Death

Nothing else is required for the universe to have been created from nothing. Quantum fluctuations need no God. We've proven this. You're clinging to an idea of a prior cause for this when none is needed, and as a result shoehorning your religion into a place it doesn't belong.

Because the article does indeed form a very plausible method by which the entire universe came into being. And none of it requires a Creator entity. That you don't see it makes it no less true.

Clearly that's where this discussion ends for the two of us. We can only work on common ground for so long before the fundamental differences prove insurmountable to productive conversation.

Originally posted by Digi
Nothing else is required for the universe to have been created from nothing. Quantum fluctuations need no God. We've proven this. You're clinging to an idea of a prior cause for this when none is needed, and as a result shoehorning your religion into a place it doesn't belong.

Because the article does indeed form a very plausible method by which the entire universe came into being. And none of it requires a Creator entity. That you don't see it makes it no less true.

Clearly that's where this discussion ends for the two of us. We can only work on common ground for so long before the fundamental differences prove insurmountable to productive conversation.

I'm sorry, Digi, but my argument explains clearly why a creator is required. That you don't see it makes it no less true.

I hate to have to repeat myself, but the part of the argument I'm talking about is:

p1: Either the universe was caused by God or Not God
p2: The universe cannot be created by the "Not God" option
c: The universe was created by God.

As for Premise 2, we can see this by the following:

The "Not God" option really means an eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of a universe. That basically means every other option in existence that isn't God. Including any and all options presented in the article you sent me.

Now, the reason it cannot be the "Not God" option, is because that set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of a universe had to be eternal. That means having no beginning and no end. They had to be this way, because time itself began at the Big Bang, thus whatever caused the Big Bang had to be outside of time. That is, eternal.

But since the conditions were eternal, we come into a direct contradiction when we factor in the fact that since the universe began to exist, that demands that there be a point causally prior to it's existence in which it did not exist.

But that would mean that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence in which the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe existed, but the universe did not. Which is logically impossible, as once all the necessary and sufficient conditions are met, the event will always take place no matter what.

So it cannot be the "Not God" option, as that produces a logical contradiction. Thus, what we are left with is the "God" option.

Even if you're right (which is unlikely, but for the sake of the argument), your premise is logically flawed because you're assuming that there needs to be an eternal beginning. You're presupposing what you haven't proven. because in saying something like this:

Originally posted by TacDavey
But since the conditions were eternal...

...you're asserting something as fact that you can neither prove nor provide evidence for. You're simply assuming the premise, then fitting an answer to it that suits your purpose. In this case it's "it had to be God." There's an official term for that logical fallacy, but it escapes my atm.

Originally posted by TacDavey
But that would mean that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence in which the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe existed, but the universe did not. Which is logically impossible, as once all the necessary and sufficient conditions are met, the event will always take place no matter what.

Originally posted by Digi
Even if you're right (which is unlikely, but for the sake of the argument), your premise is logically flawed because you're assuming that there needs to be an eternal beginning. You're presupposing what you haven't proven. because in saying something like this:

...you're asserting something as fact that you can neither prove nor provide evidence for. You're simply assuming the premise, then fitting an answer to it that suits your purpose. In this case it's "it had to be God." There's an official term for that logical fallacy, but it escapes my atm.

No, I explained the logical reasons why what created the universe had to be eternal.

If time came into beginning at the Big Bang, then whatever caused the universe had to be outside of time. That's eternal. I said that already.

Originally posted by King Kandy
And based on what do you derive that conclusion? I already mentioned cases where when the necessary conditions are met, something still only happens part of the time. And your response was basically to change your definition not to include those (making your definition of "conditions" a bit strange since it no longer has any relation to physical properties).

No, I tried to better define what necessary and sufficient conditions are, as you seem to be mistaking what they mean. You are only relating them to the physical components necessary for an event to take place, but that is not what "necessary and sufficient conditions" means. It means literally every single possible thing, physical or otherwise, that needs to take place for something to occur. You gave the example of things that have the same PHYSICAL conditions that sometimes do not take place because the probability can sometimes swing the other way. But you seem to not understand that that means the necessary and sufficient conditions HAVE NOT BEEN MET.

If something has a 99% chance of happening then the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for the event to happen INCLUDE that 99% chance swinging in it's favor. That's one of the conditions that has to be met in order for the event to take place.

If the necessary and sufficient conditions for something are met they will ALWAYS take place. If it doesn't, the conditions have not been met.

Originally posted by TacDavey
If time came into beginning at the Big Bang, then whatever caused the universe had to be outside of time.

I'm trying and unfortunately failing to find a new way to explain this to you: the quoted statement here is presupposing something you can't possibly know. Your logic becomes circular when you're saying "I believe that a creator exists outside of time because there needs to be something outside of time." Do you see the fallacy here?

...nevermind that there doesn't need to be something eternal, as the studies show. We go from literally nothing to something, with no other influence needed outside of what we know of quantum mechanics. I'm convinced you're just refusing to believe that at this point, or interpreting it in such a way that would make any quantum physicist laugh.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm trying and unfortunately failing to find a new way to explain this to you: the quoted statement here is presupposing something you can't possibly know. Your logic becomes circular when you're saying "I believe that a creator exists outside of time because there needs to be something outside of time." Do you see the fallacy here?

There is absolutely NOTHING circular about that. Neither of those points requires the other to support it. Logically layed out it would look something like this:

p1: The creator of time cannot be inside of time
p2: The cause of the universe created time
c: The cause of the universe cannot be inside of time.

I don't know where you got the idea that this argument is circular, but unfortunately you are mistaken. Even the example you gave isn't circular. It seems you are mistaken as to what a circular argument is.

Originally posted by Digi
...nevermind that there doesn't need to be something eternal, as the studies show. We go from literally nothing to something, with no other influence needed outside of what we know of quantum mechanics. I'm convinced you're just refusing to believe that at this point, or interpreting it in such a way that would make any quantum physicist laugh.

Incorrect. There does need to be something. A cause. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. You yourself agreed with this in past posts. And whatever that "cause" was had to be eternal. For the reasons above.

Originally posted by TacDavey
If the necessary and sufficient conditions for something are met they will ALWAYS take place. If it doesn't, the conditions have not been met.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's circular logic; how is that statement falsifiable?

What? It isn't an argument, it's a definition. That's what "necessary and sufficient conditions" means.

Originally posted by TacDavey
What? It isn't an argument, it's a definition. That's what "necessary and sufficient conditions" means.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But you've never shown that the universe actually works on that definition. You're saying there's this kind of existential property of flipping one way or another; I don't think that such conditions actually exist in this universe.

What? of course they exist. What do you mean?

If a muon, or whatever it was, has a 99% chance of being created, then obviously one of the things that HAS to happen for it to be created is the probability to flip on the side of the 99% chance, right? So that's one of the conditions that must to be met in order for a muon to be created. I'm confused as to what problem you have with this...

Originally posted by TacDavey
What? of course they exist. What do you mean?

If a muon, or whatever it was, has a 99% chance of being created, then obviously one of the things that HAS to happen for it to be created is the probability to flip on the side of the 99% chance, right? So that's one of the conditions that must to be met in order for a muon to be created. I'm confused as to what problem you have with this...

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, I disagree. This is not a coin, there is no "process of flipping". It is simply one thing and then it is another, which statistically happens x amount of the time. There is nothing that actually makes it choose one or another.

I never said there was. But you DO agree that in order for a muon to form, the probability must come up on the 99% chance side of things?

EDIT: I think you're trying to think of the condition as a physical thing. Which is not correct. Conditions don't have to be physical things.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I never said there was. But you DO agree that in order for a muon to form, the probability must come up on the 99% chance side of things?

EDIT: I think you're trying to think of the condition as a physical thing. Which is not correct. Conditions don't have to be physical things.

Well, a condition does have to be something in some way knowable, or else you can't know if it really exists. You can't tell me what "thing" is necessary for a muon, other than "the thing that makes the muon form". which is highly circular and really proves nothing.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, I disagree. I don't think there is anything to "come up".

Well, a condition does have to be something in some way knowable, or else you can't know if it really exists. You can't tell me what "thing" is necessary for a muon, other than "the thing that makes the muon form". which is highly circular and really proves nothing.

bored

King Kandy, you are making this harder than it really is. Like I said, you seem to stuck on the physical aspect of it. There is no "thing" that switches from 99% to 1% or back. You seem to think that's what I'm saying, and I'm not.

If a person says you can have this money as long as you take this package to a friend, isn't one of the conditions for you to be given the money the delivery of the package? Now, there is no "package delivered" object that is placed in the equation once you do the job. But the delivery of the object is still a condition that is required in order for you to be given the money, right?

There is a "package delivered" object. You physically had to go through the package delivery process. If I had the package, and then it suddenly disappeared and my friend had it, I think that would hardly be attributable to something I did.

"you are making this harder than it really is" is quickly becoming one of my favorite phrases on this forum

Usually only uttered by people who are trying to prove issues debated for millenia, in online quip format.

quantum physics = solved, and in under 25 words!

Originally posted by King Kandy
There is a "package delivered" object. You physically had to go through the package delivery process. If I had the package, and then it suddenly disappeared and my friend had it, I think that would hardly be attributable to something I did.

What? That made no sense... What is this "package delivered" object? What color is it? What does it look like?

EDIT: YOU are a physical object. THE PACKAGE is a physical object. But there is no "package delivered" object. That is an ACTION. Not an OBJECT. Yet, it is still a necessary condition for you to get them money.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Usually only uttered by people who are trying to prove issues debated for millenia, in online quip format.

The definition of "necessary and sufficient conditions" is not something that has been debated for a millenia.