No... in fact, any scientist would tell you that it is impossible to know if there was anything before the big band or not. In fact, in the absence of time, the word "before" has no real meaning.
Actually that is not true. For instance in quantum mechanics, different things will happen based on probability even if the starting conditions are the exact same.
Why would I have to claim that?
Sure there is. What about a cyclic universe?
You were claiming that your view on death was based on more than faith. But I still fail to see anything you've brought up that actually would indicate that.
I did. They seem to pop up for a short time. I see nothing that suggests there is no cause for their appearance.
Paul Davies (Physisist): "The coming into being of the universe as discussed in modern science is not just a matter of imposing some sort of orginization upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming into being of all physical things from nothing."
Velenkin: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."
Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose The Nature of Space and Time pg 20: "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beggining at the Big Bang."
John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk, The Left Hand of Creation, Oxford University Press: "Our new picture is more akin to the traditional metaphysical picture of creation out of nothing, for it predicts a definite beginning of events in time, indeed a definite beginning to time itself."
The necessary and sufficient conditions for something are the conditions that must be met or something to take place. That includes the correct "probability" for something to take place. If an event doesn't take place, the requirements for it to do so were obviously not met.
Because the set of conditions are eternal. Which means they have always been around, and will always be around. But the universe is NOT eternal. Which means that there was a point causally prior to it's existence that it did not exist. Which means there was a point causally prior to the universes existence in which the conditions existed (because they have always existed) but the universe did not.
Obviously that would fall under the "Not God" field then, wouldn't it?
And if you want to know my response to this idea, see the above quotes.
No. I claimed my view of death was based off of my religion. I also said that I do not think my religion has nothing other than faith supporting it.
I believe it's silly to say you can't destroy energy and relate that to a biological entity. Of course energy cannot be created or destroyed; however, the processes by which energy is converted into a form useable for the processes of life can obviously be stopped. Hence- a metabolic poison like Arsenic. A dead body has the same number of atoms a living body has; however, the processes which exist to keep the living body in its shape and form and functioning to the criteria we attribue to a living orgaanism at this poin-t are no longer in effect, the organism gives way to entrophy, accelerated by decomposers. All things break down, all systems fail; Eventually everything dies. Death is not the end as those atoms will be used by other living organisms. In that sense we do reincarnate. I do not believe in an immortal soul, so in that sense for me; I end when I die and sometimes- death calls to me strongly.
What do you see as the cause? They have no theoretical framework for a cause, so speculating they have one is just that; idle speculation, with nothing to support it.
OK, that's their opinion. Stephen Hawkings also said that the universe simply created itself, with no god involved.
If you're going to be taking "expert witnesses", at least do it with consistency.
That makes no sense at all. Let me give you an example:
When a pion decays due to a weak interaction, it reacts; at this reaction point, it has a 99.9% probability of forming a muon and muon neutrino. However, in the exact same collision, it has a small chance of making an electron and electron neutrino instead. In fact, both of these things occur at once, in a superposition of states that is later resolved, purely on a probabilistic basis. There are many cases where even though the condition (pion decay) is the exact same, it can enter multiple outcomes based on nothing but probability...
Well actually, because time did not exist, "casually prior" is a completely meaningless term.
But your religion is not "something out there created the universe", your religion is christianity. What supports christianity?
Oh... That sucks. I would think someone who see's death as the end of their existence would try there best to avoid it at all costs.
Just because we don't know what the cause of something is doesn't mean it doesn't have one. This does nothing to refute the stance that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
That's irrelevant. The point I was making was that the universe has a beginning, which these quotes show according to modern cosmology.
By the way. These "opinions" come from he experts in the field.
Why? Steven Hawkings view as to what caused the universe is irrelevant to what MY argument was. The point is, the universe had a beginning. Modern cosmology has shown this. That's the point I was defending.
You seem to be confused as to what "necessary and sufficient conditions" means. It means literally every single thing, physical or otherwise, that needs to take place for the event to happen. So the necessary and sufficient conditions for a muon to form are what you described in your post, as well as the 99.9% probability coming out on the "muon side". That's part of the conditions that need to be met for muon to form.
Actually, no it isn't. Causally prior is a term based in cause and effect. Not time.
Well, there are arguments concerning that too. I was focusing more on the theism vs atheism aspect of it.
"We know the universe has a cause, because everything that begins does"
"What about these things that have no particular cause?"
"Well, they must have a cause as well, since i've already made up my mind about it"
How is this statement falsifiable? If it isn't, how does it have any scientific meaning?
It's not "irrelevant". The whole reason we are arguing is because you claimed that a universe that began, must have a sentient creator. In fact Hawking's quote shows exactly the opposite. If you're going to take his word on the big bang because he was an "expert", why not take his word on this?
And the physical mechanism for this is what? If your definition of "identical conditions" requires more than every single physical property being the same, then I question whether that concept has any application to real life.
What do you think time measures?
Well since this is the "death" thread, and we were discussing death, why were you going on that aspect?
Hawking's also not a theist. Not that it matters, because he's just a popular physicist, not necessarily the foremost authority on it. Any reference to "God" in his works is pretty much equivalent to Einstein's natural God (in a pantheistic sense). Appeals to authority are among my least favorite arguments, especially when they are only selectively quoted.
Tac, you're a bit out of your element because, as Kandy is elucidating, yes we do have mathematically consistent models of how the universe could have come to be from "nothing." Once that is established, apply Occum's Razor and you have your logical conclusion.
He's also rightly pointed out that "some being" and "Christian God" are worlds apart, and you've failed to support even the former, much less the latter. Your argument is just a variation on the "Cosmological Constants" argument, which has been around for decades, and has been ignored for the vast majority of that time by everyone outside of Christians with some basic but hardly thorough understand of physics.
..
Anyway, death is the end imo, and I've yet to see anything to convince me otherwise. I'd like to be wrong, of course, but wishing and believing are two very different things. I wish beer and ice cream were the healthiest foods in the world for you. Doesn't mean it's any more likely to be true.
Imo, the only remaining credible tether to this hope lies in the "hard question" of consciousness, which posits that consciousness itself might be something other than material (physical). And even if you are a dualist when it comes to that question, there's then the problem of whether or not that dualism allows the consciousness to continue after the physical body giving rise to it has gone. I'd concede a healthy "maybe" on the question itself, but believe it's foolish to believe it would continue on without the mind that produced it.
That isn't circular logic at all. I said it is a logically sound stance that if something doesn't exist and then it does, there is a reason for the change. You claim that isn't so, and then provided an example of what you thought proved this stance was wrong.
But it did nothing of the sort. You gave me an example of something that we don't know the cause of, not something that we know has no cause. Big difference, and it does not disprove my stance.
Yes it is irrelevant. You are trying to claim that if I accept one of Hawkings stances, I must accept them all, which is completely untrue.
In fact, this very argument we are talking about now is meant to show that Hawkings view of what caused the universe is incorrect.
Of courses it does. Saying "necessary and sufficient conditions" is an easy way of saying everything that led up to something happening. Instead of trying to list all the reasons something happens. I don't know what you mean.
Not cause and effect. Cause and effect are not bound by time.
Because Deamon Seed, I think it was, said there is no good reason outside of faith to believe in God. I said I disagreed, and you guys wanted some arguments supporting it.
People appeal to authority on a daily basis. We can't be experts at everything, so you accept the word of the experts in their selected fields.
I don't know what you mean here. What is Occam's Razor suppose to show?
I already admitted that this argument is not about the Christian God.
And if the argument is such rubbish, pick one of the premises and refute it. But I'm certainly not going to accept that it is faulty just because you say so.
Or you subvert their words to your own purposes, even when the opinions of those quoted differs from your own. You're being deliberately (or blindly, I suppose) obtuse here.
Also, saying people do it frequently also isn't a logical argument, nor does it justify appeals to authority. You're covering bad logic with more of the same.
Occum's Razor: you take the least extravagant explanation given two or more possibilities.
In this case, we know that matter can arise from nothingness. It's been mathematically tested and observed. There's one possibility. OR....an omnipotent divine being with infinite complexity but no prior cause, nor physical evidence to support their existence, created the universe according to his/her/its whim. There's another. Apply Occum's Razor.
In anything but a biased and/or generous estimation of probabilities in such a scenario (which also leaves out other possibilities of the universe's inception), you're believing in a negligible, unimaginably small, probability, which is justified by nothing.
Ah, ok then. A good thing too.
But remember that as far as your own beliefs are concerned, if you are a Christian, you do have to bridge that gap in a logical manner, else your beliefs are fanciful wishes and nothing more.
Mostly Kandy, and to a lesser extent my own posts, have done just that. I don't know to retell what I've said in more understandable language. But to make it official....
Agreed, unless certain cyclical models of the universe prove true.
Uninformed ridiculousness to the first two. Wishful guesswork for the third. The first two are refuted heavily already in this thread.
Again, pseudo-scientific hogwash. You'd have to do such a precise job of defining terms here to even justify it internally, let alone when held against empirical science.
Hawking said almost everyone now believes the universe came from nothing. How am I twisting that to my own goals? It's pretty straight forward.
Argument from authority is NOT bad logic. Are you saying it is illogical accept the finds from someone who is an expert in that field?
I'm sorry, then who should I believe? You? Who do I go to who is more knowledgeable than the experts?
We have proof that the universe can come into being from nothing for absolutely no reason? I fully accept the fact that the universe can come into being from nothing. But not by nothing. If something begins to exist it needs a cause. Even you agreed with this farther down in the post. The argument is showing what that cause is.
I know.
Another subject for another time.
With all do respect, I disagree. Kandy has responded, but not anything I haven't been able to respond to. I don't see any of my points as being refuted at this time.
Good.
Again, I disagree. There have been challenges to the points, but I have defended each.
Simply calling your opponents argument hogwash does not refute it, you know. If you disagree with the points, then show me why they are wrong.
Here's the crux of it. Your opinion doesn't match with empirical findings. For something to be true, in this case the mechanisms by which quantum mechanics allow for matter to arise from nothingness, it is not necessary for you to understand it or accept it for it to be true. That's one of the nice things about science.
Saying that I agree with you is again twisting words. You just don't agree with the cause I'm providing you.
A simple google search will help you with this, I'm not saying anything that isn't publicly known. Though you may have to sift through a lot of "Nothing Else Matters" links from Metallica, depending on what terms you use for your search.
...
There's a much more obvious flaw here that you have yet to reconcile as well, as your cause/effect logic is undermined by the presupposition of an eternal, infinitely complex creator entity...with no prior cause. It's self-contradicting. Even if it's not the Christian God specifically, you're still stuck on providing a reason for that to be even remotely possible.
There has to be a first cause, yes. But given what we know of cause and effect, the very first cause, almost by necessity, is likely very, very simple...like a particle, not God.
Still, if want to say it's possible, I must concede the point on principle, since it's not a falsifiable claim. In terms of plausibility, however, it's sillier than almost anything I can imagine.
...
{edit} here's a decent link: informative without being overly technical or long. This was also suggested to you by Kandy (he suggested a search on virtual particles). So you either didn't take him up on his suggestion, didn't understand what you found, or reconciled what you read to re-fit your views. http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/me...02/nothing.html
How does my opinion not match with empirical findings? I fully accept that the universe was created out of nothing. That doesn't excuse it's need for a cause.
You haven't provided a cause. You made the claim that the universe came from nothing. I agreed. Again, it still needs a cause.
That one's simple. The argument doesn't state that EVERYTHING needs a cause. It states that everything that BEGINS TO EXIST needs a cause. God did not begin to exist, thus He needs no cause.
This is further supported by the fact that time came into being at the Big Bang. That means that whatever cause the universe had to be outside of time I.E. Eternal. Having no beginning and no end. I have actually already covered this in past posts.
This article is not bringing any new information to the table. We both agree the universe came from nothing. We are debating what caused the universe. Not whether it came from nothing or not.
Like I said. There is only 2 options.
1. God
or
2. And eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of the universe (Any other possibility)
KMC Community Forums
May 5th, 2011 02:12 PM
