"IF The Big Bang Is True Then How.....?"

[Polymath257]

I have a much simpler and less discriminatory definition.

To say that "X" has a cause simply means that "X" has atleast 1 requisite in order to exist.

Sorry, what does it mean to be a 'requisite to exist'? Doesn't it ultimately mean that there is some law of physics that goes from one to the other?

To say that a man is the cause of the watch simply means that the watch requires (or required) the existance of that man in order to exist.

Nope. it means that some human, working thruugh the laws of physics, was able to make a watch.

The curvature in the couch requires the ball, therefore the ball is a cause of the curvature. Without the curvature the ball would still exist, but without the ball the curvature wouldn't exist. This is why the ball is the cause and the curvature the effect.

The curvature wouldn't exist except that the law of gravity produces a force and the laws of distortion produce the curvature.

This is what is meant by "cause" in the KCA

Well, then it uses an incoherent concept of cause.

So given this definition, do you still reject the conclusion of the KCA? (the universe has a cause)

Do you still reject the possibility of simultaneous cause and effect?

Yes, I do. To both. I think the definition is incoherent. The notion of 'requisite' is both useless (it ultimately means through some mechanism) and irrelevant (logical necessity isn't a form of causation).

 

[Bird123]

.

Posted without comment.

But feel free to offer yours.

.

OK, God did it. Why is it more reasonable that Poof Creation is more viable than God creating the universe to unfold and evolve into what we have today and beyond?

With holy book stories thinking is not necessary. All one has to do is accept. On the other hand, in God's created world does true knowledge come served up so easily on a silver platter? Of course not.

AS I see it, God created the universe to unfold from a single point to what we have today and beyond just like a seed grows into a giant tree. The genius behind it all is that God created the universe to unfold in such a way mankind would be able to figure it all out in time.

Which sounds more like God? Poof Creation or Teaching the kiddies?

As for science being bad, science will discover God before religion will. Why? Science corrects for errors. Religion thinks they have none. Science searches for answers. Religion memorizes and recites without discovering any more. Which will find God first? Given enough time, religion will become obsolete unless they change.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Skwim]

OK, God did it. Why is it more reasonable that Poof Creation is more viable than God creating the universe to unfold and evolve into what we have today and beyond?

With holy book stories thinking is not necessary. All one has to do is accept. On the other hand, in God's created world does true knowledge come served up so easily on a silver platter? Of course not.

AS I see it, God created the universe to unfold from a single point to what we have today and beyond just like a seed grows into a giant tree. The genius behind it all is that God created the universe to unfold in such a way mankind would be able to figure it all out in time.

Which sounds more like God? Poof Creation or Teaching the kiddies?

As for science being bad, science will discover God before religion will. Why? Science corrects for errors. Religion thinks they have none. Science searches for answers. Religion memorizes and recites without discovering any more. Which will find God first? Given enough time, religion will become obsolete unless they change.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Why refer to it as "god"? Why not the "great creatorator spark," or the "universal initializer"? Isn't "god" pretty religion dependent, which begs theological bias?

.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why refer to it as "god"? Why not the "great creatorator spark," or the "universal initializer"? Isn't "god" pretty religion dependent, which begs theological bias?

.

You could always go with the first unmoved mover from philosophy. The un-caused, which is the first cause.

 

[Skwim]

You could always go with the first unmoved mover from philosophy. The un-caused, which is the first cause.

Up against the "great creatorator spark," and the "universal initializer"? They're rather bland don't you think?

.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

On the pillow example, the thing is that atleast under @Polymath257 view the idea of a cause that took place an infinite amount of time ago is logically coherent,

Under that view, a cause that took place at past infinity, would produce an effect also at past infinity (therefore they would be simultaneous) there woulnt be a time where the cause existed and the effect didn't

I disagree. The cause of the depression is gravity. And it's continous. The depression happens because the force of gravity acts upon the ball. So there needs to be a massive object underneath the pillow to exert that gravity. Gravity propagates at the speed of light - it's not instantanous. Newton thought it was and Einstein corrected him.

So for the depression to be there, there needs to be a continous exertion of this force. That is the case of the attraction. And for gravity to continously exert that force, you need time to pass.

The point of drawing a triangle, touching water, etc is that at some point there would be overlapping of a cause and its effect. There wouldn't be a point in time where the cause existed and the effect didn't.

The point is that without the sequence of events that goes from "not touching water" to "touching water", is temporal in nature. "wet" is not an event nore an effect. Touching water is the effect. And to touch is a verbe. An action. Temporal in nature. You need to go from not touching to touching.

"wet" is just the word we use to refer to "water being touched".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, I would say that the curvature is uncaused. In your scenario, it has simply always been there

I don't get this.

Wouldn't the curvature have to be caused by gravitational forces?
Those forces need to be exerted by a massive object, right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For that you have to turn philosophy and/or religion.

Neither of those are able to tell us what reality really is.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't get this.

Wouldn't the curvature have to be caused by gravitational forces?
Those forces need to be exerted by a massive object, right?

Well, if the ball was placed in the couch, then you would be correct.

But if that ball was *always* on the couch, we would at most say that the forces are always balanced and that there is no cause at all.

Of course, this is such an unrealistic scenario that it is rather irrelevant.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, in methodological naturalism there is evidence as you point out. But methodological naturalism says nothing about what reality really is. For that you have to turn philosophy and/or religion.

And, while they say what reality really is, they have so many different answers that none of them can be trusted.

Philosophy and religion tend to be just people playing with their desires as opposed to people discovering truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Neither of those are able to tell us what reality really is.

Nor is science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And, while they say what reality really is, they have so many different answers that none of them can be trusted.

Philosophy and religion tend to be just people playing with their desires as opposed to people discovering truth.

What is truth?
The many meanings of truth

"The many meanings of truth
You might have noticed that in this website, we talk about science providing us with "accurate" and "reliable" explanations. Even though science is often characterized as such, we do not describe it as a search for truth. ..."

I learned this many years ago. Science as science is not about truth. Religion, philosophy and mathematics are about truth.
We can play truth all you want, but science is not about truth. Science left truth behind, when it went form natural philosophy to science.

We can go as many rounds you want about truth and we are going to end here:
Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Science is a conditional system based on the assumption that the universe is fair and knowable. That is because as knowledge goes there are no knowledge as true justified belief. Neither for true nor for justified. All knowledge as for how the universe works in practice are some local particular standpoint, which works in a limited sense.
And metaphysics and ontology are mental gymnastics and nothing else.

Now this is conditional on that the universe stays the same as for the past and present and don't change fundamentally for human knowledge in the future. We are playing the induction problem and I know this.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nor is science.

Science gives us a sensible, testable approximation, which is about as close as it gets.

Nobody ever claimed otherwise.

But you DID claim otherwise: you said that religion / philosophy can tell us that. But it can't. Not even remotely. Science does a FAR better job. Religion / philosophy, in fact, does no job. It just makes bare claims and pretend as if that means something. It doesn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is truth?
The many meanings of truth

"The many meanings of truth
You might have noticed that in this website, we talk about science providing us with "accurate" and "reliable" explanations. Even though science is often characterized as such, we do not describe it as a search for truth. ..."

I learned this many years ago. Science as science is not about truth. Religion, philosophy and mathematics are about truth.
We can play truth all you want, but science is not about truth. Science left truth behind, when it went form natural philosophy to science.

We can go as many rounds you want about truth and we are going to end here:
Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Science is a conditional system based on the assumption that the universe is fair and knowable. That is because as knowledge goes there are no knowledge as true justified belief. Neither for true nor for justified. All knowledge as for how the universe works in practice are some local particular standpoint, which works in a limited sense.
And metaphysics and ontology are mental gymnastics and nothing else.

Now this is conditional on that the universe stays the same as for the past and present and don't change fundamentally for human knowledge in the future. We are playing the induction problem and I know this.

Regards
Mikkel

You're not actually answering the very valid point made by @Polymath257
Instead, you are once again getting sidetracked on non-issues due to flipping out on the mentioning of the words "science" and "truth".

He made a specific point about philosophy / religion in direct response to your point about those 2 things.
A point, you have no addressed at all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science gives us a sensible, testable approximation, which is about as close as it gets.

Nobody ever claimed otherwise.

But you DID claim otherwise: you said that religion / philosophy can tell us that. But it can't. Not even remotely. Science does a FAR better job. Religion / philosophy, in fact, does no job. It just makes bare claims and pretend as if that means something. It doesn't.

Well, science does a better job at the objective. Philosophy, religion and I left out soft science and humaniora do a better job of the subjective.
BTW "Science does a FAR better job" is subjective as for "FAR better". There is no objective referent for "FAR better". Learn to check of the subjective in yourself.

The universe is in effect a combination of the objective and subjective.

Second BTW - "...as if that means something" If it means something, it is subjective. You are not doing science there. You are doing this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Science doesn't make moral judgments
Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge

Science can't tell you what is useful, but apparently you can with science do that. But you don't. You are subjective. To you science is useful. That is useful, is subjective.
To me science is differently useful than to you. That is in the relativism.

So if I claimed that philosophy and religion are better than science, that was not my intention. Science is the best at the objective and the worst at the subjective. Philosophy, religion and I left out soft science and humaniora do a better job of the subjective, because they can deal with the subjective as subjective.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're not actually answering the very valid point made by @Polymath257
Instead, you are once again getting sidetracked on non-issues due to flipping out on the mentioning of the words "science" and "truth".

He made a specific point about philosophy / religion in direct response to your point about those 2 things.
A point, you have no addressed at all.

There is no overall universal, objective, absolute and what not truth as it appears for humans.
How? Because we can subjectively disagree. It is that simple.

Someone claiming science ought to know that about truth and science. That ends here:
"The many meanings of truth
You might have noticed that in this website, we talk about science providing us with "accurate" and "reliable" explanations. Even though science is often characterized as such, we do not describe it as a search for truth."
The many meanings of truth
The website are by scientists and states:
Understanding science - how science really works.

So take it up with the scientists, who wrote this. Now you can ask me, because I know how that is so.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[columbus]

You could always go with the first unmoved mover from philosophy. The un-caused, which is the first cause.

That's what I do.

I find KCA reasonably intuitive. Doesn't mean it's really accurate, complete or explanative. It isn't. You can't even logically infer that God exists(in any meaningful way) now. KCA only tells you that God existed ~14.5 billion years ago. It certainly doesn't tell you anything about God, such as:
God is a sentient being.
God is a unitary sentient being.
God is Almighty.
God cares about humans.
God cares who I have sex with.

Etc.
Etc.

Depending on the context, prefer to use terms like "Original Source" or "Ground of Being" to describe what I mean by the word God. But they're a little clunky and derail the conversation, all too often. So, usually, I don't take the trouble.

So, while I am OK with KCA I am not OK with all the unsupported assertions people make based on KCA.
Tom

 

[Bird123]

Why refer to it as "god"? Why not the "great creatorator spark," or the "universal initializer"? Isn't "god" pretty religion dependent, which begs theological bias?

.

God is actually Someone. Funny thing is that everyone already knows everyone. Names are never required or referenced to.

Mankind just must have labels and titles. By using the name God, a greater number of people would understand the reference.

What's that quote? A Rose by any other name...

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, science does a better job at the objective. Philosophy, religion and I left out soft science and humaniora do a better job of the subjective.

We aren't talking about the subjective (ie: between your ears). We are talking about reality (ie: what goes on outside of your head)

BTW "Science does a FAR better job" is subjective as for "FAR better"

No, it's not. Science demonstrably does a better job.
If you build a plane according to scientific knowledge, it will fly.
If you don't, it won't.

The universe is in effect a combination of the objective and subjective.

Reality isn't. Reality is objective. ie: it's workings doesn't depend on your opinions or emotions. Gravity doesn't care what side of the bed you got up this morning.

Second BTW - "...as if that means something" If it means something, it is subjective. You are not doing science there. You are doing this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Science doesn't make moral judgments
Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge

Science can't tell you what is useful, but apparently you can with science do that. But you don't. You are subjective. To you science is useful. That is useful, is subjective.
To me science is differently useful than to you. That is in the relativism.

So if I claimed that philosophy and religion are better than science, that was not my intention. Science is the best at the objective and the worst at the subjective. Philosophy, religion and I left out soft science and humaniora do a better job of the subjective, because they can deal with the subjective as subjective.

Regards
Mikkel

You're once again, surprise surprise, of on an irrelevant tangent, complaining about things that are completely off topic and that were claimed by exactly nobody.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no overall universal, objective, absolute and what not truth as it appears for humans.
How? Because we can subjectively disagree. It is that simple.

Someone claiming science ought to know that about truth and science. That ends here:
"The many meanings of truth
You might have noticed that in this website, we talk about science providing us with "accurate" and "reliable" explanations. Even though science is often characterized as such, we do not describe it as a search for truth."
The many meanings of truth
The website are by scientists and states:
Understanding science - how science really works.

So take it up with the scientists, who wrote this. Now you can ask me, because I know how that is so.

Regards
Mikkel

Still stuck on the sidetrack. Still not addressing the actual points made by @Polymath257