The Most Basic Question...

[viole]

There has to be a first event/cause in the infinite sequence or it does not begin.
If there is a first event/cause in that sequence, the next has to be a finite time after it and so the hour does not have an infinite number of cause/events.
If there is always an antecedent then that would have happened before the start of the hour, thus adding to infinity, which is not possible.

You are begging the question. You are assuming that the Universe had a beginning, and therefore you force the conclusion. This is circular logic. What tells you that the Universe should have a beginning? There is no law of logic that requires that.

My model represents a Universe without beginning, and yet with finite past time. And where all state of affairs are explained by the antecedent. As we have seen the infinite sequence in the past adds to one hour, since it decays like a geometric progression, and therefore there is no infinite past, even with an infinite regress.

I really do not see (non question begging) logical defeaters of this.

Anyway, if we think a bit about that, your objection here is nothing but a variant of Zeno paradox, in reverse.

Yes I suppose, and it is a direct consequence of mathematics which work on paper but cannot, for practical considerations, work in real life. (in this case the practical consideration is that there had to have been a first cause/event).

I don't know what you mean. If time is continuous, then my model can be actualized in the physical world. Would you say that "one apple + one apple = two apples" is not true, because 1+1=2 is mathematics that works only on paper?

And what you call practical consideration is nothing but a premise you made up in order to force your desired conclusion. There is no logical reasons that X exists => X has a beginning. As a Christian you should know that.

So, if time is continuous during that hour, as it could be, then it is the case that set of causation events during that hour does not have a first one. And it does not have a first one for logical properties involving fractions. And therefore, no law of logic is broken. Nor any law of physics because we have no physics yet there. So, all we have is your own incredulity that something like that could possibly work. But I hope you indulge me if I do not count incredulity as belonging to the set of logical arguments.

I think the thing is that even with no minimum length of gap there always needs to be a first event/cause, whether there is or is not any "time" before the hour.
If there is a first (which there has to be) the whole thing breaks down because with finite intervals there would be less than an infinite number of event/causes.

This is simply not true. There is no metaphysical, nor physical, nor ontological, nor logical reason that require a first cause. And that is also why arguments like Kalam are very careful in saying "everything that begins to exist....", for the simple fact that not everything that exists need to have a beginning.

So, I am afraid, that is nothing but an arbitrary premise that you made up in order to force your desired conclusion. Which reduces your entire argument to a circular syllogism.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brian2]

You are begging the question. You are assuming that the Universe had a beginning, and therefore you force the conclusion. This is circular logic. What tells you that the Universe should have a beginning? There is no law of logic that requires that.

My model represents a Universe without beginning, and yet with finite past time. And where all state of affairs are explained by the antecedent. As we have seen the infinite sequence in the past adds to one hour, since it decays like a geometric progression, and therefore there is no infinite past, even with an infinite regress.

I really do not see (non question begging) logical defeaters of this.

Anyway, if we think a bit about that, your objection here is nothing but a variant of Zeno paradox, in reverse.

Your proposal seems to be a variant of Zeno Paradox. I'm just showing why it cannot be true in real time,,,,,,,,,,, and I am doing it for a universe that both has a beginning and one that has no beginning imo.

I don't know what you mean. If time is continuous, then my model can be actualized in the physical world. Would you say that "one apple + one apple = two apples" is not true, because 1+1=2 is mathematics that works only on paper?

And what you call practical consideration is nothing but a premise you made up in order to force your desired conclusion. There is no logical reasons that X exists => X has a beginning. As a Christian you should know that.

So, if time is continuous during that hour, as it could be, then it is the case that set of causation events during that hour does not have a first one. And it does not have a first one for logical properties involving fractions. And therefore, no law of logic is broken. Nor any law of physics because we have no physics yet there. So, all we have is your own incredulity that something like that could possibly work. But I hope you indulge me if I do not count incredulity as belonging to the set of logical arguments.

I can see that logically we can get smaller forever without reaching the start of the hour. So logically there is an infinite number of cause/effect events with no first one.
BUT because an hour is just one hour long, there has to have been a beginning to that hour, a first cause/effect event.
If it was a case of a frog jumping half the way to the edge of the pond, and the another half etc and there was no time limit, then your proposition would work, but it is that little problem of the time limit (one hour) that makes your proposing in real time, unsustainable. The start of the hour arrives but you are saying that there cannot be a start to the hour (a first cause/effect event) because there is always an antecedent cause/effect event.
I can see how you might disagree with that of course, and I'm not sure how to explain it in a better way.

This is simply not true. There is no metaphysical, nor physical, nor ontological, nor logical reason that require a first cause. And that is also why arguments like Kalam are very careful in saying "everything that begins to exist....", for the simple fact that not everything that exists need to have a beginning.

So, I am afraid, that is nothing but an arbitrary premise that you made up in order to force your desired conclusion. Which reduces your entire argument to a circular syllogism.

Ciao

- viole

There is physical reason that there has to be a first cause, and that reason is that the hour has to have had a beginning.
We could keep making the length of time longer and we would always run into the same problem.
The only length of time that would work is an infinite length of time and the only reason it would work is because there is no start to that length of time,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, hence no first cause.

 

[viole]

Your proposal seems to be a variant of Zeno Paradox. I'm just showing why it cannot be true in real time,,,,,,,,,,, and I am doing it for a universe that both has a beginning and one that has no beginning imo.

good luck

and a paradox is not necessary a contradiction. For instance, Zeno paradox is resolved exactly because of convergence of a series, which have been put on a solid foundation by analysts in the 19th century.

I can see that logically we can get smaller forever without reaching the start of the hour. So logically there is an infinite number of cause/effect events with no first one.

Yes.

But if you want, you can call that limit the beginning of the universe. for sure, there is nothing before that, and something after that. So, it fulfills the duty of a beginning not worse than the so called beginning of the universe as promulgated by scientists (with a considerable amount of sloppiness, though). Nothing says that the beginning must contain something. It could very well be the border between nothing and something. Why not?

BUT because an hour is just one hour long, there has to have been a beginning to that hour, a first cause/effect event.
If it was a case of a frog jumping half the way to the edge of the pond, and the another half etc and there was no time limit, then your proposition would work, but it is that little problem of the time limit (one hour) that makes your proposing in real time, unsustainable. The start of the hour arrives but you are saying that there cannot be a start to the hour (a first cause/effect event) because there is always an antecedent cause/effect event.
I can see how you might disagree with that of course, and I'm not sure how to explain it in a better way.

A beginning of an hour must have a cause? I see a lot of problems to apply causality to instants of time,

1) Consider todays hour between 3PM and 4PM. What caused its beginning?
2) Time is a premise for causality to make sanse. Not only that, it must have a direction, namely from past to future. Try to define causes and effects without that. So, since time is presumably not embedded in another time context, it looks absurd to ascribe causation to its flow, or beginning of flow.

and it is true that every something has an antecedent in my model, while the beginning does not. Actually, it does not even has a postcedent. But that is not a flaw, it is actually the thesis I wanted to arrive to. The possibility of infinite regress without logical contradictions. And possibly not even nomological ones. i think you are still begging the question that a start must have a cause, for some law of logic that escapes me, but if you could actually show that, then everything that starts would have a cause. But that would be an a-priori belief, for there is no law of logic that prohibits beginnings without a cause.

Alternatively, if we are really so obsessed with everything having a first cause, then I claim that the beginning of that hour is the first cause of the universe. It does not look much like a deity, but it fulfills the role quite nicely. Denying that, therefore insisting that it must also have a cause, would still need you to appeal to that unproven philosophical prejudice of yours. In other words, you will have to beg the question again.

There is physical reason that there has to be a first cause, and that reason is that the hour has to have had a beginning.
We could keep making the length of time longer and we would always run into the same problem.
The only length of time that would work is an infinite length of time and the only reason it would work is because there is no start to that length of time,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, hence no first cause.

There are no physical reasons that there must be a first cause. There are only philosophical prejudices, and things that conflict with human imagination. The latter being a very unreliable conveyance of truths, as Christian theologian Plantinga already noticed.

actually, causation all but disappeared from physics, since it is not a fundamental property of the world. The reasons are threefolds:

1) Relativity, particularly special relativity, defeats our concept of present, past and future. My future can be in the past of another observer (which incidentally entails that our future cannot be changed, since pasts cannot be changed). Taken at face value, it basically entails that time does not flow. In fact, that is why probably most physicists hold the B theory of time to be more accurate. Under this ontology, the Universe would be an eternal (or, better, atemporal) and unchanging 4 dimensional field of transformations (events). The funny thing is that this view would still accommodate for BB cosmology, space expansion, the changes we experience everyday and so on. Another paradox which could actually be true. but if the Universe is eternal, then it makes no sense to talk of a first cause thereof. It would be like looking for a first cause of God.

2) even under A theory (the so called stubborn illusion that we all have according to Einstein), it is difficult to imagine causation under the premises of the indetermination principle. In particular, the indetermination involving time and energy measurements. In a nutshell, the more resolution I have on time intervals, the more wildly the energy can change. The constancy of energy is only an average of wildly energy indetermination. it the same way a perfectly flat surface is actually a mess of boiling particles if we have a sufficiently strong microscope.

that indetermination of energy is responsible for the spontaneous birth of particles, followed, in order to keep the long term energy average constant, by their annihilation. Those particles arise randomly and, fundamentally, without a clear causation process. They just inherently randomly pop into existence from absolute vacuum. What cause can have triggered something like that?

3) causation relies not only on A theory, but also on a polarized time arrow. Time must flow in one direction, namely from past to future. Without that, the asymmetry between causes and effects would fail. However, what are the origins of time direction, since it does not appear anywhere in any physical law? According to Boltzmann, and 19th century physics, the direction of time is determined by the simple fact that macroscopic systems tend to follow irreversible evolution. I can break an egg, but I cannot so easily reconstruct the egg. We call future the irreversible one, and past the other. And that asymmetry is what generates the flow of time in one direction. In fact, when we say that entropy increases with time, or we invoke the 2nd principle, we are stating a tautology. Time is defined as increasing in the direction of entropy, so it cannot be otherwise. The direction is not fundamental, since it is nothing more than a statistical phenomenon.

But if that is the case, causation is ultimately statistics too. And how can it be applied to microscopic systems where full time symmetry is applicable? And how can be applied to the universe, if its “first” state was not the consequence of being the evolution of an encompassing statistical context?

ciao

- viole

 

[Brian2]

good luck

and a paradox is not necessary a contradiction. For instance, Zeno paradox is resolved exactly because of convergence of a series, which have been put on a solid foundation by analysts in the 19th century.


Yes.

But if you want, you can call that limit the beginning of the universe. for sure, there is nothing before that, and something after that. So, it fulfills the duty of a beginning not worse than the so called beginning of the universe as promulgated by scientists (with a considerable amount of sloppiness, though). Nothing says that the beginning must contain something. It could very well be the border between nothing and something. Why not?


A beginning of an hour must have a cause? I see a lot of problems to apply causality to instants of time,

1) Consider todays hour between 3PM and 4PM. What caused its beginning?
2) Time is a premise for causality to make sanse. Not only that, it must have a direction, namely from past to future. Try to define causes and effects without that. So, since time is presumably not embedded in another time context, it looks absurd to ascribe causation to its flow, or beginning of flow.

and it is true that every something has an antecedent in my model, while the beginning does not. Actually, it does not even has a postcedent. But that is not a flaw, it is actually the thesis I wanted to arrive to. The possibility of infinite regress without logical contradictions. And possibly not even nomological ones. i think you are still begging the question that a start must have a cause, for some law of logic that escapes me, but if you could actually show that, then everything that starts would have a cause. But that would be an a-priori belief, for there is no law of logic that prohibits beginnings without a cause.

Alternatively, if we are really so obsessed with everything having a first cause, then I claim that the beginning of that hour is the first cause of the universe. It does not look much like a deity, but it fulfills the role quite nicely. Denying that, therefore insisting that it must also have a cause, would still need you to appeal to that unproven philosophical prejudice of yours. In other words, you will have to beg the question again.

I did not mean to imply a first cause. All I was doing was showing that the hour had a beginning and so with every cause/effect event after that being a finite interval from the previous event, there cannot be an infinite number of cause effect events in the hour in real time.
This is different for a frog trying to jump to the edge of a pond.
The thing about time is that it stops for no man and so the beginning of the hour arrives but the edge of the pool does not automatically reach the frog (or visa versa).

There are no physical reasons that there must be a first cause. There are only philosophical prejudices, and things that conflict with human imagination. The latter being a very unreliable conveyance of truths, as Christian theologian Plantinga already noticed.

actually, causation all but disappeared from physics, since it is not a fundamental property of the world. The reasons are threefolds:

1) Relativity, particularly special relativity, defeats our concept of present, past and future. My future can be in the past of another observer (which incidentally entails that our future cannot be changed, since pasts cannot be changed). Taken at face value, it basically entails that time does not flow. In fact, that is why probably most physicists hold the B theory of time to be more accurate. Under this ontology, the Universe would be an eternal (or, better, atemporal) and unchanging 4 dimensional field of transformations (events). The funny thing is that this view would still accommodate for BB cosmology, space expansion, the changes we experience everyday and so on. Another paradox which could actually be true. but if the Universe is eternal, then it makes no sense to talk of a first cause thereof. It would be like looking for a first cause of God.

2) even under A theory (the so called stubborn illusion that we all have according to Einstein), it is difficult to imagine causation under the premises of the indetermination principle. In particular, the indetermination involving time and energy measurements. In a nutshell, the more resolution I have on time intervals, the more wildly the energy can change. The constancy of energy is only an average of wildly energy indetermination. it the same way a perfectly flat surface is actually a mess of boiling particles if we have a sufficiently strong microscope.

that indetermination of energy is responsible for the spontaneous birth of particles, followed, in order to keep the long term energy average constant, by their annihilation. Those particles arise randomly and, fundamentally, without a clear causation process. They just inherently randomly pop into existence from absolute vacuum. What cause can have triggered something like that?

3) causation relies not only on A theory, but also on a polarized time arrow. Time must flow in one direction, namely from past to future. Without that, the asymmetry between causes and effects would fail. However, what are the origins of time direction, since it does not appear anywhere in any physical law? According to Boltzmann, and 19th century physics, the direction of time is determined by the simple fact that macroscopic systems tend to follow irreversible evolution. I can break an egg, but I cannot so easily reconstruct the egg. We call future the irreversible one, and past the other. And that asymmetry is what generates the flow of time in one direction. In fact, when we say that entropy increases with time, or we invoke the 2nd principle, we are stating a tautology. Time is defined as increasing in the direction of entropy, so it cannot be otherwise. The direction is not fundamental, since it is nothing more than a statistical phenomenon.

But if that is the case, causation is ultimately statistics too. And how can it be applied to microscopic systems where full time symmetry is applicable? And how can be applied to the universe, if its “first” state was not the consequence of being the evolution of an encompassing statistical context?

ciao

- viole

B Theory of time gets complicated.
In my opinion cause/effect gives a flow of time and B theory just shows the fantasies that science is willing to jump into sometimes. It is as if it can't see the forest for the trees.
When it comes to my future being in the past of another observer, that is not really true imo.
The other observer's past did not have me in it if that past has not happened for me and is still in my future.
I don't know about the rest of your post.

 

[Palehorse]

I've heard tell that the most "basic question" that we can try to answer is "why is there something rather than nothing?" (Other's might think the most basic question is "why won't my willie let me alone," but let's ignore that one for this discussion.)

It seems that many people cannot understand why there is a universe at all (I'm in that group -- I accept it, but don't understand it).

Everyone, as I understand it, agrees that "nothing comes from nothing." (I'm not sure, but I think that makes some kind of sense...but

Yet, here we are, and all we curious humans want to know why and how we got here.

How do you approach this? Most of humanity (on the numbers, I'd say "virtually all" of humanity) has decided that there must be something "outside," something "not this," that caused our existence.

But on what basis do you suppose that? Is it wrong to ask, if our universe, our existence is impossible, "what makes an outside cause possible?" Where did it come from, why does it exist, what kind of thing is it that existed and plotted creation when there was -- literally -- nothing but it?

The question I am trying to ask -- for anyone who would like to try actually "philosophising," is simply this: "why can't something exist without something to cause it to exist, and yet the cause can exist without a cause?"

This is an exercise in philosophy. Do your best.

Nothing is something
..

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing in the bubble which is where it is suggested the universe spontaneity formed.

Is it any wonder people are insane?

 

[ChristineM]

Is it any wonder people are insane?

Maybe if you studed a little qm you to can think you are insane

 

[Muffled]

Can nothingness (as per the OP) be anything other than receptive? How can nothingness resist anything?

I believe nothingness can do nothing.

 

[viole]

B Theory of time gets complicated.
In my opinion cause/effect gives a flow of time and B theory just shows the fantasies that science is willing to jump into sometimes. It is as if it can't see the forest for the trees.
When it comes to my future being in the past of another observer, that is not really true imo.
The other observer's past did not have me in it if that past has not happened for me and is still in my future.
I don't know about the rest of your post.

There is nothing complicated in B theory. It is actually very simple.

Well, the moment you said "fantasies", or not seeing the "forest for the trees" you have just been downgraded by me to the level of the creationist who attributes to "scientific fantasies" things like evolution, or that the earth is actually more than 10,000 years old. Which just confirms once more the obvious.

Namely, that theists, especially Christians, are necessarily creationists. They must be. And creationists are all basically the same, when scientific findings challenge their beliefs, or metaphysical prejudices. Some are challenged by simple geology and biology, others by relativity. But they all equally belong to the same intellectual category, ultimately. Don't you think so?

So, what logical, physical, or whatever arguments do you have that irrefutably defeat the B theory of time? I hope you indulge me, if I will not consider them being fantasies, or somehow being related to forests and trees, as a valid logical argument.

Once we are done with that, we will move to the metaphysics of causality under a regime governed by Heisenberg indeterminacy principle. And after that we will move to Boltzmann, and the origins of the arrow of time, which is fundamental in giving meaning to causality.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brian2]

There is nothing complicated in B theory. It is actually very simple.

Well, the moment you said "fantasies", or not seeing the "forest for the trees" you have just been downgraded by me to the level of the creationist who attributes to "scientific fantasies" things like evolution, or that the earth is actually more than 10,000 years old. Which just confirms once more the obvious.

Namely, that theists, especially Christians, are necessarily creationists. They must be. And creationists are all basically the same, when scientific findings challenge their beliefs, or metaphysical prejudices. Some are challenged by simple geology and biology, others by relativity. But they all equally belong to the same intellectual category, ultimately. Don't you think so?

So, what logical, physical, or whatever arguments do you have that irrefutably defeat the B theory of time? I hope you indulge me, if I will not consider them being fantasies, or somehow being related to forests and trees, as a valid logical argument.

Once we are done with that, we will move to the metaphysics of causality under a regime governed by Heisenberg indeterminacy principle. And after that we will move to Boltzmann, and the origins of the arrow of time, which is fundamental in giving meaning to causality.

Ciao

- viole

Compared to people who reject God and creation, Christians are all in the same category, but I don't know if it is an intellectual one. But if that is the way you categorize people, so be it.
Really, do I have to be able to refute the B theory? I thought the burden of proof was on the one making the claim. Sigh.
How about causality showing a direction for time?
How about all of reality just being? Surely that should be enough to at least be a red flag to those contemplating such a theory.
But I suppose that is just an argument from incredulity. Does that mean I have to be wrong in reality or just wrong in a debate?
Sorry, I'm just trying to show you the forest but I know all you can see are the trees.

 

[Bird123]

Something can exist without something causing it, however not in a time-based causal universe. Since most people's judgment calls are based upon the laws of this universe, an expanded or a much wider view is necessary.

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

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe if you studed a little qm you to can think you are insane

I'm not supposed to laugh, i guess.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm not supposed to laugh, i guess.

You may laugh all you want, it makes no difference to the strangeness of QM

 

[viole]

Really, do I have to be able to refute the B theory? I thought the burden of proof was on the one making the claim. Sigh.

Well, you make the claim the A theory is right too, so we are at least tie . And of course you need to refute B theory, if you insist on your first cause arguments, because as long as B theory is a viable option, any argument relying on A theory, including arguments based on causality, are moot. They are conditionally true, at best. You have to defeat all possible defeaters of the claim you so, before making it. How do you think?

Simple logic. If you make a positive claim X, strongly predicated on Y, you are intellectually mandated to kill all defeaters of Y, if Y is a possible live option. Or, if you cannot, you should stop making claim X.

So, what you could do is: if A theory is the correct ontology of time, then there is a first cause.

Which, as we have seen, is not true even in this case.

Compared to people who reject God and creation, Christians are all in the same category, but I don't know if it is an intellectual one. But if that is the way you categorize people, so be it.

I do not characterize people according to what they believe. I characterize them according to the strength of their logical argument. So, when I hear dismissing rebuttals invoking scientific fantasies, and not be able to say the forest from the trees, it is obvious in which category that thinker goes. Don't you think?

What would you think if I dismissed theistic arguments because, you know, believers in God like to get lost in their fantasies and superstitions, and are completely incapable to see the forest from the trees?

How about causality showing a direction for time?

So, how can you tell the difference between a cause and the effect? Are they labelled "cause" and "effect" just for your convenience? Can you propose an epistemology that tells what is what?

Suppose I show you a movie concerning a billiards ball hitting another one. You just see the balls, and their relative movement. But I am not telling you whether I am playing the movie in reverse or not. Can you tell what is cause and what effect? How?

How about all of reality just being? Surely that should be enough to at least be a red flag to those contemplating such a theory.

What theory? And what does it mean "all reality just being"? You are getting into deepity mode.

Do you mean the view of B theory that all "reality", including past and future, just is? Well, why should it that be a red flag? Incredulity again?

But I suppose that is just an argument from incredulity. Does that mean I have to be wrong in reality or just wrong in a debate?
Sorry, I'm just trying to show you the forest but I know all you can see are the trees.

Well, I am not sure what exactly you are showing. Apart from some pretty major logical fallacies. Including non sequiturs and circular thinking.

Fact is, again, you have to defeat all possible defeaters of your claim, before making that claim. If that is trees instead of forest, then be it, trees are more logical than forests.

So you have to go though the painstaking path top defeat:

1) B theory. Or, alternatively, redefine causality under B theory
2) The indetermination principle in QM. Or, again, redefine causality under that regime
3) The statistical origins of the arrow of time, which would make any consideration about the cause of the Universe meaningless

Pending that, your claim of a first cause is as rock solid as the claim that we are angels.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is nothing complicated in B theory. It is actually very simple.

Well, the moment you said "fantasies", or not seeing the "forest for the trees" you have just been downgraded by me to the level of the creationist who attributes to "scientific fantasies" things like evolution, or that the earth is actually more than 10,000 years old. Which just confirms once more the obvious.

Namely, that theists, especially Christians, are necessarily creationists. They must be. And creationists are all basically the same, when scientific findings challenge their beliefs, or metaphysical prejudices. Some are challenged by simple geology and biology, others by relativity. But they all equally belong to the same intellectual category, ultimately. Don't you think so?

So, what logical, physical, or whatever arguments do you have that irrefutably defeat the B theory of time? I hope you indulge me, if I will not consider them being fantasies, or somehow being related to forests and trees, as a valid logical argument.

Once we are done with that, we will move to the metaphysics of causality under a regime governed by Heisenberg indeterminacy principle. And after that we will move to Boltzmann, and the origins of the arrow of time, which is fundamental in giving meaning to causality.

Ciao

- viole

From my questioning here, apparently there are those who claim to be Christian, are well schooled in certain subjects, yet do not believe that God created the heavens and the earth and living matter and beings therein.

 

[Brian2]

Well, you make the claim the A theory is right too, so we are at least tie . And of course you need to refute B theory, if you insist on your first cause arguments, because as long as B theory is a viable option, any argument relying on A theory, including arguments based on causality, are moot. They are conditionally true, at best. You have to defeat all possible defeaters of the claim you so, before making it. How do you think?

Simple logic. If you make a positive claim X, strongly predicated on Y, you are intellectually mandated to kill all defeaters of Y, if Y is a possible live option. Or, if you cannot, you should stop making claim X.

So, what you could do is: if A theory is the correct ontology of time, then there is a first cause.

Which, as we have seen, is not true even in this case.


I do not characterize people according to what they believe. I characterize them according to the strength of their logical argument. So, when I hear dismissing rebuttals invoking scientific fantasies, and not be able to say the forest from the trees, it is obvious in which category that thinker goes. Don't you think?

What would you think if I dismissed theistic arguments because, you know, believers in God like to get lost in their fantasies and superstitions, and are completely incapable to see the forest from the trees?


So, how can you tell the difference between a cause and the effect? Are they labelled "cause" and "effect" just for your convenience? Can you propose an epistemology that tells what is what?

Suppose I show you a movie concerning a billiards ball hitting another one. You just see the balls, and their relative movement. But I am not telling you whether I am playing the movie in reverse or not. Can you tell what is cause and what effect? How?


What theory? And what does it mean "all reality just being"? You are getting into deepity mode.

Do you mean the view of B theory that all "reality", including past and future, just is? Well, why should it that be a red flag? Incredulity again?


Well, I am not sure what exactly you are showing. Apart from some pretty major logical fallacies. Including non sequiturs and circular thinking.

Fact is, again, you have to defeat all possible defeaters of your claim, before making that claim. If that is trees instead of forest, then be it, trees are more logical than forests.

So you have to go though the painstaking path top defeat:

1) B theory. Or, alternatively, redefine causality under B theory
2) The indetermination principle in QM. Or, again, redefine causality under that regime
3) The statistical origins of the arrow of time, which would make any consideration about the cause of the Universe meaningless

Pending that, your claim of a first cause is as rock solid as the claim that we are angels.

So nobody knows whether A theory is true or B theory and to have any degree of certainty I must become a mathematician or physicist to work it out and even then will not be sure. And if I do not do that I have to wait till someone else does and her work is peer reviewed and approved and then break some logical fallacy (ad populum maybe) by going along with what they say because they say it, and they outnumber the other side.
And causality does not show that the B theory is wrong because the theory says that there is no causality and the direction of time is not set. Sounds like someone is making up their own rules.
I suppose you have worked it all out and so you take side with the B theorists. If not then you also don't know. Maybe you are jealous that I have taken sides using my non mathematical reasoning but you feel like you can't do that and need to stick to the rules.
It's stuff like this that makes me think I should gather people around me who agree with me and use them as a peer group for my own theories.
But seriously afaik the B theory says that all reality just is, and I guess in another universe it might be the same and we could have an infinite number of universes covering every conceivable or inconceivable reality that could or could not be,,,,,,,,,,,,, and I suppose it just sits there and doesn't really do anything. Nobody really travels in time, it's all an illusion.
And I suppose it actually really is hard to tell if this post was caused by me or if it came from a more full RF which is slowly emptying itself and going to various computers around the world and into the brains of those sitting at the keyboards and typing backwards as the ideas flow backwards into their brain.
And every now and then technicians leave RF after having caused a few technical problems.
Sounds convincing to me. Where do I sign up?

 

[ChristineM]

From my questioning here, apparently there are those who claim to be Christian, are well schooled in certain subjects, yet do not believe that God created the heavens and the earth and living matter and beings therein.

I always assumed being Christian was holding JC as an example and strive to attain what is written about him. I.e. from the NT, not the OT

 

[viole]

So nobody knows whether A theory is true or B theory and to have any degree of certainty I must become a mathematician or physicist to work it out and even then will not be sure. And if I do not do that I have to wait till someone else does and her work is peer reviewed and approved and then break some logical fallacy (ad populum maybe) by going along with what they say because they say it, and they outnumber the other side.
And causality does not show that the B theory is wrong because the theory says that there is no causality and the direction of time is not set. Sounds like someone is making up their own rules.
I suppose you have worked it all out and so you take side with the B theorists. If not then you also don't know. Maybe you are jealous that I have taken sides using my non mathematical reasoning but you feel like you can't do that and need to stick to the rules.
It's stuff like this that makes me think I should gather people around me who agree with me and use them as a peer group for my own theories.
But seriously afaik the B theory says that all reality just is, and I guess in another universe it might be the same and we could have an infinite number of universes covering every conceivable or inconceivable reality that could or could not be,,,,,,,,,,,,, and I suppose it just sits there and doesn't really do anything. Nobody really travels in time, it's all an illusion.
And I suppose it actually really is hard to tell if this post was caused by me or if it came from a more full RF which is slowly emptying itself and going to various computers around the world and into the brains of those sitting at the keyboards and typing backwards as the ideas flow backwards into their brain.
And every now and then technicians leave RF after having caused a few technical problems.
Sounds convincing to me. Where do I sign up?

Look, it is very simple. If you are unable to disable all defeaters of the first cause argument, then you cannot assert it. It is just normal logic. That is the whole point. I am not asserting B theory is necessarily true, or that there is definitely no first cause. I am just showing that it entirely possible that these defeaters are true. And that therefore, the claim “there has to be a first cause” fails. You should actually demote it (or promote it, if you see faith to be better than evidence) to “I believe there is a first cause”. Which is much easier to defend.

and yes, if you declare that there are physical reasons for a first cause, as you did, then knowing physics, especially modern physics, would help to get ready to defend against the unavoidable counter attack. Otherwise you will always be doomed to go to gun fights with a knife. for, it would be like me saying that there are good reasons why medieval chinese theatre played, say, with purple costumes, when it takes two seconds to realize i have no clue of medieval chinese theatre. and that I have been, therefore, intellectually sloppy.

ciao

- viole

 

[YoursTrue]

I always assumed being Christian was holding JC as an example and strive to attain what is written about him. I.e. from the NT, not the OT

Allow me to mention what the Bible (both the OT and NT) says. First of all, and I'm going to keep this brief, the OT speaks of a deliverer, or messiah, which means anointed one. It also speaks about the fall of Adam and Eve into sin. They were the first two humans created. Now I know there are many differences in religion as to what, why, when and how this happened, or IF this happened, but I'm not here to discuss that in detail now. I will, however, mention that there were prophecies leading people to think there would be a deliverer (from the situation people found themselves in). That's the OT and the NT speaks of a particular occurrence which is the birth of a man named Jesus which some believed was the Messiah.
I realize that some believe Jesus was a "good guy" but not the son of God born of a virgin. When I was an atheist, I used to think Jesus was a "good guy," but couldn't put it all together. The point is that (1) there are different ways some believe Jesus is to be thought of, and (2) not all religions basing some form of belief in Jesus agree as to who he was (is), and (3) sacrifice for sin was being offered in the history as recorded in the Old Testament. If you were to ask anyone who claims to have a form of religion who or what do they think God is, you might get some interesting answers.
In other words, it makes me (not everyone, obviously) wonder how a person adheres to a religion that professes some belief in Jesus but then says he was a good man, that he misunderstood the scriptures available to him at that time, that he fell prey to myths, and more. I'll leave it at that for now.
Again, my next question might be if they believe in God and how do they describe their belief about God and what parts of the Bible do they believe?
Sorry this is so long.

 

[YoursTrue]

I always assumed being Christian was holding JC as an example and strive to attain what is written about him. I.e. from the NT, not the OT

P.S. Then you have to figure exactly what Jesus did teach, and how should a Christian follow him, and what it means to them insofar as life goes as well as the future.