More Absolutes

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
How do you think any of that relates to the claim that there is nothing wrong with claiming matter is not eternal and nobody created it?

I find it difficult to believe you aren't grasping the general idea of what is being said. For lack of a better analogy, the universe is following a script: one which tells it what type of action is permitted. The script did not bring about the actors, it merely tells how each will act during the course of the play. The script is only applicable to the actors. Not one line of the script describes any thing outside of the universe, only inside. Therefore, none of the direction from the script has any application outside of the actors within the universe.

In order to ascertain the cause of the universe, its agents, forces and etc., one needs a script which describes that process: something out of nothing. The script we have cannot speak to that scenario.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I find it difficult to believe you aren't grasping the general idea of what is being said. For lack of a better analogy, the universe is following a script: one which tells it what type of action is permitted. The script did not bring about the actors, it merely tells how each will act during the course of the play. The script is only applicable to the ...[text shortened]... ibes that process: something out of nothing. The script we have cannot speak to that scenario.

“…the universe is following a script: one which tells it what type of action is permitted. The script did not bring about the actors, it merely tells how each will act during the course of the play. The script is only applicable to the actors. Not one line of the script describes any thing outside of the universe, only inside. Therefore, none of the direction from the script has any application outside of the actors within the universe…..”

So what you are saying is that the laws of physics in this universe don’t say anything about anything “outside” this universe (assuming there is an “outside&rdquo😉. That may or may not be true depending on what we can extrapolate assuming there is something “outside”. But let’s suppose you are correct:

“…In order to ascertain the cause of the universe…”

How do you know the universe has a “cause”?
Assuming you are right about not being able to determine anything about what is “outside” the universe from the laws of physics and assuming any “cause” must have been “outside” this universe then, because you cannot determine anything about what is “outside” the universe, you cannot determine anything about such a “cause” and that would include its very existence!

“…one needs a script which describes that process: something out of nothing….”

Even if the universe had a “cause”, it would not logically follow that the universe “came” from “nothing”.
In fact, to say that the universe “came” from “nothing” is a nonsense statement because something cannot “come” from “nothing”!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're closer than you know. Either matter is eternal, or someone created it. There aren't any other choices.

So you simultaneously claim to know the script (what choices there are) and act as if the script is obvious, yet argue later that we do not know the script. Which is it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you simultaneously claim to know the script (what choices there are) and act as if the script is obvious, yet argue later that we do not know the script. Which is it?

Um, both?

Not sure what you mean here.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…the universe is following a script: one which tells it what type of action is permitted. The script did not bring about the actors, it merely tells how each will act during the course of the play. The script is only applicable to the actors. Not one line of the script describes any thing outside of the universe, only inside. Therefore, none of the ...[text shortened]... se “came” from “nothing” is a nonsense statement because something cannot “come” from “nothing”!

So what you are saying is that the laws of physics in this universe don’t say anything about anything “outside” this universe (assuming there is an “outside&rdquo😉.
Pretty much.

How do you know the universe has a “cause”?
Same way you do: through inductive reasoning.

because you cannot determine anything about what is “outside” the universe, you cannot determine anything about such a “cause” and that would include its very existence!
You are at the same impasse as me, apparently. Apparently, too, further revelation is required... either that or speculative theories!

Even if the universe had a “cause”, it would not logically follow that the universe “came” from “nothing”.
In fact, to say that the universe “came” from “nothing” is a nonsense statement because something cannot “come” from “nothing”!
Now you're starting to sound more and more like a theist! Something cannot come from nothing, but something can be made where nothing existed, as long as there exists a causal agent.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]So what you are saying is that the laws of physics in this universe don’t say anything about anything “outside” this universe (assuming there is an “outside&rdquo😉.
Pretty much.

How do you know the universe has a “cause”?
Same way you do: through inductive reasoning.

because you cannot determine anything about what is “outside” t ...[text shortened]... ng, but something can be made where nothing existed, as long as there exists a causal agent.[/b]

“….How do you know the universe has a “cause”? (my quote)
Same way you do: through inductive reasoning….”

This makes no sense because, to know the universe has a “cause” though induction, you would have to observe a number of other occasions where a universe is observed to have a cause. That’s because that’s how inductive logic works. Unless you think you can extrapolate from the fact that certain events within the universe have a cause that the WHOLE universe has a cause! This would be an unsafe extrapolation indeed! Unsafe because you would be talking about a “cause” to existence itself and not to merely a cause of events. How would you know that the same rules apply to existence itself as events? And does it even make sense to talk about the “cause” of existance itself?

Besides, for something X to “cause” something Y then there has to be a time “before” that something Y for that something X to exist in. but according to the main interpretation of the physical equations, there was no time before the universe thus that is the premise for the claim that the universe didn’t have a “cause”. It is hard to argue with that premise because it comes from the simplest interpretation of the physical equations and nothing at least so far has indicated that that simplest interpretation is false.

“…Now you're starting to sound more and more like a theist!...”

-And sound like an atheist. If you have been paying attention to what science is saying (and all the more educated atheists) it is NOT saying everything came literally from “nothing”! in particular, the big bang (BB) theory doesn’t say everything came from nothing. It is sometimes the theist that misrepresents the atheist position i.e. a straw-man argument by claiming the atheists position is that everything came from “nothing”; but that is NOT their position.

“…but something can be made WHERE nothing existed…”

The word “WHERE” refers to a position in space. Since it is reasonable to assume that there was no before the BB (for the reasons I just gave) then there was no “WHERE” before the BB (because a position in space can only exist at a time but there was no time “before” the BB because there was no “before” it) for there to exist “nothing” so that there was no “nothing” there that could be replaced with “something”.
Let me put that more simply: at no time in this universe was there “nothing” in it!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“….How do you know the universe has a “cause”? (my quote)
Same way you do: through inductive reasoning….”

This makes no sense because, to know the universe has a “cause” though induction, you would have to observe a number of other occasions where a universe is observed to have a cause. That’s because that’s how inductive logic works. Unless you ...[text shortened]... mething”.
Let me put that more simply: at no time in this universe was there “nothing” in it!

This makes no sense because, to know the universe has a “cause” though induction, you would have to observe a number of other occasions where a universe is observed to have a cause. That’s because that’s how inductive logic works.
Not so fast there, pilgrim.

Inductive reasoning begins with observation, moves on to detection of a pattern, resulting in a penciled-in hypothesis and eventually a theory--- nearly the exact opposite of what you offer:

Unless you think you can extrapolate from the fact that certain events within the universe have a cause that the WHOLE universe has a cause!

Further compounding your disorientation, you inexplicably consider only "certain events" as requiring a cause. Here's one for ya: name one uncaused cause in the universe. News flash: they're all caused.

How would you know that the same rules apply to existence itself as events?
Uh, we don't. All we have been able to determine by way of research are the rules of existence. That's what we're arguing about, remember?

And does it even make sense to talk about the “cause” of existance itself?
Hello? Is this thing on? That's what we're talking about, remember?

Besides, for something X to “cause” something Y then there has to be a time “before” that something Y for that something X to exist in.
Well, we've already solved that problem. "In beginning, God... " meaning, prior to anything (time, space, matter, energy or any part of creation) there existed God. God within God, God only, God, God, God.

Let me put that more simply: at no time in this universe was there “nothing” in it!
Agreed. However, that being said, at the point of nothing/something, an impetus is required. To say otherwise is to fly in the face of every example imaginable within the universe. The implication of considering the rules of our universe somehow reaching outside of their domain and causing their own existence--- beyond being an affront to reason--- also carries with it the deadly Catch-22. In our universe, it is cause and effect: the rules we've discovered say as much. If the rules of our universe call for cause-effect, to speculate something different happened prior to is to ask for the rules to be suspended. Thus, we're no longer looking at the same rules.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]This makes no sense because, to know the universe has a “cause” though induction, you would have to observe a number of other occasions where a universe is observed to have a cause. That’s because that’s how inductive logic works.
Not so fast there, pilgrim.

Inductive reasoning begins with observation, moves on to detection of a pattern, resulti ...[text shortened]... k for the rules to be suspended. Thus, we're no longer looking at the same rules.[/b]

“…Inductive reasoning begins with observation, moves on to detection of a pattern, resulting in a penciled-in hypothesis and eventually a theory…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

-there is nothing there that contradicts what I said.

“…Further compounding your disorientation, you inexplicably consider only "certain events" as requiring a cause. Here's one for ya: name one uncaused cause in the universe. News flash: they're all caused….”

How do you know this? Have you studied quantum physics?
What about quantum events those are apparently completely random? How do you know each incident of such a quantum event had a specific cause? There is absolutely no evidence that these events have a cause.

“…
And does it even make sense to talk about the “cause” of existence itself? (my quote)
Hello? Is this thing on? That's what we're talking about, remember?...”

Let me rephrase that:

Does it even make sense to talk about the “cause” of existence itself when any such “cause” must be “before” existence itself (because a “cause” is always taken to be before its “effect&rdquo😉 which would logically imply that there was a “before” existence which would in turn imply that time existed before existence so that something existed (i.e. time) BEFORE existence itself and that is a logical contradiction because to say something existing before anything existed is a logical self-contradiction!?

“….Besides, for something X to “cause” something Y then there has to be a time “before” that something Y for that something X to exist in. (my quote)
Well, we've already solved that problem. "In beginning, God... " meaning, prior to anything (time, space, matter, energy or any part of creation) there existed God. God within God, God only, God, God, God….”

Your words “meaning, prior to anything (time,” above imply that there was no “before” existence as we know it because, in your own words, “in the beginning, God…” means prior to TIME existing. If there was no time “before” existence as we know it then it logically follows that there was no “before” –right?
So, therefore, no God existed “before” existence because, according to what is implied by your own words there was no such “before” and therefore God didn’t exist “then” and therefore could not be the “cause” of existence because a “cause” is taken to always come “before” its “effect”

(I have put the above in bold because I believe it to be a significant logical deduction. If you disagree with the deduction above then I would like to know which part and why)

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Further compounding your disorientation, you inexplicably consider only "certain events" as requiring a cause. Here's one for ya: name [b]one uncaused cause in the universe. News flash: they're all caused.[/b]

Not long ago, you argued that the laws within the universe cannot be applied to the universe as a whole, or outside the universe. Now you are breaking that rule and trying to use a rule that you believe applies inside the universe to the universe as a whole.

Secondly, you may claim that all events in the universe are caused, but there is no good reason to believe that to be the case. I have already pointed out that it is not known whether the vast majority of events are caused. There are no reasons to believe that they are caused. To all intents and purposes, they appear totally random.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…Inductive reasoning begins with observation, moves on to detection of a pattern, resulting in a penciled-in hypothesis and eventually a theory…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

-there is nothing there that contradicts what I said.

“…Further compounding your disorientation, you inexplicably consider only "certain events" as re ...[text shortened]... If you disagree with the deduction above then I would like to know which part and why)[/b]

-there is nothing there that contradicts what I said.
The link you provided wasn't part of the discussion. What was part of the discussion was your counter to my response. You asked how can we know the universe had a cause, to which I responded: via inductive reasoning. You then said inductive reasoning wasn't applicable, since we would need to see the exact event happen in the past in order to have a theory about the same.

This is where you err. We can all agree that if it happens, it's an event. Our ability to observe events is the first step of inductive reasoning. We (thus far) have conceded that any event we have been able to observe has been caused, so we have landed ourselves in the detection of a pattern territory. [For a basic description of common research methodologies, controls, etc., visit: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/index.php] I say "thus far" on the basis of anyone's ability to thus far name a single uncaused event, protestations notwithstanding.

The third stage is moot for us, because the law of cause and effect has been accepted since ancient times. Certainly, there's been a few chance-obsessed folks who attempted to establish HUP, Bohr's quantum leap and etc., but the so-called law of chance has been weighed and found wanting. That essentially leaves us with the fourth stage of inductive reasoning, wherein the theory, the law of cause and effect, has already been established.

Now what? We're right back where we started. There currently exists three ideas about the origin of the universe:

a. Eternal Cosmology. The universe had no beginning because it always existed, or
b. Creation Cosmology. The Creator made the universe with all its laws, energy, and features, or
c. Natural Cosmology. Nature made the universe and it evolved into its present form by evolving laws, materials and natural processes.
[http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/law_of_cause_and_effect_FoS_V7N3_(causality).pdf]

The strength of our inductive theory about the creation of the universe is based upon our observation of all events which occur in the known universe, i.e., they are caused. As the only theory which benefits from the advantage of agreeing with all of discovered knowledge regarding the way things work, creation cosmology makes a case for it's position as the long-running reigning champ.

If there was no time “before” existence as we know it then it logically follows that there was no “before” –right?
So, therefore, no God existed “before” existence because, according to what is implied by your own words there was no such “before” and therefore God didn’t exist “then” and therefore could not be the “cause” of existence because a “cause” is taken to always come “before” its “effect”
Time is a construct created for the convenience of man; not a constraint within which God exists. His existence outside of space, time, known physical reality, has always been, will always be. Before the existence of time, space and the known universe, there was nothing... nothing but God. He filled up all of existence, was the only 'thing' in existence. I know it's mind-blowing, but that's just the way He rolls.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not long ago, you argued that the laws within the universe cannot be applied to the universe as a whole, or outside the universe. Now you are breaking that rule and trying to use a rule that you believe applies inside the universe to the universe as a whole.

Secondly, you may claim that all events in the universe are caused, but there is no good reason ...[text shortened]... easons to believe that they are caused. To all intents and purposes, they appear totally random.

Not long ago, you argued that the laws within the universe cannot be applied to the universe as a whole, or outside the universe. Now you are breaking that rule and trying to use a rule that you believe applies inside the universe to the universe as a whole.
I was probably simply being imprecise. What I was arguing against was the soft-brained notion currently being put forward by Hawking that somehow the forces found in nature currently brought about the whole ball of wax. He's citing gravity, electro-magnetic forces and etc., as somehow capable of creating the universe in which they find their existence.

In contrast to that, I am citing the law of cause and effect, which speaks about events in a philosophical manner--- not necessarily speaking to the mechanics of the causes or effects. Either way, by claiming the universe came about via natural forces or via an agent, both views ultimately are conceding that a cause brought the effect about.

Secondly, you may claim that all events in the universe are caused, but there is no good reason to believe that to be the case. I have already pointed out that it is not known whether the vast majority of events are caused. There are no reasons to believe that they are caused. To all intents and purposes, they appear totally random.
Didn't we used to think the same thing about wind?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]-there is nothing there that contradicts what I said.
The link you provided wasn't part of the discussion. What was part of the discussion was your counter to my response. You asked how can we know the universe had a cause, to which I responded: via inductive reasoning. You then said inductive reasoning wasn't applicable, since we would need to 'thing' in existence. I know it's mind-blowing, but that's just the way He rolls.[/b]

“….This is where you err. We can all agree that if it happens, it's an event…..”

The beginning of most things can be called an “event” (what about the beginning of a length of string? ) but this would NOT be strictly true for the beginning of the universe if that beginning was also the beginning of time. The reason for this is as follows:

An event is something that occurs IN time and space therefore for existence itself to have a beginning in a form of an “event”, it must occur IN time and space. BUT, and this is the critical part here, existence itself INCLUDES space and time itself! So in order for the beginning of space and time itself to be an “event”, space and time must occur within space and time; but there is no evidence that there was some other space and time for the space and time in our universe to begin to exist IN (not to mention the fact I am unsure if it makes a whole lot of sense to say our space and time exists IN some other space and time! ).

Therefore, the beginning of space and time cannot be an “event”; it is just a brute fact that it exists and there was a time zero i.e. it had a beginning. Since we have both agreed that at no point in time did there exist “nothing”, the same applies to anything else that existed at the beginning.

“…..We (thus far) have conceded that any event we have been able to observe has been caused….”

That is simply not true; what causes a particular random quantum event to occur when and where it does?
Who has “conceded” that it has a “cause”? And, more importantly given the total absence of evidence that such a thing has a “cause”, why?

“….The third stage is moot for us, because the law of cause and effect has been accepted since ancient times…..”

The fact that the ancients thought everything had a cause doesn’t give the hypothesis any more credence than the fact that many ancients thought the Earth was flat. Length of history of opinions doesn’t verify a hypothesis; only logic and evidence can do that.

“…Certainly, there's been a few chance-obsessed folks who attempted to establish HUP, Bohr's quantum leap and etc., but the so-called law of chance has been weighed and found wanting…..”

Has been “has been weighed and found wanting” by who? The average layperson? Or the scientists that have done the actual research such as Bohr? To simply vaguely say a hypotheses “has been weighed and found wanting” is not an argument against it.

“…Time is a construct created for the convenience of man; not a constraint within which God exists. His existence outside of space, time, known physical reality, has always been, will always be.…..”

Ok, let’s suppose for the sake of argument that’s true even though you haven’t shown any evidence that a “God” with these properties exists:

“…BEFORE the existence of time, space and the known universe, there was nothing... nothing but God….” (my emphasis)

You have obviously completely failed to understand the essence of my logical argument;

“BEFORE the existence of time” is a logical self-contradiction.

Now really think carefully about this; how can there be a “before” the existence of time when “before” implies the existence of time BEFORE that existence of time itself!
The remainder of your post is flawed because it doesn’t get that point.
So the basic logical argument I presented to you still stands which is basically (in now adapted form):

1, If there was no time “before” existence as we know it then it logically follows that there was no “before” the beginning of existence.

2, from 1; no God existed “before” existence because, there was no such “before” and therefore God didn’t exist “then” (because that "then" doesn't exist).

3, from 1; there could not be a “cause” of existence because a “cause” is taken to always come “before” its “effect” and (from 1 ) there was no “before” the beginning of existence.

4, from 2 and 3; no God could “cause” the beginning of existence (actually, 2 is not strictly needed here)

Which (if any) of the above deductions would you disagree with and why?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“….This is where you err. We can all agree that if it happens, it's an event…..”

The beginning of most things can be called an “event” (what about the beginning of a length of string? ) but this would NOT be strictly true for the beginning of the universe if that beginning was also the beginning of time. The reason for this is as follows:

An ev ...[text shortened]... eded here)

Which (if any) of the above deductions would you disagree with and why?[/b]

I'm sorry: did you say something?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm sorry: did you say something?

What do you mean by that?
Are you suddenly not in speaking terms with me for some reason?
Or do you simply not want to continue with this debate? (which would be your provocative of course)

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
What do you mean by that?
Are you suddenly not in speaking terms with me for some reason?
Or do you simply not want to continue with this debate? (which would be your provocative of course)

You continue repeating the same lines without adding anything to your argument or refuting the main points of mine.