Why not this scenario?

[STT]

Well, perhaps, if you really have been thinking about it for a while, and you feel you are right, then it must be right! Otherwise, what would it mean? It would be absolutely inconceivable if it was not true.

I have thought about it a little. Lets hope that the discussion goes well.

 

[STT]

Ok, here’s a thought…imagine, just an uncreated packet of ketchup…but it’s an unstable packet of ketchup, right…then this ketchup packet burst into the primordial ooze.

If you think it’s ridiculous to liken a packet of ketchup to unstable energy, the point is they are both created things. The energy might be one of the things created at the beginning, but still created nonetheless.

There is noting ridiculous about your example. Your example is in fact something that could happen if you have a packet of ketchup instead of unstable energy. Both are uncaused.

 

[STT]

How? Nothing (material) comes from nothing.

What you said is completely irrelevant. Why do you think that the initial state of universe should have a cause?

OK… but that’s a different claim than “it is uncreated.” Things that have existed from the beginning of creation can be said to “have existed from the beginning of time”; that doesn’t imply that they’re uncreated.

Well, you cannot ignore my argument and discuss the conclusion. My arguments has parts: What I am trying to say is that the stuff has existed, from beginning of time to now. The stuff deforms and changes but you always have the same amount of it. This means that we have the same amount of stuff if we go back in time until the beginning of time. The stuff either was moving at the beginning of time or it was static and unstable. So the picture is complete and simple.

Now let me know what is your problem with this picture. This is simpler picture and you don’t need God to explain the existence of the universe so we should discard the concept of God by Occam’s Razor.

No, that’s not a necessary assumption at all.

It is necessary in this picture. Either you have a mover or things moves on its own.

You’re the one claiming that it is not. So, you’re the one upon whom the burden of proof lies.

What? You are the one who is claiming that it is possible so burden of proof lies upon you. I am happy with the picture that I have.

LOL. Science itself can demonstrate a ‘beginning’, and cannot posit anything prior to it.

There was nothing before the beginning.

Moreover, asking for ‘proof’ of God is a non-starter, especially since it tends to mean “show me physical proof of a transcendental being.” It’s an unreasonable request. Try coming up with a reasonable one. Good luck with that.

So you cannot prove that God created the universe? I am happy to hear that.

Assertion isn’t proof.

I didn’t argue that my scenario is real. I argue that it is feasible and reasonable.

Hmm… that doesn’t seem to hold up to reason. It’s like arguing, “I’m alive; that oak tree is alive; since there’s no way to distinguish, therefore I must be an oak tree.”

You are not making any sense.

 

[STT]

It’s completely relevant, if you fail to understand that, then perhaps you aren’t ready to discuss philosophy?

Could you please elaborate that how what you said is related to this topic?

 

[Kei]

There is nothing about the nature of energy or ketchup packets that would indicate their being uncreated or eternal. They are contingent things.

Energy is a property of the Universe. To claim the Universe made the Universe is kinda silly.

 

[STT]

There is nothing about the nature of energy or ketchup packets that would indicate their being uncreated or eternal. They are contingent things.

How do you define contingent?

Energy is a property of the Universe. To claim the Universe made the Universe is kinda silly.

There is nothing silly about this idea. We are proposing a simple model which could explain how the current state of universe could emerge from its initial state.

 

[SalamKhan]

It’s self explanatory. Instability is chaos, and instability cannot produce stability, namely order.

 

[STT]

It’s self explanatory. Instability is chaos, and instability cannot produce stability, namely order.

Instability is not chaos. Instability just tells you that the system could move on its own without a need of a mover.

 

[SalamKhan]

That’s an impossibility, it cannot be proven. And the point still stands that instability cannot produce stability.

 

[STT]

That’s an impossibility, it cannot be proven. And the point still stands that instability cannot produce stability.

That is not true. I can give you thousands of examples/functions one of them: F(x)=ax^2+bx^4. This function is unstable at x=0 if a<0 and it is stable at x0=SQRT(a/(2*b)). So system moves from x=0, unstable point into, x=x0, stable point.

 

[Gorgias]

SalamKhan:

That’s an impossibility, it cannot be proven. And the point still stands that instability cannot produce stability.

That is not true.

Think of it in terms of ‘entropy’, then.

I can give you thousands of examples/functions one of them: F(x)=ax^2+bx^4. This function is unstable at x=0 if a<0 and it is stable at x0=SQRT(a/(2*b)). So system moves from x=0, unstable point into, x=x0, stable point.

A ‘function’ is not a ‘system’, nor does it ‘move’ from one point to another.

 

[STT]

Think of it in terms of ‘entropy’, then.

I know that but entropy is not about unstability.

A ‘function’ is not a ‘system’, nor does it ‘move’ from one point to another.

I know that but a function can explain the behavior of a system.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

How? Nothing (material) comes from nothing.

What you said is completely irrelevant. Why do you think that the initial state of universe should have a cause?

Because nothing physical proceeds from nothingness.

OK… but that’s a different claim than “it is uncreated.” Things that have existed from the beginning of creation can be said to “have existed from the beginning of time”; that doesn’t imply that they’re uncreated.

Well, you cannot ignore my argument and discuss the conclusion. My arguments has parts: What I am trying to say is that the stuff has existed, from beginning of time to now.

You really do need to use more precise language.

When you say “existed from beginning of time to now”, do you mean

• always existed, without beginning
• came into existence at the beginning of the existence of the universe

or something else? I thought you meant the former, but your phrasing here seems to indicate the latter. The latter isn’t a problem – sure, there could have been “unstable energy” that was created in the Big Bang. But, that’s not what you seem to be arguing here.

The stuff deforms and changes but you always have the same amount of it. This means that we have the same amount of stuff if we go back in time until the beginning of time. The stuff either was moving at the beginning of time or it was static and unstable. So the picture is complete and simple.

Unless you can demonstrate that anything contingent can exist without a cause, then your argument here is sunk. (And, of course, you realize what the definition of ‘contingent existence’ is, right?)

This is simpler picture and you don’t need God to explain the existence of the universe so we should discard the concept of God by Occam’s Razor.

If your concept made sense, then you could make that claim. It doesn’t, so you can’t.

It is necessary in this picture. Either you have a mover or things moves on its own.

Yes, I agree that you need that assumption in order for your argument to hold up. I’m not calling you out on that. Rather, I’m asserting that your assumption is not necessary in the context of the universe; and therefore, your argument doesn’t hold up.

What? You are the one who is claiming that it is possible so burden of proof lies upon you. I am happy with the picture that I have.

Happy? Perhaps. Proven that it’s true? Not even close…

There was nothing before the beginning.

Quite. In other words, your “unstable energy” did not exist before the universe was created. Therefore, it itself is created. You’ve just dismantled your own argument. Congratulations.

So you cannot prove that God created the universe? I am happy to hear that.

Depends on what kind of ‘proof’ you’re asking for. If you want empirical evidence of a transcendent being, then you’re not making sense. If you want philosophical reasoning, then Aquinas’ five demonstrations suffice.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Think of it in terms of ‘entropy’, then.

I know that but entropy is not about unstability.

It’s about not moving from greater disorder to lesser disorder… which is what you’re claiming.

A ‘function’ is not a ‘system’, nor does it ‘move’ from one point to another.

I know that but a function can explain the behavior of a system.

Yes, functions can explain the behavior of systems – but you’re not demonstrating a system, only a function. Not all functions model systems. You can’t claim that you’re giving the example of a system, merely by pointing to a function.

 

[SalamKhan]

Yeah, I’ll be honest. I haven’t studied maths in years, so I won’t understand quadratic equations. You might want to explain that in layman’s terms, or perhaps philosophical terms (since we’re in the Philosophy section), rather than mathematical terms.

 

[Kei]

As in, possibly existing but not necessary.
They are brought into existence, really that’s getting into a different argument

First off, the properties of the Universe are extremely delicate and well-balanced, and the fact that there is order should cause one to realize thought in the beginning.

Really, even without order, the fact of existence upon thinking can bring one to realize that which upholds and makes possible existence.

Energy is a property of the natural universe. To claim something from within the natural universe gave rise to the natural universe is silly, no? Does it not strike as odd?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I have thought about it a little. Lets hope that the discussion goes well.

If you want the discussion to go well, then you need to argue rationally. That is what your friends here reasonably demand from you. If you don’t do it you will appear as absurd when you think you are profound; ridiculous when you think you are sophisticated; obstinate when you think you are far superior than them and, therefore, naturally incomprehensible to them (and they might be right!).

You believe in the universality and necessity of the principles of conservation. And so you suggest that the system energy-matter that exists today is quantitatively the same as it was before, at any moment; though it is qualitatively different. The universe is always changing. If it is changing, you would suggest, it is because it has the potential to change. And then you generalize (right or wrong, you do): it has always been like this!

So, all you are saying, STT, is that you believe that this universe, as a whole, has no cause; that it has always existed. It is an old and well known belief; and of course, it is not your creation.

 

[STT]

Because nothing physical proceeds from nothingness.

I didn’t say that physical comes from nothing. I just said that physical just existed at the beginning of time.

You really do need to use more precise language.

When you say “existed from beginning of time to now”, do you mean

always existed, without beginning
came into existence at the beginning of the existence of the universe

or something else?

I meant non. Time has a beginning. Is that correct? What I am claiming is that the stuff has existed since the beginning of time.

I thought you meant the former, but your phrasing here seems to indicate the latter. The latter isn’t a problem – sure, there could have been “unstable energy” that was created in the Big Bang. But, that’s not what you seem to be arguing here.

I am saying that the stuff was there. No creation.

Unless you can demonstrate that anything contingent can exist without a cause, then your argument here is sunk. (And, of course, you realize what the definition of ‘contingent existence’ is, right?)

The stuff at the beginning was not simply contingent. It was beginning of time so there was no time that anything existed before. Therefore the stuff at the beginning didn’t come from something else. It is simply origin of everything.

If your concept made sense, then you could make that claim. It doesn’t, so you can’t.

Does my claim make sense now?

Happy? Perhaps. Proven that it’s true? Not even close…

Do you believe that the act of creation is logically possible? You are a believer. Then prove it.

Quite. In other words, your “unstable energy” did not exist before the universe was created. Therefore, it itself is created. You’ve just dismantled your own argument. Congratulations.

No, it was not created at all. Just forget about the concept of creation unless you can show that it is logically possible. The unstable energy just was there at the beginning of time. It is existence is necessary unless you could show that the act of creation is logically possible.

Depends on what kind of ‘proof’ you’re asking for. If you want empirical evidence of a transcendent being, then you’re not making sense. If you want philosophical reasoning, then Aquinas’ five demonstrations suffice.

I am talking about the creator. The five ways as far as I know are not claiming that the act of creation is logically possible. The five ways as far as I know are talking about the necessity of something. Aquinas didn’t show that the act of creation is logically possible. The unstable energy was not on his menu too. Perhaps he would change his mind knowing the possibility of existence of unstable energy and knowing the fact that he could not prove that the act of creation is logically possible.

 

[STT]

It’s about not moving from greater disorder to lesser disorder… which is what you’re claiming.

I am not talking about order or disorder. I am talking about stable and unstable. Miles of way difference.

Yes, functions can explain the behavior of systems – but you’re not demonstrating a system, only a function. Not all functions model systems. You can’t claim that you’re giving the example of a system, merely by pointing to a function.

No, I mentioned the system in my original post when I mentioned this function.

 

[STT]

Yeah, I’ll be honest. I haven’t studied maths in years, so I won’t understand quadratic equations. You might want to explain that in layman’s terms, or perhaps philosophical terms (since we’re in the Philosophy section), rather than mathematical terms.

Think of a short hill which is surrounded with much taller hills. Now put a ball on the small hill. It rolls down until it reach the bottom of hill. The ball cannot climb the taller hills so it oscillates and eventually stays at the bottom of hill. Is that enough illustrative?