The non-beginning (and the end)

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Ask KM. He posted this scientific question here.

Yes, I know, he might have his reasons though.

But still - discussing scientific matters in Spiritual Forum doesn't make any sense to me. "God wanted it that way" is the only spiritual answer needed.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
This Kalam cosmological argument does make sense to me. Causality is never violated as far as we know. Occam's Razor suggests it never will be. That which begins without a cause is as unlikely as the spontaneous creation of matter, or a machine that reverses entropy.

Yeah, MAYBE these things can happen; maybe there's an invisible, silent kangaro ...[text shortened]... fit through the slightest crack.

But somehow, I don't take this possibility too seriously.

I'm glad the Kalam works for you. It doesn't do it for me I'm afraid, for a number of reasons. For example you say causality is never violated as far as we know, but that question is more controversial than you make out. What we actually don't know is whether the indeterminacy in quantum mechanics is a fundamental part of the world or not. So causality might well be being violated countless times every second. Then there is the point that even if causality is a feature of the natural world, it is invalid to extend the principle to a situation in which the natural world does not exist. Occam's razor cuts no ice there. And even if we accepted that there might be something such that our universe began to exist, there is no good evidence to suggest that it merits the term 'god'. For all we know it might just be a multidimensional froth with no sentience whatsoever.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't think you understood what I wrote. We're talking about mass as a dimension, not about the properties of objects that have mass in the spacial and time dimensions.

Objects which have a velocity along the mass dimension - their mass changes with time - do not maintain that velocity inertially.

Objects with mass which have velocity along t ...[text shortened]... rything happened at once then time would exist; the phrase "at once" assumes time exists.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't think you understood what I wrote.
I think the choice to talk about mass the dimension, and say it has not inertia in the context of infinite or looped dimensions was...idiosyncratic. I accept that dimensions themselves don't have inertia and so on, but so what?

We're talking about mass as a dimension,
Ok, as I said, these are the antinomies of space and time, you might be right, they might be infinite or looped. The maths might suggest other possibilities.

If everything happened at once then time would exist; the phrase "at once" assumes time exists.
It was a joke 🙂 I can't remember who said it but the quote is fairly well known.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No - that is the question of why there was once nothing and now there is something. This idea violates all kinds of scientific principles that are extremely reliable otherwise.

I think my formulation of the question is better since it doesn't prejudge the issue.