cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[Polymath257]

That is idealism. There are no natural laws. There are models but they are not objective reality. Your true colours are showing. Are you a non-religious idealist of some kind?

OK, that is simply that the things in the original situation have properties and those properties lead to event B at a later time.

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't know a lot about it. I keep hearing different things and so am getting my head around it still.
Certainly I see time as linear and so cannot have gone back infinitely into the past or we would not be here yet.
I think that Polymath is saying that space time exists in timelessness.
There is plenty of speculation about things around.

There's two problem with saying the universe has simply been here forever
1 - it isnt true
2 - it still doesn't explain how it came to be.

 

[Polymath257]

"The Big Bang was just an event. It was an event that marked the change of state of existing energy."

Did that energy exist before the big bang?
If not then your comment makes no sense.

No. Nothing existed before the BB in the standard model.

In extensions, there are things before the BB, but then the universe existed as well.

So do the experts say the singularity existed before the big bang?

No.

Lets look at your post again...

" "The Big Bang was just an event. It was an event that marked the change of state of existing energy."

Was the event "the big bang" an effect of existing energy changing?
OR
Was the event "the big bang" the effect that changed energy into existance?

No, the BB was simply the start of time and the universe.

So "the big bang" came from a singularity?

Only in a very loose sense.

The south pole is a singularity in the coordinate system of the Earth. There is nothing south of it.

Wouldn't that make the singularity exist before "the big bang"?

No. The singularity *is* the start. It doesn't 'cause' the start. it isn't a thing; it is a description.

Doesn't something have to first exist before anything can be a result of/from it?

Yes, causality goes from an earlier time to a later time.

 

[Polymath257]

So the universe could have sprung from an uncaused event at the quantum level and instantaneously become the whole B model space time universe which exists in a timeless realm and eventually goes back to the singularity and timeless realm. Or do I have it wrong?

Yes, you have it wrong. Once again, you are using time and time is part of the universe of spacetime.

The events in the space time B Model would take X years to run through I guess even if they all exist at the same time.

Huh?

What do you mean by some outside power source?

Well, for example, the sun. Most of the energy for life ultimately comes from the sun (although deep sea vents are an exception).

I have been told that the laws of physics no longer apply the closer we get to the BB. So if it is unsubstantiated, it is unsubstantiated by science.

It's more that we don't know what laws apply. If you get close enough, the effects of quantum gravity become important and we don't have a tested theory of quantum gravity.

You're the one who said matter is not dead, hence the question.
Chemical interaction is the basis of the activities in the life forms, the bodies, but that does not mean it is the nature of life itself. It is one of those things that science might claim but only because science cannot study spirits.

You said that matter is dead and needs something living as a cause for motion. That is simply not the case. Matter interacts with other thereby producing movement. No living thing need be around (and since living things are limited to planets, they are not around for most motion in the universe).

In this respect science creeps into the theological field because of not being able to detect spirit and because of the naturalistic methodology.

Theology assumes spirits exist in spite of the lack of evidence of such. Science doesn't make that assumption without evidence. That seems reasonable.

 

[Polymath257]

Some atheists do claim that science can explain everything however, and I have heard a physicist atheist say that.

The term 'explanation' is a tricky one.

So scientifically you think that the best speculation is that the stuff of the universe did not need creating because it was there to form the universe through some unknown mechanism?

No. That is a misstatement. I think the best explanation is that the universe of spacetime simply exists and is uncaused.

 

[Polymath257]

There's two problem with saying the universe has simply been here forever
1 - it isnt true
2 - it still doesn't explain how it came to be.

We don't know 1. It may be that the Big Bang is simply a phase change from an earlier stage of the universe.

If it always existed, then it was not caused, so the question of 2 is moot.

There can be no way to explain why there is something as opposed to nothing. To have a cause, something must exist.

 

[F1fan]

That is impossible and absurd. Any instability would have collapsed at past infinity (not 13B years ago)

1 God : // may or may not excist we dont know

2 your hypothesis// known to be impossible

therefore God wins

How does God win as an option when there are no gods known to exist, and a supernatural not observed as real? Your claims seem driven by desperation as a believer.

Thanks for the information, but its irrelevant to the point being made

It's more relevant than believers bringing up their gods. To explain reality we need real and serious causes, and gods are irrelevant. This is why the many religious arguments, like Kalam, fail. They all fail because at the core of the argumenst they have to assume a god exists. There isn't any evidence of any gods, so we throw out this assumption.

 

[F1fan]

There is no physical existence of any kind beyond the BB.

Well not entirely correct. Energy is described in several hypothetical models. The physical universe as we know it came from something. As we explore the causes and function of the universe in its current state the most likely is all physical phenomenon. There is no religious magic being discussed.

”We Never Know” proposed a couple of scenarios; I was addressing the second one.

Reigious beliefs and claims are certainly irrelevant to the models.

Within the physical realm, not beyond the BB.

Well physical is the only game in town. There are no religious models that have any credibility. Non-physical means what? Is there any evidence of a non-physical? No. It only exists in the fallible minds of religious believers.

Per whom?

No rational mind would introduce religious beliefs when discussiong causes of effects in nature. The absurdity is that even theists admit they can't verify their magical god exists, as it suposedly exists and operates outside of the observable or detectable. So theists could bring up anything they want and then try to avoid accountability for the claim of this basis. They are yet to explain how they, as fallible and mortal beings, have this special awareness and knownedge of a big set of gods. It would at least be impressive if theists described a god consistently, and with some sort of predictive power, but they don't. We see many theists cat immorally. We see Muslims commit crimes against humanity, and we are supposed to believe these people are tapped into the Allmighty God?

No.

If this god can create the universe then it can prevent Muslims from stoning girls to death for using a cell phone. Let us know when theists start acting in a consistently moral way, as that would indicate some sort of God is correcting their behavior.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well not entirely correct. Energy is described in several hypothetical models. The physical universe as we know it came from something. As we explore the causes and function of the universe in its current state the most likely is all physical phenomenon. There is no religious magic being discussed.



Reigious beliefs and claims are certainly irrelevant to the models.




Well physical is the only game in town. There are no religious models that have any credibility. Non-physical means what? Is there any evidence of a non-physical? No. It only exists in the fallible minds of religious believers.




No rational mind would introduce religious beliefs when discussiong causes of effects in nature. The absurdity is that even theists admit they can't verify their magical god exists, as it suposedly exists and operates outside of the observable or detectable. So theists could bring up anything they want and then try to avoid accountability for the claim of this basis. They are yet to explain how they, as fallible and mortal beings, have this special awareness and knownedge of a big set of gods. It would at least be impressive if theists described a god consistently, and with some sort of predictive power, but they don't. We see many theists cat immorally. We see Muslims commit crimes against humanity, and we are supposed to believe these people are tapped into the Allmighty God?

No.

If this god can create the universe then it can prevent Muslims from stoning girls to death for using a cell phone. Let us know when theists start acting in a consistently moral way, as that would indicate some sort of God is correcting their behavior.

There are other philosophies of science and no, not all of them are religious.

You can do science without claiming that the objective reality is physical and without claim God.

 

[F1fan]

God says "universe come into existence" in a timeless realm and time and space come into existence when time begins. It all happens in the instant called the beginning.

God isn't a book of stories. What you are referring to is an ancient book written by humans, and they refer to a God in a creation myth. That is not evidence. You misrepresent the facts in your claim here. The stories is what ancient people said, not any god.

Is there any reason to think it does not make sense. If rationality exists here then it could exist elsewhere.

I would argue that theists in these creationism debates are not using reason, thus no rational approach to these issues. They have a vested interest in finding utility for their religious beliefs which have become less and less relevant over time.

 

[firedragon]

Really? Empiricists would be the first to tell you that metaphysical statements aren't scientific and can neither be shown to be correct or incorrect. They're "not even wrong." What I have noticed about theists is that this doesn't matter to them, and they expect the same respect for their pronouncements about the metaphysical as scientists get, wanting religion to be seen as an alternate path to truth that science just can't get to. Except that no metaphysical statement could ever rise to the level of truth if that word is to mean ideas that describe reality accurately.

Yeah. Maybe you should try doing a physical experiment in a lab for a metaphysical argument about a creator. Lets see how the peer review comes through.

Let me know of the technique.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah. Maybe you should try doing a physical experiment in a lab for a metaphysical argument about a creator. Lets see how the peer review comes through.

Let me know of the technique.

Why should those who don't see any evidence of a metaphysical do the experiements? How do you test for what others imagine is real when they can't articulate what it is?

If there are people who believe a metaphysical is real then they are the one's to do experiements. If they have successful results that meet the minimum standard then peer review can be performed by others, including atheists. If valid the results should be similar.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What I have noticed with anti religious polemicists here (Not all), and the internet (again, not all) don't seem to gather that scientific evidences are not in the realm of metaphysical arguments.

Really? Empiricists would be the first to tell you that metaphysical statements aren't scientific and can neither be shown to be correct or incorrect. They're "not even wrong." What I have noticed about theists is that this doesn't matter to them, and they expect the same respect for their pronouncements about the metaphysical as scientists get, wanting religion to be seen as an alternate path to truth that science just can't get to. Except that no metaphysical statement could ever rise to the level of truth if that word is to mean ideas that describe reality accurately.

Yeah. Maybe you should try doing a physical experiment in a lab for a metaphysical argument about a creator. Lets see how the peer review comes through. Let me know of the technique.

Do "a physical experiment in a lab for a metaphysical argument about a creator"? Who is it now that has the physical and metaphysical confused?

I guess you didn't understand what was written to you. I just finished explaining the difference between the two "magesteria" following your claim that "antireligious polemicists ... don't seem to gather that scientific evidences are not in the realm of metaphysical arguments." I explained the difference to you - that statements in one realm can be scientific and are falsifiable empirically, whereas metaphysical statements are "not even wrong."

Here's the technique: do science (application of reason to the evidence of the senses) to determine what is true about the world in order to observe facts and falsify false hypotheses, and cast all metaphysical statements into the fire. Neither you nor anybody else has ANYTHING to say about the metaphysical except "not even wrong" guesses, guesses that cannot be shown to be correct or incorrect because they make no testable prediction about reality, and thus cannot be used for anything.

***********

I notice you evaded the comment my comment in response to yours that "natural science cannot engage with supernatural." I answered, "That's because it doesn't exist. It meets all of the requirements to be nonexistent. It can't be found anywhere at any time and is undetectable, that is, doesn't affect reality - just like every other imagined thing that doesn't exist," and you chose not to comment much less rebut. Can we consider that issue settled? I assume you would have let us know how the comment was wrong if you thought it were and could explain.

The problem for you is that the statement is very likely correct, and correct statements CAN'T be successfully rebutted, a rebuttal being a counterargument to a claim that explains why the claim can't be correct such as a defense presented in court that explains why the prosecution's theory of a murder cannot be correct to prove innocence, as with an air-tight alibi, or might not be correct as with absence of a body or murder weapon to establish reasonable doubt. If the prosecution's case is compelling and not rebutted, the verdict is guilty.

Likewise here, at least with critical thinkers. The last plausible, unrebutted argument is considered correct. Those are the rules of dialectic and how differences of opinion are resolved by critical thinkers: " discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned argumentation." You dropped the ball by ignoring the comment in the hope that it would just go away. It will now unless you decide to try to rebut my comment that the supernatural meets the definition of nonexistent by having all of the same features as everything else that doesn't exist - not detectable anywhere at any time.

 

[firedragon]

Do "a physical experiment in a lab for a metaphysical argument about a creator"? Who is it now that has the physical and metaphysical confused?

Excellent. You responded to the wrong person with the wrong answer. Maybe out of habit.

).

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah. Maybe you should try doing a physical experiment in a lab for a metaphysical argument about a creator. Lets see how the peer review comes through.

Let me know of the technique.

Sounds like a good plan if anyone could ever figure out the characteristics of a creator.

That is the whole problem with metaphysics: it isn't testable. So there is no way to have any confidence in any of its conclusions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sounds like a good plan if anyone could ever figure out the characteristics of a creator.

That is the whole problem with metaphysics: it isn't testable. So there is no way to have any confidence in any of its conclusions.

Yet according to you for the word God that matters, but not for say the word reasonable. Neither has an objective referent, no physical properties, no instrument to measure it and no international scientific measurement standard.
Yet you still differentiate and decide what matters to you. BTW the same applies to what matters to you for the word "matters".

So you gladly use some words, which don't meet your standard and exclude others.
Now define the word matters as a physical process and I will start listening to you.

 

[firedragon]

Sounds like a good plan

oh yes.

 

[PruePhillip]

We don't know 1. It may be that the Big Bang is simply a phase change from an earlier stage of the universe.

If it always existed, then it was not caused, so the question of 2 is moot.

There can be no way to explain why there is something as opposed to nothing. To have a cause, something must exist.

And yet you will meet people who chose to believe
1 - scientists have it all figured out
2 - one day scientists will figure it out.

I use the word 'chose' for these existential beliefs. In the bible it speaks of chosing to believe. When it comes to the Ultimate questions of nature (ie why we are here?) even the atheist 'choses' his belief.

 

[Polymath257]

And yet you will meet people who chose to believe
1 - scientists have it all figured out
2 - one day scientists will figure it out.

I use the word 'chose' for these existential beliefs. In the bible it speaks of chosing to believe. When it comes to the Ultimate questions of nature (ie why we are here?) even the atheist 'choses' his belief.

There are a great many questions of interest and importance that science simply has no say about. Issues of aesthetics or morality are simply not scientific questions.

The question of 'why we are here' has answers, but often not the answers that satisfy theists.

For example, I am here because my parents had sex.

 

[We Never Know]

But that's all we can do at this time, and perhaps all we will ever be able to do. The only evidence we have is the universe itself, and so far, we have identified no feature of it that allows us to declare its history. We can only list all of the logical possibilities that we can conceive, and if that list is complete, recognize that if there will ever be an answer, it will be one of those.

The universe exists. It either has always existed or it had a first moment. If it had a first moment, that might have been caused or uncaused. If there was a prior cause, it might have been an intelligent agent or an unconscious substance. Have I left anything out? It seems to me that one of these MUST be correct if my reasoning is valid and complete, but presently, there is no evidence that rules any of them in or out.

And it's no good to pick one and call it ridiculous. They're all ridiculous. They all require that something has always existed and has already passed through an infinite number of nows to reach right now, or that something came into being uncaused and from nothing. None of those seem possible, yet it seems that at least one must be the case.



Not really. There are other logical possibilities as I just outlined, but we can stipulate to your requirement anyway. Empiricists would love to be able to explain the existence of the universe, but there may be no answers forthcoming, as they are not free to just guess and call it fact.

Do you have the same standard for theists? Are they eventually obligated to explain how anything that they believe could be the case, such as how it is possible for a deity to exist uncaused and undesigned, and how it can create universes, or is that just for empiricists?



Dark energy is proposed to account for an observable phenomenon, the acceleration of the rate of universal expansion. What is spiritual energy? What are its features? What does spiritual energy do? How does one detect it or measure its effect? What physical phenomena are accounted for by postulating its existence? I don't see any commonality between the two.



You must use a different definition for religion than I do, one closer to what I would call reason or philosophy. The supernaturalistic religions explain nothing.



And how is that better than being able to experience reality as a subject and an object with an understanding that the subject is part of the object? This concept is repeatedly offered as a worthy goal, but why? Why even be conscious at all if you can't experience



Once again, you might consider offering a reason for doing that. Also, please explain how awareness without thought is desirable or even possible.



Really? How would you decide which is which?



Existence outside of space and time is an incoherent concept, as is the supernatural. Whatever exists is part of nature, and it is all in spacetime. It is incoherent to postulate an undetectable realm of reality outside of time and space that is able to affect the rest of reality. Causality cannot be one-way. To be real is to exist in space and time and to be able to interact with other real objects and processes. Anything that can do that is detectable. To be nonexistent is to have none of those qualities.



Really? Empiricists would be the first to tell you that metaphysical statements aren't scientific and can neither be shown to be correct or incorrect. They're "not even wrong." What I have noticed about theists is that this doesn't matter to them, and they expect the same respect for their pronouncements about the metaphysical as scientists get, wanting religion to be seen as an alternate path to truth that science just can't get to. Except that no metaphysical statement could ever rise to the level of truth if that word is to mean ideas that describe reality accurately.



That's because it doesn't exist. It meets all of the requirements to be nonexistent. It can't be found anywhere at any time and is undetectable, that is, doesn't affect reality - just like every other imagined thing that doesn't exist.



But the Bible is not evidence for a deity. It is evidence that people believed one existed and wrote that down. To be evidence of a deity it would need to be something that a deity is required for it to exist. And there needs to be a second person to have a personal relationship with someone. You can no more have apersonal relationship with Christ than you can with Euclid or Shakespeare.



Really? I see it the other way around.

Is this like an ADHD thing to have to have all your replies in one post?

I quit reading after the second or third different poster you were responding to all in one post.

Too long of a post and 90% of it has nothing to do with my post.