Why not this scenario?

[JuanFlorencio]

When you say “Consider an unstable sort of energy which existed at the beginning of time. It simply existed so it was uncaused. It was unstable so it could cause…” and then invoke the principles of conservation, all you are saying (though I can see now that you don’t realize it, which to me means that thinking about the subject “for a while” does not mean that you have thought it thoroughly) is that that “uncaused energy” is the same “stuff” that exists now. In other words, what you dogmatically assert is that the universe is uncaused. This is old materialistic dogma.

But you want to stress, almost prophetically, “no, but I say that the uncaused energy existed at the beginning of time”, as if it added something new. You don’t realize that the word “beginning” acquires its meaning within a temporal frame, so that the expression “beginning of time” means nothing.

You need to realize that you can write whatever you want, no matter how inconsistent and contradictory it is. You can imagine I don’t know what “energy” and simply say “it is uncaused!”, and add that it is also “unstable” just because you think if fits your wishes. If you want you could also say that it tasted like mint! All the same it would just be bad poetry, at the most.

 

[STT]

When you say “Consider an unstable sort of energy which existed at the beginning of time. It simply existed so it was uncaused. It was unstable so it could cause…” and then invoke the principles of conservation, all you are saying (though I can see now that you don’t realize it, which to me means that thinking about the subject “for a while” does not mean that you have thought it thoroughly) is that that “uncaused energy” is the same “stuff” that exists now. In other words, what you dogmatically assert is that the universe is uncaused. This is old materialistic dogma.

I am saying that and a little more. The amount of stuff is conserved since otherwise we have to accept that things can comes out of nothing. I don’t think that is something which you like.

But you want to stress, almost prophetically, “no, but I say that the uncaused energy existed at the beginning of time”, as if it added something new. You don’t realize that the word “beginning” acquires its meaning within a temporal frame, so that the expression “beginning of time” means nothing.

No, beginning of time means something. It is the point at which time starts and there is no point before that.

You need to realize that you can write whatever you want, no matter how inconsistent and contradictory it is. You can imagine I don’t know what “energy” and simply say “it is uncaused!”, and add that it is also “unstable” just because you think if fits your wishes. If you want you could also say that it tasted like mint!

Mint? Of course not.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

JuanFlorencio:

When you say “Consider an unstable sort of energy which existed at the beginning of time. It simply existed so it was uncaused. It was unstable so it could cause…” and then invoke the principles of conservation, all you are saying (though I can see now that you don’t realize it, which to me means that thinking about the subject “for a while” does not mean that you have thought it thoroughly) is that that “uncaused energy” is the same “stuff” that exists now. In other words, what you dogmatically assert is that the universe is uncaused. This is old materialistic dogma.

I am saying that and a little more. The amount of stuff is conserved since otherwise we have to accept that things can comes out of nothing. I don’t think that is something which you like.

The phrases in bold letters mean the same. Your “little more” is nothing.

JuanFlorencio:

But you want to stress, almost prophetically, “no, but I say that the uncaused energy existed at the beginning of time”, as if it added something new. You don’t realize that the word “beginning” acquires its meaning within a temporal frame, so that the expression “beginning of time” means nothing.

No, beginning of time means something. It is the point at which time starts and there is no point before that.

Before the “beginning of time”?: This pseudo-thought is a contradiction already.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, the universe could have not existed but it exists. So what? You then conclude that there must be a creator that created the universe. I see a gap in your reasoning.

You’ve omitted part of the argument. Here it is again:

• the universe could not have existed
• this implies that there was a state without the universe
• having not existed, the universe came into existence
• nothing physical comes from ‘nothing’ (i.e., from ‘no cause’)
• therefore the universe must have been caused
• therefore the universe was created

That doesn’t really follow.

The part about ‘since it is contingent, there is a state in which it did not (yet) exist’? How does it not follow?

First, you need to show that the act of creation is possible. You need to show that the universe didn’t exist (what I am charging against). Things cannot pop out of nothingness. Then I bow down and accept your job as done!

You’re gonna have to refresh my memory. I can’t recall your notion that creation is impossible. (Actually, given the fact that the universe exists, it seems pretty clear that creation is a fait accompli, but I’ll humor you…)

The fact that the universe didn’t exist follows from the fact that it is not a necessary being.

You believe that there was no time before creation and then use “then” to explain your idea. Isn’t “then” related to a temporal process? If not what fills between two state of affairs? You cannot say nothing.

No – I’m not talking about a ‘time’. I’m talking about a state – prior in the order of things – in which the universe did not exist. (I realize you have a hard time understanding this – after all, it was the argument in your thread about time not being able to be created – but I’m being consistent and sticking to my point: time was created, along with the universe.)

 

[STT]

The phrases in bold letters mean the same.

Yes, I agree.

Your “little more” is nothing.

What do you mean?

Before the “beginning of time”?: This pseudo-thought is a contradiction already.

Yes, I agree.

 

[STT]

You’ve omitted part of the argument. Here it is again:

1. the universe could not have existed
2. this implies that there was a state without the universe
3. having not existed, the universe came into existence
4. nothing physical comes from ‘nothing’ (i.e., from ‘no cause’)
5. therefore the universe must have been caused
6. therefore the universe was created

No 2 doesn’t follow from 1.

The part about ‘since it is contingent, there is a state in which it did not (yet) exist’? How does it not follow?

Because by contingent we mean that it could not exist. It could not exist but it exists. As simple of that.

You’re gonna have to refresh my memory. I can’t recall your notion that creation is impossible. (Actually, given the fact that the universe exists, it seems pretty clear that creation is a fait accompli, but I’ll humor you…)

I have worst memory than yours. What do you want me to talk about?

The fact that the universe didn’t exist follows from the fact that it is not a necessary being.

No that simply doesn’t follow.

No – I’m not talking about a ‘time’. I’m talking about a state – prior in the order of things – in which the universe did not exist. (I realize you have a hard time understanding this – after all, it was the argument in your thread about time not being able to be created – but I’m being consistent and sticking to my point: time was created, along with the universe.)

That is my point that you didn’t take it. If you have two states of affair, one God and another God and creation, then these two states must be separated by something. Two states of affair are at the same point if you say nothing therefore the state of affair as a whole is ill-defined.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

JuanFlorencio:

Your “little more” is nothing.

What do you mean?

I see that it is difficult for you to remember and understand your own words, STT:

I am saying that and a little more. The amount of stuff is conserved since otherwise we have to accept that things can comes out of nothing. I don’t think that is something which you like.

You are not saying any “little more”.

 

[STT]

Your “little more” is nothing.

I see. But why did you say that my little more is nothing?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

So, the real scenario for your allegation is your belief that this universe is uncaused. But more fundamental than that is the old agnostic postulate, which sometimes you assume to be true, that there is no need for causes, or that at least some things, like the universe, might not have a cause.

And even more fundamental that that postulate is the humean allegation that the principle of causality cannot be demonstrated.

Why don’t you go to the grain and present whatever new arguments you might offer (I doubt you have any, STT!) to sustain what Hume developed in an elegant English?

 

[STT]

So, the real scenario for your allegation is your belief that this universe is uncaused.

No that is not my belief. I think that is just a scenario which cannot be discarded. So I don’t know what the truth is.

But more fundamental than that is the old agnostic postulate, which sometimes you assume to be true, that there is no need for causes, or that at least some things, like the universe, might not have a cause.

I don’t think that that is essentially true. All I am saying that that is a scenario.

And even more fundamental that that postulate is the humean allegation that the principle of causality cannot be demonstrated.

Causality is something we merely observe, like conservation of energy.

Why don’t you go to the grain and present whatever new arguments you might offer (I doubt you have any, STT!) to sustain what Hume developed in an elegant English?

Well, I am saying a couple of things depending on whether energy is conserved or not:

A: Energy is conserved:

1. This means that the amount of the stuff since beginning of time is constant and we don’t need a creator
2. This also means that God could create the stuff and time before the beginning of time. This is sort of magic (bringing something out of nothing) and it is absurd since there is no point before time. I already argue against the fact that time cannot be create too. This means that God can create the stuff at beginning of time but He is bounded by time.

B: Energy is not conserved.

1. The stuff can pop up into existence at the beginning of time and we don’t need any God.
2. One can argue that God created the stuff at the beginning. This time no magic is involved but this scenario cannot be distinguished from the previous scenario since the only observable is that the stuff comes into existence.

At the end, God or not God? I don’t know. So apparently Agnosticism is correct.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Well, I am saying a couple of things depending on whether energy is conserved or not:

A: Energy is conserved:

This means that the amount of the stuff since beginning of time is constant and we don’t need a creator
This also means that God could create the stuff and time before the beginning of time. This is sort of magic (bringing something out of nothing) and it is absurd since there is no point before time. I already argue against the fact that time cannot be create too. This means that God…

B: Energy is not conserved.

The stuff can pop up into existence at the beginning of time and we don’t need any God.
One can argue that God…

It was supposed that “energy” is a physical capability to perform mechanical work, and it was believed (on the basis of a limited number of experiments) that it was conserved through physical and chemical changes. But then, Sadi Carnot demonstrated that it is not possible to transform heat (which is “a form of energy”) integrally into mechanical work. There is always a part of it which cannot be transformed. Still, the name “energy” was kept for heat; even for that residual part of it which cannot do any work. Just imagine: an “energy” which is ineffective. And that is physics! (I mean, the phenomena is real, but the terminology needs some refinement).

But even assuming that energy, as a physical capability to perform work, were conserved, such property would not imply that energy did not need to be created. It just would imply that after the creation God did not need to add more energy to the world periodically to keep it moving, as Descartes and Leibniz used to say.

As for time and God, I am quite astonished at the way in which you and others talk about these high subjects as if you were talking of your daily experiences. Naturally, I find your words so empty…

Anyway, when Aristotle dealt with the problem of change, he invented the concepts of act and passive potency. And he said that a being in act is capable of actualizing a being in passive potency. This way, a wise man is able to teach his wisdom to other persons. If he possesses wisdom he remains “unchanged” in the sense that the perfection of his wisdom remains with him; and he is unchanged in that sense when he teaches his disciples, even if they are many. It is his wisdom which allows him to act upon his disciples actualizing them. A being who is “pure act” is unchanged (or immobile) in that same sense even if he performs any action. It is his pure actuality which allows him to act. I don’t know from where came the childish thought that a being who is pure act becomes unable to perform any action, as if he were pure passive potency instead of pure act.

As for the popping up of something into existence without a cause, that doesn’t happen even in your delirious imagination, because when you imagine such an event, it is you who is putting into scene the supposedly “uncaused” object. You remind me of that man who counting the persons in a room always forgot to include himself in the counting (because he did not see himself), and still said “we are five!”.