25 May '11 02:23>
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
Discuss...
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
Discuss...
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe flying spaghetti monster caused it, I say the FSM was uncaused by decree.
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
Discuss...
Originally posted by Agerg...I could posit an eternal multiverse whereby all bets are off with respect to talk of necessary causation and such.
The flying spaghetti monster caused it, I say the FSM was uncaused by decree.
I'm not seeing what could you possibly hope to accomplish with this argument. 😕
Also I could posit an eternal multiverse whereby all bets are off with respect to talk of necessary causation and such.
Originally posted by epiphinehasBut
[b]...I could posit an eternal multiverse whereby all bets are off with respect to talk of necessary causation and such.
The problems with that scenario: (1) scientific evidence overwhelmingly corroborates the Standard Big Bang Model of the universe, (2) lack of evidence corroborating the various multiverse models, (3) a past eternal universe is philosophically and scientifically untenable.[/b]
Originally posted by Agerg1) The big bang is not imcompatible with the assertion that this universe was spawned from one of infinitely many tendrils of an eternal multiverse
But
1) The big bang is not imcompatible with the assertion that this universe was spawned from one of infinitely many tendrils of an eternal multiverse
2) I don't assert such a thing does exist - I merely provide it as a counter assertion when faced with "God necessarily caused this universe to exist" It suffices that it be not a contradictory proposition.
...[text shortened]... een covered in my response to (1), would you please elaborate?
I like your new avatar btw.
Originally posted by Agerg3) If this is relevant, and has not been covered in my response to (1), would you please elaborate?
But
1) The big bang is not imcompatible with the assertion that this universe was spawned from one of infinitely many tendrils of an eternal multiverse
2) I don't assert such a thing does exist - I merely provide it as a counter assertion when faced with "God necessarily caused this universe to exist" It suffices that it be not a contradictory proposition.
...[text shortened]... een covered in my response to (1), would you please elaborate?
I like your new avatar btw.
Originally posted by epiphinehas1. anthing that becomes manifest has a cause yes. The unmanifested entities have no cause because they are eternal. They can manifest bodies for themselves and explore lower dimensions but essentiallt they are unmanifested and without a cause.
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
Discuss...
Originally posted by karoly aczel2. In this part of the almost infinite thing we call the unverse there was a big bang which is when our part of the universe came into existence. It's just so huge that we think thw whole universe came into existence with the BB however it was only one part of it
1. anthing that becomes manifest has a cause yes. The unmanifested entities have no cause because they are eternal. They can manifest bodies for themselves and explore lower dimensions but essentiallt they are unmanifested and without a cause.
2. In this part of the almost infinite thing we call the unverse there was a big bang which is when our part ...[text shortened]... manifested things. From solid inert objects to less tangible "things" like relationships,etc.
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou are referring to the Vacuum Fluctuation Model, which didn't outlive the 1980's. The problem with this model that proved fatal was its incoherency: (1) given infinite past time, every point in the infinite vacuum will have spawned a baby universe (the universes colliding and coalescing with each other—this even if the universes within that vacuum occurred an infinite distance apart)
[b]1) The big bang is not imcompatible with the assertion that this universe was spawned from one of infinitely many tendrils of an eternal multiverse
You are referring to the Vacuum Fluctuation Model, which didn't outlive the 1980's. The problem with this model that proved fatal was its incoherency: (1) given infinite past time, every point in t new avatar btw.[/b]
Thanks! The closest bolt of lightning I ever caught on camera...[/b]
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe assumption 1) is unwarranted. There is no reason whatsoever to believe it to be the case. There is no evidence to support it. It is just made up so you can claim 3).
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
Discuss...
Originally posted by epiphinehas(1) An infinite past universe is philosophically untenable because an actual infinite number of things is impossible.
[b]3) If this is relevant, and has not been covered in my response to (1), would you please elaborate?
(1) An infinite past universe is philosophically untenable because an actual infinite number of things is impossible.
(2) Neither is an infinite past universe supported by scientific evidence: (a) the Standard Big Bang Model, and (b) the implications of the second law of thermodynamics.[/b]
Originally posted by menace71To be accurate, our universe, as we know it, had a start. It could quite easily have been something different prior to the big bang.
Our universe is not eternal in another words. It had a start. We can argue about how it started but there is no doubt it started.
Originally posted by epiphinehasJust to be clear, what do you mean by 'begins to exist'? Are we talking about a change of state (where energy is conserved and the standard laws of physics are followed) such as when I put some planks of wood together and a chair 'begins to exist'. Or are we talking about something else?
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Originally posted by Agerg...the argument that there must exist at least one point where one or more universes spawned by a multiverse must intersect is neither a necessary conclusion of infinite `time'...
You are referring to the Vacuum Fluctuation Model, which didn't outlive the 1980's. The problem with this model that proved fatal was its incoherency: (1) given infinite past time, every point in the infinite vacuum will have spawned a baby universe (the universes colliding and coalescing with each other—this even if the universes within that vacuum occurr rgue it suffers no contradictions, the burden on you is to argue the contrary.