Alix Nenuphar

wiploc:

I often feel that way when discussing the Cosmological Argument....

Alix Nenuphar

emotional:

Natural laws are simply generalisations of observed phenomenon. You are making two errors: you presume that because the majority of our observations (highly limited in space and time) indicate causality, that causality must obtain everywhere; and you also ignore such events as quantum fluctuations which are demonstrateably acausal.

That everything that begins to exist must have a cause is at best an inductive argument, not a deductive one.

I'm not sure I understand you. Let me try to rephrase: if A causes B, then A must exist before B. But if nothing exists before B (by definition, if B is the First Cause) then A cannot cause B. Your terminology would appear to indicate some other form of relationship between A and B. My only point is that it cannot be causal, as causal is currently defined. What do you believe this relationship to be?

Agreed, but irrelevant. One could postulate the dreaded 'key-fairies' as the cause of the universe; or Oomo the Elephant. Without empircal data, there is no way to discriminate between these possibilities.

What does the 'shirt' correspond to in your analogy? You are using an analogy of a relationship between material objects in order to demonstrate a relationship NOT between material objects. Why do believe this analogy is valid?

I am inclined to agree with you; I consider Dawkins position on this point illogical.

Dawkins opinions on the origin of the universe, religion, and metaphysical naturalism are hardly representative and it appears that more people outside the sciences take him seriously than in. He's just about as irascible in person, though his wife is very pleasant and they are a lot of fun to party with.

(Edited for grammar and spelling. Damn this English language and all who sail in her!)

fishbulb

Correct. Occam's razor is a principle, not a law. It doesn't guarantee the truth. Rather, it suggests the most promising place to look for it.

That space and time began at some point is an assumption. To my knowledge, there is no evidence to validate that assumption. We can confidently state as a matter of principle that ordinary (as in ordinary to us) things have a beginning, but that doesn't mean that every single ordinary thing must have had a beginning. Certainly, it would be unwise to apply a principle that we derive from observing ordinary things to something as extraordinary and inscrutable as the origins of the universe.

That souls exist is also an assumption. Not only is there no evidence to support that assumption, but if you posit that something exists outside of space and time, it seems possible that there can never be any evidence to support that assumption.

Even if we grant both of these assumptions, there is no reason to conclude that the universe came from a soul. If you grant the possibility that something can exist outside of what we understand as space and time (and to do so, we have to use the term "exist" very loosely), it seems to me that you have to grant the possibility that there could, in fact, be a great many things which "exist" in this fashion, any of which either alone or in combination wiht others could perhaps have achieved the creation of the universe.

It is also possible, it seems, that the universe came into existence on its own, with no external causal forces. It may seem like a weird idea, but the whole topic of what, if anything happened before space and time is one that we do not seem to be equipped to sensibly investigate. No well-thought out scenario seems to sit well with our sensibilities, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. Outside of the universe, we have no idea what, if any, laws govern the way things work.

Alix Nenuphar

Irishbrutha:

Though you were not responding to a post made by me, I thought I might return the omission and respond to a post made by you.

Aside from being a First Cause, what other things can be 'deduced' about it? Since the general form of the Cosmological Argument requires arguing from the First Cause to God, I am curious about why you believe that removal of First Cause attributes would not harm the theist cause.

I am sorry, I must have missed them. Could you restate them?

And that part of the argument is generally fairly good.

And these things would be?

So you are not interested in arguing from the First Cause to God, but you are interested in arguing from the First Cause to the teleological argument, which is an argument for God. So you are interested in arguing for God using a combinatorial argument?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by luvluv :

By "x is eternal" I mean that for any moment M, x exists at M. This does not require that time extends infinitely into the past.

There was never "nothingness," so the laws would be governing something else. I don't really need to say anything about them other than to recognize their possibility.

Well, wait a minute. Why could a god outside of time cause anything, then? Or is that your position?

Meh, again, a mouse that accidentally steps on a button wouldn't be particular powerful.

Wiploc

This pickle began at some time, therefore it must have begun outside this sandwitch. The Mercury Cougar is outside the sandwich, therefore the Mercury Cougar must have created the pickle.



Some matter may now be part of a hotdog, next part of a pile of fertilizer, then part of a field of wheat, and at other times part of a car and a hat and a crowbar. Yes, the forms of matter had beginnings, but the matter itself didn't. The fact that forms of matter have beginnings is no evidence at all that the matter itself had a beginning. (This may not contradict anything fishbulb said, but I still thought it was worth saying.)
crc

fishbulb

I think it might be better to say that the matter (that makes up the universe) may have always existed. The fact that there is no evidence that it had a beginning doesn't show that it couldn't have; it also appears that there is no evidence that matter did not have a beginning. Physicists can trace the universe back to a very (very) short time after the universe ceased to be a singularity, but the intervening time, as well as what, if anything, can be said to have happened before, is beyond the scope of physical science to explain, at least for the time being.

At any rate, I wouldn't consider matter in the universal matter/energy sense of the word to be ordinary stuff in the way that hot dogs, game shows, and cheap molded plastic gadgets sold on infomercials are; it would be unwise to apply principles and assumptions that hold (or generally hold) for everyday things to extraordinary things like matter/energy or space/time.

luvluv

Thomas Metcalf:

And you know this how?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by luvluv :

Suppose that at some time, there was nothingness alone. It follows that there was time and not time (because time is something) at the same time. This is a contradiction, so, by reductio ad absurdum, we find that at no time was there nothingness alone.

HRG

True. However, in the chain of events leading to your existence, there may be uncaused events.
Why would it be potential ? If an infinite regress exists, it is automatically as actual as it can be. "Potentiality" refers to what philosophers can, cannot, will or will not conceive, not to reality.

BTW, the "chain as a whole" is a mental construct. It is a set of events, not an event itself.

This is a frequent misunderstanding. "Heat death" will never be reached, only approached asymptotically. And an infinite amount of time can have passed with only a finite increase in entropy.

Of course, the validity of thermodynamics in cosmology is rather doubtful. Thermodynamics only deals with finite systems.
IMHO this is based on an equivocation between:

contingent-1: "not necessarily existent" and
contingent-2: "depending for its existence on another".

Those are not repeat not equivalent. All that can be argued for is that we are contingent-1.

And an infinite regress is not irrational, as demonstrated above.
Equivocation. See above.

<snip>
Regards,
HRG.