Technos

Such as energy?

But break down the elements of an atom as far as you can go, and you end up with quarks, which are composed of what theoretical quantum singularity?

What can neither be created or destroyed, theoretically?

Like energy.

E_muse

Well of course, if god doesn't exist then he only exists as an idea or concept within the universe. How will this help us in understanding the origins of the universe itself?

It is the nature of the first cause that I am seeking to debate.

However, in practice, who can explain everything in the way you suggest? You seem to be proposing that anyone wishing to debate the first cause arguement must present a 'theory of everything' in doing so.

What are you wishing to encompass into everything? Most disciplines are concerned with partial theories as in practice no-one is able to explain everything.

As I've stated above, you are asking for a theory of everything.

This seems to represent a form of Linear either/or thinking.

You seem to suggest that, if the universe was caused then it must be *god* as you offer him as the only alternative to an eternal universe.

All I am proposing is that the universe had a beginning. It is this fact that raises the question as to whether this points to the need for a cause.

As something that had a beginning does this suggest that it requires a cause?

What can we understand concerning the nature of that cause?

See comment above.

It has been demonstrated scientifically, as well as anything regarding this matter can be, that the universe had a beginning in real time.

Does this suggest a cause? If it doesn't, what is the alternative explanation? If it does, what can we hope to understand about that cause?

How can a discussion regarding origins incorportate everything as only partial theories exist on the scientific level from which we can discuss such issues?

For one, one of the main objectives of cosmology (just one aspect of science) is to combine the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics in seeking to explain the universe.

Well, it was a big deal for a relativistic cosmologist like Stephen Hawking. He states:

In "A Brief History of Time" he writes:

Emphasis mine.

Both of Hawking's statements here seem to directly contradict what you are asserting. How can you claim that it is no big deal when it is concerns over the issue that have moved scientific theory on?

Meaning what? I propose that this suggests that the data is ambiguous or heavily influenced by what you choose to believe.

No, I don't say so because I'm not an expert. Relativistic Cosmologists like Hawking say so. They state that matter arose out of quantum fluctuations in the vaccum of the early universe.

There is only a finite amount of available energy in the universe that can be put to good use. The amount of available energy will eventually become exhausted. If the universe had always existed, the amount of available energy would have been exhausted long ago.

However, you claim that the universe violates many existing laws. Which ones? Hawkings has stated that, within his theory, the universe obeys all the laws of science.

Yes, but that is hardly demonstrating that my arguements are wrong or inaccurate is it. To summarise:

If it popped up 'out of nothing' then one loses the rational basis for rejecting this explanation for anything else.. particularly unobservable phenomena. Allow me to give a silly example to show how obvious this is.

Say I place a cup on a table just before you walk into the room. Noticing it, you ask me where it came from, to which I reply, it just appeared. Of course, every instinct in you tells you that this isn't true. However, if you've just made a similar arguement for the universe, you have no basis for procluding my explanation.

You may go to great lengths to try and prove me wrong (or mad). You may try and persuade me that cups don't just appear and take me to a cup making factory. However, I could just argue that my cup is the exception.

At the end of the day you will still think I am out of my head but by applying the same explanation to the universe you have denied yourself any rational basis for refuting my arguement because you can no longer say to me, 'things don't just appear'.

Secondly, it is eternal.

This contradicts scientific observation which clearly state that the universe had a point of origin. The Big Bang. This theory is as well established as any theory could be.

Hawking has suggested his no boundary proposal but this is not without its problems. Experiments have yielded few results.

Indeed it is.

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Metacrock

meta =&gt; I'm not impressed by your trickery with formal logic. You aren't going to get anywhere with that. Charles Hartshorne knew more about it than you ever will and he worked out the modal logic on that argument so well it made his reputation. Also Robert Koons at UT is carring on the torch. That stuff is too well worked out.


Meta =&gt; Now HRG you know good and well that modal logic is not a matter of empirical observation. Necessity cannot be established or questioned based upon empirical observation.

Meta -&gt;It's ciruclar reasoning.

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;For reasons which I wont go into here, there has to be a final cause. OK OK I'll into them a bit:

1) nothingness as putative state of affairs is impossible.

2) infinite regress is ciruclar reasoning

3) therefore, there had to always be something and that something had to give rise to whatever else exists, at least indirectly.

Meta =&gt;violation of Occam's razor. One is all you need.

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;The term "necessary" is misleading. We hear that and think about cause and effect, and conclude that it means necessary for other things. It really refurs to logical necessity. Since a non contingent thing is logically necessary, that's what is being said. So it's not that God is necessary for other things to exist, although if God exists he would be necessary for other things to exist, but in contrast to contingency it means that a thing cannot fail to exist. In other words that it is not contingent, that it can't be something that might or might not have existed.

Meta =&gt; Go back to my original post and read the link to my own argument and you will see why. "nothing must exist" yes actually nothingness as a putative state of affirs is impossible, so something must have always existed.

How do we know? Because if you begin with total absolute nothingness, you have no time. No time means no change and nothing could ever come to be.

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;Well that depends upon what we mean by "personal being." Since I don't believe that God is "a being," but "Being Itself" then God is not a "personal being." God is most certainly the fundamental principles that make up the universe. But this is not merely the laws of physics, it would have to be something beyond that which makes the laws of physics possilbe. Now who is to say that this can't include reason and volition? I think since consciousness is a basic property of nature then it stands to reason that the fundamental principle of the universe would include consciousness, of some kind.

I believe that God is mystical reality which is beyond our understanding and can only be approached through mystical union. God blows away all of our comfortable categories of understanding and trasncends anything we can describe in language. That's why religious language is analogical.

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;God is not a series of events. The problem of IR as I use it is the string of big bangs going back eternally one unvierse after another. To me that is ciruclar reasoning because it never would result in a cause. It could never get started so it's just an arbitrary necessity.

God wasn't doing anything before creation, becasue that is beyond time. It's not in the past, it's in non time, so there is no "before." There is in time and beyond it.

That's like asking what does God do with his free evenings? WEll, maybe he chats with himself, there are three persona there you know. Or he could watch borhter Ted on BBC. (that's a British comedy about an Ireish preist).

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;There's no garuntee that energy is eternal. For one thing, it's not eternally useful for work. So even if it did exist eternally there's no indication that it would be useful to produce a universe. Also, since we are dealing with beyond time no reason to assume laws of physics.

Moreover gravitational field is a kind of energy that produces energy as we know it. Here's what a NASA physicist says:


</a>


But as you see, first this guy doesn't think that this rules out God in any way (I don't know if he's a Christian, I asked him but he didn't asnwer). Secondly, they take it back to gravitational field, but why assume that gravitational field just always existed? It can be taken back beyond that. But to where we don't know. Since we can't test any of this or go up and look at it, gravitational field could have some direct tie in with the power of God.


What I'm really interested in is his statment:

"and energy is derivative from 'field'"

So "energy" is not the most basic thing and is contingent upon field. Now we have to argue about the contingency of field. But you see, it keeps going back, but to where we don't know.

I find it interesting that you seem to be willing to beleive that there was just always this stuff called "energy" that just happened to be there for always for no reason, but it is dependent upon prior conditions and subatomic particles and something called "field." You don't see the arbitrary nature of that assumption?

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]</p>

HRG

Metacrock, please don't project your philosophical framework onto physics. "Derivative" simply means that all fields carry energy; it has nothing to do with the speculative concept of "contingency upon something" - which actually belongs to an age of physics we have left behind over 400 years ago.
There is an excellent reason why energy "is there". It is the generator of the one-parameter group of time translations.
Subatomic particles are the excitation modes of fields.
[/quote]
You don't see the arbitrary nature of that assumption?
[/quote]

Not arbitrary at all, since it is supported by observations.

BTW, if you charge a hypothesis X of being arbitrary, exactly the same charge applies to "X because God-n*) did it". The addition of the God hypothesis has no explanatory value; that's why Laplace did not need it.

Regards,
HRG.

*) "God-n" denotes any being which fulfills the n-th definition of "God".

Warning: the set may be empty or contain more than one element - and uniqueness proofs as well as identity proofs between God-n and God-m for different values of m and n are totally lacking.

eh

Metacrock,

Meta =&gt;The term "necessary" is misleading. We hear that and think about cause and effect, and conclude that it means necessary for other things. It really refurs to logical necessity. Since a non contingent thing is logically necessary, that's what is being said. So it's not that God is necessary for other things to exist, although if God exists he would be necessary for other things to exist, but in contrast to contingency it means that a thing cannot fail to exist. In other words that it is not contingent, that it can't be something that might or might not have existed.

So in other words, God is something that MUST exist in all possible worlds? If so, how would you compare God to the 'energy' that others have suggested might be this necessity? Have a look at string theory and see what you find.


Go back to my original post and read the link to my own argument and you will see why. "nothing must exist" yes actually nothingness as a putative state of affirs is impossible, so something must have always existed.

How do we know? Because if you begin with total absolute nothingness, you have no time. No time means no change and nothing could ever come to be.


Yeah, I know that nothing can't have potential for something. I was just confused on exactly what you meant. Nothing comes from nothing, and hopefully most members here won't disagree with that.

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: eh ]</p>