Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem...

Sam Vimes

defendthefaith wrote: »

I actually already addressed this (Post #208), but I'll re-iterate:

Philosophers recognize that causes do not necessarily need to precede their effects in time. A cause can occur prior to its effect or simultaneously with its effect. One article from the the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy even discusses the possibility of a cause occurring after its effect! Click on the link below:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/

A Christian philosopher, Dr. William Lane Craig, also talks in depth about the concept of simultaneous causation (a cause that occurs at the same time as its effect) in the following article:

http://www.leaderu.org/offices/billcraig/docs/creation.html

The words cause, effect, prior, precede, after, simultaneously and time make no sense when time doesn't exist

Sam Vimes

defendthefaith wrote: »

Notice that Hawking does not resort to the option that maybe the universe had a beginning, but it was nevertheless uncaused. This idea isn't even on the radar for him. He believes (and I agree) that there are only two options: either the universe had a beginning (and thus a cause), or the universe had no beginning (and thus does not require a cause).

I have no problem with the idea that the universe had a cause but where my brain melts is this insistence that a cause requires a causer, as in some kind of intelligent being. I like to retort by asking them: Since thunder has a cause, what thunder god do they believe in

JC 2K3

defendthefaith wrote: »

I find it ironic that you're looking for a cause for my belief ("Why do you say this?") in the same paragraph that you deny causes are necessary to explain the origin of something!

Let's suppose your house caught on fire when you were away from home (I hope this never does happen!) and you ask the neighbors, "How did this fire start?" If someone says, "Well I don't think there necessarily had to be a cause of the fire starting," would you accept that? I don't think you would. So why would you assert that the origin of space, time, and matter does not necessarily require a cause?

Causes exist within time and within the universe. They require matter, energy and occur over a period of time.

Let's suppose your house caught fire and the neighbours told you that a supernatural force outside time did it. I don't think you'd accept that either.

Why can you apply logic from analysing events within time and conclude that time and the universe itself require a cause, but not that it requires matter, energy and time?

Mark Hamill

defendthefaith wrote: »

According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, not only did space and matter come into existence at the beginning of the universe, but also time itself. As Stephen Hawking stated, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang" (Hawking and Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, 1996). Since the Cause of the universe would be separate from the universe (by definition), the Cause must be separate from time, because he/she/it created time.

According to what definition is the cause of the universe sperate from the universe?

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The words cause, effect, prior, precede, after, simultaneously and time make no sense when time doesn't exiat

This is an issue (another one :pac:) I've always had with the Abrahamic notion of a god, the idea that God exists independently of time but still has human like behaviour that only makes sense within the context of a time line

The Bible consistently describes God as being in different states, such as emotional states, or in various states of doing things such as speaking. All very human like and all very easy for ancient people to relate to.

But that really doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense when you think of God existing independently to God. How can God find himself in one state one moment and a different state the next (for example saying the word "Moses" and then saying the words "Get yer ass over here" the next moment) or being in different states of emotion depending on what is happening in a specific moment in the universe.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

This is an issue (another one :pac:) I've always had with the Abrahamic notion of a god, the idea that God exists independently of time but still has human like behaviour that only makes sense within the context of a time line

The Bible consistently describes God as being in different states, such as emotional states, or in various states of doing things such as speaking. All very human like and all very easy for ancient people to relate to.

But that really doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense when you think of God existing independently to God. How can God find himself in one state one moment and a different state the next (for example saying the word "Moses" and then saying the words "Get yer ass over here" the next moment) or being in different states of emotion depending on what is happening in a specific moment in the universe.

He's omnipotent, duhhhhh :rolleyes:

5uspect

God exists in all states at once. Prayers collapse the wavefunction and therefore each person experiences their own personal god.

Zillah

5uspect wrote: »

God exists in all states at once. Prayers collapse the wavefunction and therefore each person experiences their own personal god.

So that's how God has been hiding, he's really really really really small. He also, apparently, has small man syndrome.

defendthefaith

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The words cause, effect, prior, precede, after, simultaneously and time make no sense when time doesn't exist

I can understand why you would say that "precede," "after," etc. do not make sense when time doesn't exist, but that doesn't negate the fact that time itself needs a cause of its existence. Whether or not we can comprehend what it is like for time not to exist, it is nevertheless a true statement to say that time came into existence, and this requires a cause.

CerebralCortex

defendthefaith wrote: »

I can understand why you would say that "precede," "after," etc. do not make sense when time doesn't exist, but that doesn't negate the fact that time itself needs a cause of its existence. Whether or not we can comprehend what it is like for time not to exist, it is nevertheless a true statement to say that time came into existence, and this requires a cause.

Maybe that cause is anti-cause, and you know as crazy as that sounds it just as equal to anything you can propose.

Sam Vimes

defendthefaith wrote: »

I can understand why you would say that "precede," "after," etc. do not make sense when time doesn't exist, but that doesn't negate the fact that time itself needs a cause of its existence. Whether or not we can comprehend what it is like for time not to exist, it is nevertheless a true statement to say that time came into existence, and this requires a cause.

In fact it does negate it because cause and effect do not make sense in a timeless domain. In a timeless domain, everything that can possibly happen must happen simultaneously because there is no "after" in which the effect of the cause can happen. The effect must coincide exactly the cause and if both actions are happening at exactly the same "time", it's not cause and effect as we know it, where the effect follows the cause.

Also, an effect is an action which you say must have a cause. But the cause is also an action so it begs the question: what caused the cause? Saying it must have had a cause doesn't actually answer anything

fitz0

Theres one thing I don't get, if there was no time in the pre-big bang era then how is there time now? Surely if there was no such thing as time, there couldn't come a point where time began, since that would mean that there was a before time. But without a timeline, there is no before for there to be no time in.

I don't think I got that across very well and I doubt even more if anyone can explain it to me if I did. ...either way thats a mighty big gap to slide a god into.

Sam Vimes

fitz0 wrote: »

Theres one thing I don't get, if there was no time in the pre-big bang era then how is there time now? Surely if there was no such thing as time, there couldn't come a point where time began, since that would mean that there was a before time. But without a timeline, there is no before for there to be no time in.

I don't think I got that across very well and I doubt even more if anyone can explain it to me if I did. ...either way thats a mighty big gap to slide a god into.

Well to answer that question we could employ philosophers and scientists and spend the rest of eternity fine tuning our knowledge of the universe until we understand all of its mysteries........or we could say god did it and go back to watching simpsons reruns

Zillah

fitz0 wrote: »

Theres one thing I don't get, if there was no time in the pre-big bang era then how is there time now? Surely if there was no such thing as time, there couldn't come a point where time began, since that would mean that there was a before time. But without a timeline, there is no before for there to be no time in.

I don't think I got that across very well and I doubt even more if anyone can explain it to me if I did. ...either way thats a mighty big gap to slide a god into.

Er, exactly, as far as we know, there is no 'before' the big bang. To the best of our knowledge existence began at the point of the big bang. That's it. It's easier to do it backwards. Start now, lots of energy and matter and space time, then wind it all back to instant zero and then none of that stuff exists.

defendthefaith

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Causes exist within time and within the universe. They require matter, energy and occur over a period of time.

I agree, but I don't see how that negates the fact that the universe came into being out of nothing, and thus requires a cause to explain how it came into being. As the argument is commonly formulated:

P1. Whatever comes into existence requires a cause.
P2. Space, time, and matter all came into existence.
C. Therefore, space, time, and matter require a cause.

If Premises 1 and 2 are true, then the conclusion inescapably follows. Based on what you know about the real world, is there really any good reason to doubt Premise 1?

But suppose you say, "I just don't know if Premise 1 is true in all cases." Well, then what do you think is more likely: that Premise 1 is true in this case, or that Premise 1 is not true? Is it more likely that the universe came from nothing, or that it came from something? I think that clearly the second option is the more likely one. If that's the case, then why not just choose the more likely option?

Let's suppose your house caught fire and the neighbours told you that a supernatural force outside time did it. I don't think you'd accept that either.

In this case, there would presumably be no reason to favor a supernatural cause above a natural cause, but in the case of the origin of the universe, the supernatural is the only explanation available, since it's the origin of nature itself that we're talking about!

Why can you apply logic from analysing events within time and conclude that time and the universe itself require a cause, but not that it requires matter, energy and time?

Again, it all comes down to whether or not Premise 1 as stated above is true: "Whatever comes into existence requires a cause." If this premise is true, it doesn't matter what we're talking about (the universe, time itself, a forest fire, a thunderstorm, a belief in someone's head, etc.), it still requires a cause for its existence.

defendthefaith

Mark Hamill wrote: »

According to what definition is the cause of the universe sperate from the universe?

What? Think about what you're saying.

defendthefaith

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I have no problem with the idea that the universe had a cause

What do you think that this cause was?

but where my brain melts is this insistence that a cause requires a causer, as in some kind of intelligent being.

I agree, proving that the universe had a cause does not prove that the cause is an intelligent being. But there are other reasons for concluding that the cause of the universe is an intelligent being:

1) Since the Cause created the universe, it must be outside of space-time and therefore supernatural;

2) The Cause freely chose to create the universe (as argued by philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-curley02.html, see Point 9).

3) The Cause designed the universe precisely to support the existence of life (the so-called Anthropic Principle).

The Mad Hatter

Defendthefaith: Premise One is only true within this universe. What the rules are outside this universe we have absolutely no idea.

Sam Vimes

defendthefaith wrote: »

What do you think that this cause was?

I have no idea and neither does anyone else. The best we can do is very uneducated guesses

defendthefaith wrote: »

1) Since the Cause created the universe, it must be outside of space-time and therefore supernatural;

1. That is an assumption that human beings do not have enough knowledge to make. It could well be that it's entirely natural but is a natural phenomenon that we don't understand yet
2. Supernatural only means outside of nature, it does not necessarily have to have the connotations that humans give to it. Another possibility is that before our universe there was another kind of nature where the laws of our universe don't apply but where other completely different laws apply and in this completely different universe, maybe something can come from nothing. Just because the laws as we perceive them don't apply doesn't mean that no laws whatsoever can apply and that it must be an omnipotent being

defendthefaith wrote: »

2) The Cause freely chose to create the universe (as argued by philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-curley02.html, see Point 9).
.

Yeah I've heard that argument and its complete lack of coherence and inanity is the thing that most makes my brain bleed. It basically boils down to an assertion that only an intelligent being can cause something. It fails for two reasons:

1. Thunder has a cause. What thunder god do you believe in?
2. It fails to take account of a timeless domain. It imagines that stuff is sitting there for ages until suddenly a being kicks it all into motion but in a timeless domain there is no ages and there is no suddenly. Everything must happen simultaneously including cause and effect, which means cause and effect as we know it make no sense.

I'd like to refer you to my previous one of my previous posts on the cosmological argument, which is what this is:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60966253&postcount=185

The point can be summarised as, that argument is:

defendthefaith wrote: »

3) The Cause designed the universe precisely to support the existence of life (the so-called Anthropic Principle)

It did in its arse:

1. There are thousands of trillions of planets in the universe and as far as we know there is only life on one of them. That's an awful lot of wastage for something that's designed precisely.
2. We could be wiped out at any second by a meteor. We could die of a plague. We could pollute our atmosphere. Any number of things could wipe us out at any time. That's a very precarious position for something that's designed precisely. God must be a pretty crap designer, I know if I was omnipotent I would've done a hell of a better job
3. The laws of the universe are such that they support this kind of life. If the universe had been created with different laws it's entirely possible that a completely different and incompatible kind of life would have evolved. If such a thing had happened the glaxions with 17 eyes and mercury in their veins (assuming they had eyes and veins and assuming that mercury could exist) would be sitting on their 6 dimensional planet under their purple cuboidal sun and remarking how the universe seems so precisely designed for them. The universe did not adapt for life, life adapted for the universe.

JC 2K3

defendthefaith wrote: »

I agree, but I don't see how that negates the fact that the universe came into being out of nothing, and thus requires a cause to explain how it came into being. As the argument is commonly formulated:

P1. Whatever comes into existence requires a cause.
P2. Space, time, and matter all came into existence.
C. Therefore, space, time, and matter require a cause.

If Premises 1 and 2 are true, then the conclusion inescapably follows. Based on what you know about the real world, is there really any good reason to doubt Premise 1?

Yes, there is.

What do you mean by "comes into existence"? I would have said "Everything that changes form to become something else requires a cause". It's quite different.

Houses or cars don't "come into existence" per se, - materials that already exist are manipulated and arranged in a certain way to become an entity we call a house or a car.

But all the materials already existed. It doesn't logically follow that these materials needed a cause to come into existence in the first place.

We know that causes are necessary for the creation of things using space, time and matter that already existed, but we can't say that a cause was required for space, time and matter to come into existence.

It makes no sense anyway, since logically a cause is strictly defined as requiring space, time and matter, so if space, time and matter didn't exist, how could there be a cause for them?

Mark Hamill

defendthefaith wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote:

According to what definition is the cause of the universe sperate from the universe?

What? Think about what you're saying.

Its a simple question. You said way back when: Since the Cause of the universe would be separate from the universe (by definition), I'm asking what definition is that? Who defined it? What wording did they use? And most importantly, how did they prove it?

Zillah

defendthefaith wrote: »

Whatever comes into existence requires a cause.

You keep stating this. We ask you to support it. So you state it again.

This is the worst game of musical chairs ever.

Well no, in fairness, you did once make an idiotically irrelevant metaphor of a burning house.

Goduznt Xzst

defendthefaith wrote: »

1) Since the Cause created the universe, it must be outside of space-time and therefore supernatural;

2) The Cause freely chose to create the universe (as argued by philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-curley02.html, see Point 9).

3) The Cause designed the universe precisely to support the existence of life (the so-called Anthropic Principle).

Ok... arguing these points with you would be akin to trying to convince someone that they didn't experience a miracle. Particularly point 3. Someone who survives a plane crash might say that God carefully landed that plane to let them survive, whereas someone who died in that plane crash could not disagree with them because... well they are dead.

So i'm going to side step all those statements and move right onto the meatier conclusions. Say we accept those points (I don't, but for arguments sake...), then what. Of what relevance is it to humanity whether those statements are true or not. Why would those statements impact human existence?

Just to be clear you are defending a deist God's existence, so even if you where correct it has no impact on human existence NOW, so should be of no relevance to our existence. It certainly isn't deserving of worship in any form. Do you agree?

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Say we accept those points (I don't, but for arguments sake...), then what. Of what relevance is it to humanity whether those statements are true or not. Why would those statements impact human existence?

Just to be clear you are defending a deist God's existence, so even if you where correct it has no impact on human existence NOW, so should be of no relevance to our existence. It certainly isn't deserving of worship in any form. Do you agree?

It's amazing how many believers fail to comprehend this and think that the cosmological argument somehow makes their own particular holy book more likely to be true

Zombrex

defendthefaith wrote: »

What? Think about what you're saying.

It has been demonstrated mathematically that it is possible that an event inside the universe could cause the universe to come into existence. Whether or not that is what happened is another matter.

If you think that sounds nonsensical that is because you are applying the rules of everyday human existence such as cause and effect to something as fundamental as the formation of the universe where these rules do not apply.

defendthefaith

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fact it does negate it because cause and effect do not make sense in a timeless domain. In a timeless domain, everything that can possibly happen must happen simultaneously because there is no "after" in which the effect of the cause can happen. The effect must coincide exactly the cause and if both actions are happening at exactly the same "time", it's not cause and effect as we know it, where the effect follows the cause.

Again, that just isn't true. Philosophers recognize that causes can occur simultaneously with their effects in certain cases. As philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig writes, "Philosophical discussions of causal directionality routinely treat simultaneous causation, the question being how to distinguish A as the cause and B as the effect when these occur together at the same time" (http://www.leaderu.org/offices/billcraig/docs/creation.html).

Also, the following are real-life examples of simultaneous causation:

1) A heavy ball resting on a cushion and causing an indent (example from Immanuel Kant);

2) The chair that you're sitting on right now! The chair is the cause of your body defying gravity and remaining two feet or so above the ground.

In both of these cases, the causes occur at the same time as their effects.

Also, an effect is an action which you say must have a cause. But the cause is also an action so it begs the question: what caused the cause?

Thank you! You have just proven the existence of God.

You're right, every cause requires a cause of itself. So if we look at the universe as a whole, we have only two options:

1) There is an infinite regress of causes; or

2) All causes can be traced back to a First Cause, or an `uncaused Cause.'


Since an infinite regress of causes is impossible (both philosophically and scientifically), Option 2 is the inescapable conclusion. Therefore, a First Cause exists!

Dades

defendthefaith wrote: »

You're right, every cause requires a cause of itself. So if we look at the universe as a whole, we have only two options:

1) There is an infinite regress of causes; or

2) All causes can be traced back to a First Cause, or or an `uncaused Cause.'

*speechless*

defendthefaith

Zillah wrote: »

You keep stating this. We ask you to support it. So you state it again.

This is the worst game of musical chairs ever.

I have answered this, in Post #240, which was a reply to your post, and I am still awaiting your response! I find it odd that you would avoid replying to my post, which addresses this exact issue, and instead jump into a discussion I'm having with someone else and attack what I'm saying!

Well no, in fairness, you did once make an idiotically irrelevant metaphor of a burning house.

Anyone can just say "this metaphor is idiotically irrelevant," but you need to explain how it's irrelevant.

defendthefaith

Dades wrote: »

*speechless*

Thanks for the correction, I should have been more careful on how I formulated the argument!

What I should have said was that since every cause we observe today has a cause of itself (as Sam Vines pointed out), causes must either regress into infinity past or end at some uncaused First Cause. Since an infinite regress of causes is impossible, there must be an uncaused First Cause.

Another (more formal) argument is the following:

P1. If every cause requires a cause of itself, then there must be an infinite regress of causes.
P2. An infinite regress of causes is impossible, according to both science and philosophy.
C. Therefore, it is not the case that every cause requires a cause of itself. There must be at least one cause that is itself uncaused.

Sam Vimes

defendthefaith wrote: »

Again, that just isn't true. Philosophers recognize that causes can occur simultaneously with their effects in certain cases. As philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig writes, "Philosophical discussions of causal directionality routinely treat simultaneous causation, the question being how to distinguish A as the cause and B as the effect when these occur together at the same time" (http://www.leaderu.org/offices/billcraig/docs/creation.html).

When I want to know if it's socially acceptable to wear fur, I'll ask a philosopher. When I want to know about the origins of the universe, I'll ask a scientist. What you're talking about there is just word play on the word cause and says nothing about what's possible in a timeless domain

defendthefaith wrote: »

Thank you! You have just proven the existence of God.

You're right, every cause requires a cause of itself. So if we look at the universe as a whole, we have only two options:

1) There is an infinite regress of causes; or

2) All causes can be traced back to a First Cause, or an `uncaused Cause.'


Since an infinite regress of causes is impossible (both philosophically and scientifically), Option 2 is the inescapable conclusion. Therefore, a First Cause exists!

Actually no, I was pointing out the fallacy in your reasoning that everything requires a cause and especially that this cause must be personal. Just labeling something as "the uncaused cause" doesn't answer anything, it's just more word play. It contradicts the idea that everything requires a cause, it dodges the issue by saying that there must be something that didn't require a cause and sticks the label god on it for some reason that escapes me.

It boils down to "everything requires a cause therefore there must be something that didn't". Do you not see how ridiculous, circular and contradictory that argument is? Not to mention the leap in logic from uncaused cause to god.

Would you not think it's far more likely that your flawed human logic cannot be so easily applied to something like the beginning of the universe where the laws of physics aren't even necessarily the same and it's entirely possible that the normal rules of cause and effect don't apply?
And why must something be called a god just because it didn't require what we in our extremely limited knowledge of the universe consider a cause?


And as you were already asked, even if I were to completely accept the argument, so what? Let's assume that an uncaused cause that you like to label a god created the universe. What difference does that make to my life and what does it have to do with accepting any particular religion as true?