something) is eternal. I believe that itself has flaws, but it would seem to more accurately reflect your claims, at least.

 

[Bradski]

Oh, and Bradski, nice strawman, again.

Uh? Are you confusing me with someone else?

Can you please tell me who made the fallacious logical arguments and to what straw man you are referring? And what in heaven’s name is a metaphysician? What sort of medicine would he practice?

 

[Solmyr]

What sort of medicine would he practice?

Haha! Meta-illnesses cured by meta-pills. Or maybe grabbing a meta-knife and perform a meta-incision to remove a meta-organ

 

[Bradski]

Haha! Meta-illnesses cured by meta-pills. Or maybe grabbing a meta-knife and perform a meta-incision to remove a meta-organ

‘Ah, good morning, Sol. Let’s see if we can’t work out what’s the meta with you’.

 

[Wesrock]

Uh? Are you confusing me with someone else?

Can you please tell me who made the fallacious logical arguments and to what straw man you are referring? And what in heaven’s name is a metaphysician? What sort of medicine would he practice?

Metaphysicist. Lol.

The engineer, philosopher, physicist joke. Previously, the arguments you put in our mouths about logic, common sense, a wave-particle duality.

 

[Bradski]

Metaphysicist. Lol.

The engineer, philosopher, physicist joke. Previously, the arguments you put in our mouths about logic, common sense, a wave-particle duality.

Yeah, I thought you meant metaphysicist. Although I still don’t know what that is.

And a straw man would be me demolishing a position which I suggest that someone holds when they patently don’t. Me telling a joke doesn’t really count. It might count as deflection if I was trying to avoid answering a question, but I wasn’t so it doesn’t.

And the statements about logic and common sense are those of PR mainly, although Al chipped in at one point. They are not mine. They have said that common sense and logic alone are reasonable positions to hold in determining the truth of some aspects of physics. Like this:

It’s just plain common sense and logic.

That is not the case, as I have tried to demonstrate.

 

[ynotzap]

Solmyr:

Radio activity was studied by Einstien around l952, St.Thomas was born around l225, and he explained about motion and change being an integral part of the universe. You puzzle me, you can quote your modern day scientist and speak about their theories, yet you didn’t know what I meant or understand in my posts to you, I wonder if the rest of any observers had that trouble with my presentation. I didn’t expect you to believe it, but I did expect you to understand what you didn’t believe How simple do you expect me to make my response. Explain the way you want me to explain my responses instead of telling me you don’t understand what I am stating I don’t want to question your honesty

 

[Solmyr]

Solmyr:

Radio activity was studied by Einstien around l952, St.Thomas was born around l225, and he explained about motion and change being an integral part of the universe. You puzzle me, you can quote your modern day scientist and speak about their theories, yet you didn’t know what I meant or understand in my posts to you, I wonder if the rest of any observers had that trouble with my presentation. I didn’t expect you to believe it, but I did expect you to understand what you didn’t believe How simple do you expect me to make my response. Explain the way you want me to explain my responses instead of telling me you don’t understand what I am stating I don’t want to question your honesty

I think we have a misunderstanding. Of course I agree that the motion/change are integral part of the universe. And also that in many cases there is an “outside” force which is responsible for the motion/change. Example is a cue-stick and a billiard ball.

What I deny that it is correct to generalize this “outside” force. To say that “every instance of motion/change is due to some outside force” is unwarranted. It would be a generalization from the particular to the whole. A “set” is composed of “elements”. The elements have certain attributes (or characteristics). It is also possible that all the elements share a common attribute (but this is not necessary).Sometimes (!!!) it is true that the set also shares this common attribute, but other times it does not.

Two examples. A floor is composed of identical tiles. Every tile is white and every tile is square. It is correct to say: “since every tile is white, therefore the floor is also white”. However it is NOT correct to say: “since every tile is square, therefore the floor is also square”. (It could be an oblong). The point is that sometimes you can correctly generalize from the particular to the whole, while other times you cannot.

I hope this clarifies the issue.