ecco

Some postulate that before our universe sprang into existence it occupied something/sometime/somewhere between branes (do a google search if you’re interested). If this theory is correct, our about-to-become-a-universe existed before time-in-this-universe existed. The bottom line is, we will probably never know for sure, and that’s OK with me. I still don’t have to invent (or disprove) a god to know that I am alive in this universe along with a lot of other entities.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Code Mason,
You ask,


I do follow this like a junked car being towed to the scrap yard. You misdiagnose my rejection of your argument as my inability to follow your argument.

I reject your argument because it is an extended anthropomorphism. You are trying to apply man's time-based reality to eternal realities, finite being to infinite being, states of being to being Itself. It's just one long impossible series of assumptions.

You ask,


In Catholic moral doctrine there's what is called the remote cause and the proximate cause of any action. For example, the remote cause of the murder could be an insurance policy. The proximate cause of the murder would be three ounces of pressure applied to the trigger of a loaded gun.

Likewise, Catholic theology can be used to conceive of creation itself as being divided into form and matter, which are analogous to the moral percepts of remote and proximate causes. For example, the stuff of the Big Bang in its first second to the minus 25th power would be matter (first creation). When that stuff distilled into some form of ionized energy or later into the first building blocks of what science refers to as physical "matter," it took on form (second creation).

In this universe where nothing can be created or destroyed, this process of matter and form reformulating themselves goes on and on. So, for example, carbon atoms can be considered matter without form. But those same carbon atoms alternately integrating themselves in various forms, such as a hunk of coal, a living tree, and then my arm, can be conceived of different forms of the same matter, or secondary or tertiary creations ad infinitum.

I am sorry you consider my thoughts about creation:


All our ideas are at some point unsupported. The trick is to invoke the least number of these foundational un-supported thoughts possible (Occam’s razor) whereby ALL other thoughts may be supported.

The trick is to save your assumptions for the taproot, not squander them on the branches way out on the limb of your metaphysics. I have done this. Yet you categorically reject what I have done on the basis of what I have done being what it must be, an assumption. Your loss. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Theli

And so the battle countinues...

theophilus

Gee, I bet Aristotle, Plato, etc., wish you had been around to explain this to them. They apparently wasted a lot of time on this.

Datheron

Theophage,

One of my points exactly. It is meaningless to talk of "existence" outside the Universe, for whatever does "exist" (for the lack of a better term) out there, we do not know anything about it. By Occam's Razor, we should cut it out entirely, but I'm ruling that "something" outside the Universe is indeed possible, just unknown.

See, here's a problem that I have. You here assume that the Law of Non-Contradiction is violated, which would be true - only if we have a dimension of time. Your Milliways can exist outside the Universe and inside, perhaps at different times...but we do not know whether time operates outside the Universe, so it's a self-defeating question. Hence, a big problem is using the LoNC, for that requires a temporal context.

On a more general scale, however, you raise a good point - what meaning can we give to something outside our three dimensions of space and one dimension of time? Is there any meaning to something that exclude time...i.e. eternity?

Here again is the assumption - that cause and effect only apply with time. The reason your argument works is that every law of logic we have are also placed in time, and they get twisted left and right when we remove that dimension - hence the reason why I pondered whether logic would make sense without time.

hinduwoman

Well, of course they did. They lived in a world where the natural laws were a mystery. so naturally they tried to think up rational explanations and in the absence of other evidence came up with god/s.

Theophage

Quoted material by Albert Cipriani will be in bold:

Recognize that recent questionable experiments with laser light has resulted in light arriving at it's destination before it is emitted. Under certain conditions, light appears to travel about 100 times faster than the speed of light. But nothing can go faster than the speed of light. So, there seems to be a species of time travel going on, where the future effect precedes the present cause.

I have two comments regarding this:

1) In each of these "faster than light" experiments that I have read about so far, the experimenters have assured us that causality has not been nor cannot be violated by their results.
If I am mistaken on this point, please give me a link to an experiment where violatino of causality has been claimed.

2) In the event that this sort of time travel does become possible, then my premise P1 would have to be amended to read "realative to X" or some such, since relative to at least one party the cause will still be temporally prior to the effect. Regardless of the relative direction, however, there still couldn't be any simultaneous causality which is what a First Cause (like a Creator God) would require, so my argument would still stand.

This is "hot ice and wondrous snow" I know, but it is where physics is taking us. So beware of building too much on your notion that causes must necessarily precede their effect TEMPORALLY.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong; no big deal. My personal salvation (or whatever it is we atheists have in it's place) does not hinge on my ability to make a sound arugment for the non-existance of God. It would just be nice if I had something noteworthy.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Theophage

Quoted material by ecco will be in bold:

Some postulate that before our universe sprang into existence it occupied something/sometime/somewhere between branes (do a google search if you’re interested).

Yep, I've heard of it. Its called the "Ekpyrotic" universe scenario and it would be very interesting if true.

If this theory is correct, our about-to-become-a-universe existed before time-in-this-universe existed. The bottom line is, we will probably never know for sure, and that’s OK with me. I still don’t have to invent (or disprove) a god to know that I am alive in this universe along with a lot of other entities.

Me either. In a couple of my earlier responses (at least one to David Gould and one to rainbow walking) The idea of a "pre-universe" comes up. This would be another example of that situation, and you can look back to see my response on it.

The major thing is that if we suppose the ekpyrotic scenario is correct, and if we can eventually demonstrate by physics how our universe came to be (by the Big Bang or what have you) then the theists would simply move their creation argument back a notch and claim that their God was responsible for the larger universe. At that point, my argument would again come into play (since there would be no time before that universe) and again disprove any Creator or cause.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

rainbow walking

Hi David,
Implied in that grid system is the notion of direction on a universal basis. Just because the grid itself is unique to the earth doesn't mean that the concept of direction ends at the north pole. Besides, the North pole is actually the South pole magnetically speaking;^D.

rainbow walking

rw Earlier: FIRST CAUSE needn’t be stamped with the signature of a POINT in TIME prior to the EFFECT.

Theophage: As I wrote to Datheron, cause and effect is by defintion a temporal effect. This means that yes, the cause must be at a point temporally prior ("before") to its effect. If it isn't, then it isn't cause and effect. That's why the First Cause idea doesn't work, rainbow.

Rw: Now you have changed (P1) in this reply. Here is (P1) as you originally stated it:

P1) In order for something to have a cause, there must be a point in time beforehand for the cause to operate.

You appear to be saying in (P1) that there must be a POINT in time PRIOR to the CAUSE. Then above you seem to have moved the POINT in time forward to its correct position. If the FIRST CAUSE for this universe was the first POINT in time then you have no basis for ( C1).

So I need some clarification on this. Are you positing P (FC=E) or F(PC=E) where P is point in time and FC is First Cause and E is Effect.

Theophage: As for the differnce between divisible and indivisible time, if it isn't divisible (i.e. an interval between points), it isn't time.

Rw: Why do you say this? The divisions of time are human constructs. Time, as a dimension, is like the other three. It simply exists. It’s only in our perceptual efforts to incrementalize these perceptions to make these dimensions more manageable that we find cause to establish points and directives.

rw Earlier: Well, you were talking about “THIS UNIVERSE”. Clearly this universe is comprised of SPECIFIC attributes arranged in a specific manner to account for this universe as an ongoing phenomenon. Space, time, gravity, energy etc. and so on are all attributes of this universe but that in no way means they couldn’t have existed prior to their incorporation into THIS UNIVERSE. They just couldn’t have existed relationally as they now do in the specific manner and state in which they now exist.

Theophage: Cool! I actually understand what you're saying here! Except that I define the Universe as everything that exists (or has ever existed, since we're talking about the beginning). Thus, if those attributes of the universe did exist but simply weren't "put together" yet, then that would still be included within my defintion of the Universe.

Rw: Everything that EXISTS in this universe as an attribute OF this universe is only unique to THIS UNIVERSE. If some or all of the attributes of THIS universe existed prior to their assemblage into what we now know as THIS universe they did not exist in THIS universe prior to FIRST CAUSE but that doesn’t negate the possibility that they existed in some form or fashion prior to FIRST CAUSE, only not in the form that has come to be called THIS UNIVERSE.

The problem is in your definition or application of EXISTENCE. Did EXISTENCE EXIST prior to THIS UNIVERSE?

I would say the one thing that absolutely must precede FIRST CAUSE is EXISTENCE. EXISTENCE would have to be a pre-condition for both FIRST and CAUSE.

EXISTENCE, as applied to the UNIVERSE, may or may not entail a FIRST CAUSE. INDUCTION would certainly seem to suggest it would. But EXISTENCE as applied to itself is another ball of wax. What is existence as opposed to non-existence?

Theism contends that GOD is the foundational aspect of EXISTENCE as the eternal “thing” that must be presupposed before even getting at the problem of THIS UNIVERSE.

Metaphysical Naturalism contends that something NATURAL must be the presupposed foundational substance or eternal “thing” that leads us to THIS UNIVERSE.

Based on our current level of knowledge concerning the nature of THIS UNIVERSE it is best described as a MECHANISM. So the theoretical equation is expressed by the MN, (metaphysical naturalist), as

mechanism = (mechanism).

In this position the UNIVERSE exists as an end in itself, IOW’s, this is it! The problem with this theory is defining that prior Mechanism, as you are beginning to discover here. THIS UNIVERSE has not always existed and this can be DEDUCED from the cosmological evidence that currently exists. Entropy, background radiation, special and general relativity all point to a BEGINNING to this UNIVERSE. Getting beyond that point is where an inductive argument begins.

But mechanism=(mechanism) as an induction requires more assumptions than:

God=(mechanism), so the RAZOR looms on the horizon. In the theist’s theory THIS UNIVERSE is NOT an end in itself but merely a means to an end that remains to be defined fully so, to the theist, “this ain’t it!”

For the MN the mechanism responsible for THIS MECHANISM remains a mystery and ultimately becomes the victim of the regress.