The Void of nothing

Originally posted by Agerg
Ah but the difference is that I don't require that something needing to be caused or uncaused must have been *first caused* by something uncaused...this brings up a contradiction.

I don't understand. You would be on the road to infinite regress which is a kind of eternity anyway. You need a first cause otherwise you are stuck with the something from nothing idea. Don't tell me you are thinking of going back there. Don't allow your strong feelings against the idea of God distract you from logic. How have you talked yourself out of needing a first cause?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't understand. You would be on the road to infinite regress which is a kind of eternity anyway. You need a first cause otherwise you are stuck with the something from nothing idea. Don't tell me you are thinking of going back there. Don't allow your strong feelings against the idea of God distract you from logic. How have you talked yourself out of needing a first cause?

but then you are stuck with the God from nothing idea too...a magic definition doesn't help for I reject it...
Why must an eternal universe need a cause when an eternal God causing it does not need a cause?....very much a contradiction.

Originally posted by Agerg
but then I can just say that the universe is *uncaused* it just does what the hell it likes (as it were), always has and always will...problem solved

with regards to being touchy: By foolish I certainly do not suggest stupid - just mis-guided. (very mis-guided)

No offence taken my friend . I respect you greatly as a debator. You are at least able to get this far. With other posters I've found they were still stuck at the "but there was no before the universe because there was no time before the universe" stage. You at least are grappling with the very real paradox of causality. You can see how an uncaused cause , however mysterious it might be , is more plausible than something from nothing. It's logic by process of eliminating the nonsense and seeing what's left. The key is to realise that there are only two viable options. Once you eliminate one you are logic bound to accept the other one.

Originally posted by Agerg
but then you are stuck with the God from nothing idea too...a magic definition doesn't help for I reject it...
Why must an eternal universe need a cause when an eternal God causing it does not need a cause?....very much a contradiction.

An eternal universe does NOT need a cause , you are right . absolutely right. I did not say this. I did say that there are some worrying clues that it might not be. Like for example the evidence that points away from a big crunch idea and the fact that universe appears to have some kind of beginning (a bang) Even if I was an Atheist I would still find the universe unconvincing as eternal . I would be expecting something more incredible like an infinite wall of unlimited energy without dimension or decay of any sort. Or stars that never dimmed and ran down.

Originally posted by Agerg
Another difference (amongst many) is that a theist's solution adds nothing but un-necessary and unjustified variables. (universe always existing [b]vs God + universe always existing the latter is neither constructive or parsimonious)[/b]

I understand this position. However , the big bang is very , very suggestive of an effect (and effects need a cause). Every "bang" that I know of and understand is intiated by an injection of power of is caused by something else. All the "bangs" I know of and understand are a result of cause and effect. Now this big bang may be different but there is no logical reason to assume that it should be because it looks very similar to many bangs I know of (expansion , release of power , heat etc) . I can logically extrapolate that it's pretty likely this big bang also has something causing it. It would therefore seem more logical to posit some other cause beyond the big bang and then stop there rather than stop with the bang itself. Say for example that the universe had no bang at the centre but lots of activity within it and infinite looking dimensions in all directions . It would be much much more suggestive of a closed eternal system. The current one doesn't do it for me. It points to something more.

Originally posted by Agerg
but the theist solution begs the question: how can you have something that had to exist such that everything else could have not always existed without there being a point where [b]*it* didn't exist?...wherever and however you throw problems with causality...those that fall upon your solution are far worse.

Also, perhaps this time is special and that the universe will not experience a big crunch, who knows?[/b]

There are many questions . The idea of something existing eternally is incredible and mysterious. It is beyond rational thought , but it is not CONTRARY to rational thought. Once you have realised that you are stuck with either something from nothing (which is an effect with out a cause) OR eternal existence (which is an Uncaused cause) you soon see (if you think hard about it) that the first one contradicts the logic that says "from nothing nothing can come" . The second one says "from something something can come , but that something must have always been there without beginning". The second one challenges me to stretch my rationality the first one just seems contradictory. The first one grates against my logic , the second one stretches it and transcends it. The first one seems just plain silly , the second one just makes my jaw drop. So both are hard to understand but for quite different reasons. With something from nothing there is no hope of logic , it can't be understood ever because there is literally nothing to understand. With eternity at least there is a chance. However , the hard bit is to accept that you logically have only two options available to you and no others

Originally posted by knightmeister
No offence taken my friend . I respect you greatly as a debator. You are at least able to get this far. With other posters I've found they were still stuck at the "but there was no before the universe because there was no time before the universe" stage. You at least are grappling with the very real paradox of causality. You can see how an uncaused cau ...[text shortened]... nly two viable options. Once you eliminate one you are logic bound to accept the other one.

To put it another way:

I would with great reluctance accept that there is an incredibily unlikely possibility that two uncaused eternal things (universe and FSM) can exist but I outright reject the notion that one must be caused by another that is uncaused...this situation is as much a contradiction as defining a second even prime number.

Originally posted by Agerg
but the theist solution begs the question: how can you have something that had to exist such that everything else could have not always existed without there being a point where [b]*it* didn't exist?...wherever and however you throw problems with causality...those that fall upon your solution are far worse.

Also, perhaps this time is special and that the universe will not experience a big crunch, who knows?[/b]

Also, perhaps this time is special and that the universe will not experience a big crunch, who knows?AGERG

However , if the universe had been banging and crunching for eons of eternity then what are the chances against us being around to witness the one time ( out of what could have been zillions) when it chooses not to crunch instead? It's possible but unlikely.

Originally posted by Agerg
To put it another way:

I would with great reluctance accept that there is an incredibily unlikely possibility that two uncaused eternal things (universe and FSM) can exist but I outright reject the notion that one must be caused by another that is uncaused...this situation is as much a contradiction as defining a second even prime number.

And you would be right to reject this notion , it's not logical. One does not have to be caused by another , infact with two eternal uncaused things neither of them could have been caused to exist. one of them would have to be temporary if it was caused.
The EXISTENCE of the universe does not prove that it must have a cause , it's the NATURE of it that reminds me of things that need causes , like bangs for example. It might be that the universe is not doing itself justice and is doing a wimpy impression of eternity but the big bang is suggestive of a temporal event. We have even seen something that looks a lot like a tiny big bang (atom bomb) and it was most certainly NOT uncaused. All we have is logical extrapolation and probability. But don't ask me to put my mortgage on the universe being eternal.

I'm going to bed now for some eternal sleep . (I hope). this has been fun , nice crossing swords with you. I have learnt something myself from this. I hope it's stimulated you. Back soon.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I note with interest your unwillingness to engage in serious thought on this subject. Are you an eternalist or nothingist or something else?

BTW thought is not writing and I really am something else, just ask my girlfriend.

Remember Sherlock people? Whatever remains, no matter how unlikely,
must be the truth?

If we look at this from our perspective as semi-intelligent beings on a
backwater planet in a puny little galaxy trapped in the surface of a
ball-shaped, expanding universe, it's all so obvious. From that
perspective, pretty much anything could have happened by random
chance. Life can take form over eons of time through slight changes in
the interaction between different atoms, molecules, cells, genes and so
forth. Procreation is not really anything else. It's an interaction between
two bodies of assembled atoms (most of the time) forming a new body
that is slightly different. Not necessarily better suited to survive in this
environment, but different. The ones who are better suited to the
environment will survive long enough to procreate and the rest will not,
though we'll all die within a given timespan. Our "intelligence" and "self
awareness" gives us an edge over many other "constellations" and so
we're more likely to survive to procreate even when in small numbers
than, say, an ant. Ants survive by number. They can can be stomped
upon by bigger animals, and still there are millions left. If the
environment changes drastically too fast, ants will die out, whereas
humans (and other "intelligent" beings) will probably find ways to survive
(unless this entire globe is "stomped" on by a bigger entity such as an
exploding sun or a massive comet, like).

In light of the incredible, eternal God who created everything just right in
a snap of six days, I find the last option standing (however unlikely) to
be that we took form from a motionless body of nothing. What started
the motion that in turn created and caused energies to converge and
form new "unique" combinations, some of which survived to form yet
more complex forms, is the real question for me. But I suppose, like life
can take shape through tiny changes from very simple to incredibly
complex (in our limited understanding of it), so can motion begin as the
tiniest self caused ripple in the vast nothingness that surrounds us all.

That, or there really is a big flying pasta monster out there.

Originally posted by stocken
Remember Sherlock people? Whatever remains, no matter how unlikely,
must be the truth?

If we look at this from our perspective as semi-intelligent beings on a
backwater planet in a puny little galaxy trapped in the surface of a
ball-shaped, expanding universe, it's all so obvious. From that
perspective, pretty much anything could have happened by rounds us all.

That, or there really is a big flying pasta monster out there.

In light of the incredible, eternal God who created everything just right in
a snap of six days, STOCKEN


This belief is only put forward by super fundies and unintelligent Christians , but it is not a neccesary form of belief in God . Also , one can also believe in an eternal uncaused cause that could be very diffferent from the christian God and might not even be personal at all. There is no need to resort to this something from nothing nonsense unless you prefer to run away from strawmen.

If in doubt, I go with the data:
- stuff exists
- most of it is in a state of development
- changes stop when there's thermodynamic equilibrium

From that, I can only point to possible futures for the universe, mostly dull (the big whimper) or, equally incommensurate with human life, the crunch. Maybe there are pointers for the 'something from nothing' debate in its corollary, the something to... something else, which is where we're all headed?

More interesting to me is the link between our beliefs and our behaviors. Does it alter us outwardly if we are persuaded that there always was something, (stuff/ God/...) or if we believe in a discontinuity?

PS While I'm enjoying the debate very much, I'm concerned about the chess: post ratio of participants. Sub-question: do RHP people value debate more highly if it's with people who enjoy the noble game?

Originally posted by Agerg
To put it another way:

I would with great reluctance accept that there is an incredibily unlikely possibility that two uncaused eternal things (universe and FSM) can exist but I outright reject the notion that one must be caused by another that is uncaused...this situation is as much a contradiction as defining a second even prime number.

I'm back...

What do you think of this proposition?

Both the idea of something from nothing and eternal existence logically imply that either the universe is uncaused or eternal existence is uncaused.

a)Eternal existence has to be uncaused because it has by definition no beginning and therefore was not caused to be by anything because it always was there. It has to be not contingent or dependant on anything.

b)A universe from nothing also has to be uncaused because it would be impossible and not meaningful to ask what caused the universe because that would either imply there was something "there" before the universe or that an "event" happened or that there was some kind of causality which implies time. With something from nothing we are literally saying "nothing caused the universe" . Causality starts with the universe in this model. So the universe must be by a logical process of deduction uncaused. There is no way it can be caused , that possibility is ruled out by the model itself.

The logical law of non-contradiction would seem to dictate that both models contain this element of something uncaused.

I guess you would agree?

Originally posted by ruylopez51
If in doubt, I go with the data:
- stuff exists
- most of it is in a state of development
- changes stop when there's thermodynamic equilibrium

From that, I can only point to possible futures for the universe, mostly dull (the big whimper) or, equally incommensurate with human life, the crunch. Maybe there are pointers for the 'something from nothin ...[text shortened]... ion: do RHP people value debate more highly if it's with people who enjoy the noble game?

More interesting to me is the link between our beliefs and our behaviors. Does it alter us outwardly if we are persuaded that there always was something, (stuff/ God/...) or if we believe in a discontinuity? RLOPEZ

I would ask "does it change us inwardly?". I think S from N is more likely to lead to nihilism. It suggests that it's possible for everything to return to nothing one day and for life itself to not exist. If the life itself we are walking through is ultimately non-permanent we are less likely to think of permanent values , or relationships maybe. Also , one's committment to rationality might be less. With S from N one would have given up on ever ever being able to understand life itself. Life is ultimately non-understandable. It prediicts that science and rational enquiry is doomed because hypothetically once we got to a point where we knew and understood everything there was that existed that would be it. We would never be able to go further , our understanding of how? why? and what? was behind life itself would end in nothing. Nothing is not penetrable by rational thought. Ultimate truth cannot be found by rational thought because the ultimate truth isn't there , it's ...ehem ...nothing. With eternity you have still got places to go , it never stops , rational enquiry lives on.