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

[Polymath257]

Causality in the universe is dependent on the natural laws of the universe. That does not mean that causality does not exist outside the universe, it just means that another set of laws might apply there.

OK, what does the word 'causality' actually mean? Give a definition of what it means for A to 'cause' B.

 

[Polymath257]

That has nothing to do with whether it is possible.
If a A exists before a certain point and A and B exist after that point in time then A is the cause.

So you need time to have causality.

Also, this is clearly NOT what causality means. For example, my chair existed in my room, and then my chair and my sofa existed in my room. That doesn't mean the chair caused the sofa.


Your definition is way too broad to capture the essence of causality. The problem is that there may be no link between A and B in your scenario.

 

[Polymath257]

It's all speculation so why not introduce something outside?
A God might be outside and all the way through a a time space model.

Because this speculation is going way way beyond anything else we have that is supported.

In contrast, speculation about a multiverse is supported in the formulation of quantum mechanics, is consistent with the rest of physics and requires no new physical principles to discuss.

What is to say that an empty time space model does not exist and we just fill it with events as we move through it?

Because movement is nothing but a line in this geometry. We don't 'move through it'. Our entire history exists and our consciousness is only aware of the past portion of it at any point.

And no, spacetime is never empty: it always has matter/energy in it.

 

[Polymath257]

A something that exists could be the fist cause, a God.

Why do you assume only one 'first cause'? Why not many? what not a committee? Why do you assume there is consciousness/intelligence in the first cause?

Why do you assume anything before the universe is a cause of the universe? Why do you assume it is the first cause and not the result of previous causes?

You are speculating way beyond what the evidence supports or even suggests.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I will call "true", those things that match the evidence of reality.

If you disagree with that (and it sounds like you do), then I wonder how you define "true".
And more specifically, how you distinguish it from "false".

Truth is that which is real, False is that which is not real.

The mind in a non-dual state is one with the real, the mind that perceives reality in a conceptual manner is in maya, in a state of duality, it is not true.

 

[Polymath257]

That sounds like a crazy thing however when I stand back and look at what you are saying.
I suppose you must have evidence for saying that, yes?

Yes. The fact that spacetime is the model that works as opposed to one in which space and time are separate. The fact that we know that matter and energy can curve space and time in detectable ways. The fact that , in relativity, the past for one observer may be the future for another observer in the same location.

I can go into more detail, but it would require some math.

But why is it any crazier to say the universe of space time 'just exists' compared to saying some God 'just exists'?

Maybe the universe itself is the 'necessarily existent thing'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A something that exists could be the fist cause, a God.

Yes. This God is just for cause the unmoved mover. That is all and that is not evidence for anything else than this God is that. But you use it for more.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Truth is that which is real, False is that which is not real.

The mind in a non-dual state is one with the real, the mind that perceives reality in a conceptual manner is in maya, in a state of duality, it is not true.

No, not really, and now I have done something, which is not real and it is real that I have do it.
If false is correct, then the non-real is real.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why would I go one thing at a time?
Why would I lose time by humoring you to allow you to dumb it down with post hoc vaguery just to make it a little similar as if that makes any kind of vaild point at all?
All the while, off course, deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room that these things are actually nothing alike.

MANY things are "omnipresent".
Virtual particles, space, time, gravity,.......

None of which are even remotely similar to how believers would describe "the holy spirit".

You are grasping at straws with this silly "argument".

Can you be more coherent?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's not a "belief". It's a well-tested and supported scientific theory. A scientific theory is body of knowledge that is supported by the available evidence and which makes testable predictions (which check out when tested).



To pass an exam on big bang cosmology, believing / accepting big bang cosmology is not at all a requirement.

What is required, is for you to demonstrate to have a good understanding of what the theory actually says, how it can be tested, etc.

Your acceptance of that model as being "true" or lack thereof, is not relevant.

Having said that...
The acceptance of big bang cosmology by the scientific community is the result of the evidence in support of it, not of what the school textbooks say.

Your mind is in a state of duality, you believe or disbelieve in things. Reality does not depend on beliefs, it just is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your mind is in a state of duality, you believe or disbelieve in things. Reality does not depend on beliefs, it just is.

But beliefs are in reality or they are really in the real non-reality. You operate with a duality of real and unreal and that is real to you. I do it differently. And that is really unreal, yet I still do it.

 

[PruePhillip]

They are good problems for those with that idea to figure out.
It is almost like mathematics and science is willing to accept ridiculous things to try to explain mysteries which exist with old intuitive ways of looking at things.

The tools of our science cannot define how the tools came to be.

 

[PruePhillip]

A bit of an incoherent sentence imo.

Anyhow, point remains:
If there is no cause of X, then X is not an effect.

The 'effect' is the physical realm.
From whence cometh its cause?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The tools of our science cannot define how the tools came to be.

That is not unique to science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The 'effect' is the physical realm.
From whence cometh its cause?

We don't know.

 

[PruePhillip]

If "forever" means "for all of time", then it most definitely is correct to say that universe has existed forever.

Then the universe had no beginning? This was the objection Fred Hoyle had about his new term 'big bang'

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then the universe had no beginning? This was the objection Fred Hoyle had about his new term 'big bang'

He doesn't know. Neither do you or I. But I admit that, for which you two both play: I am right and you are wrong.
So I don't play like you do, but I still play.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, not really, and now I have done something, which is not real and it is real that I have do it.
If false is correct, then the non-real is real.

Yes, but the context is the bigger picture of absolute truth.
The dualist mind state deals in relative perception, the non-dual mind is one with all the exists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, but the context is the bigger picture of absolute truth.
The dualist mind state deals in relative perception, the non-dual mind is one with all the exists.

Yes, but I am a part of all that exists and you are not me. So unless you are one with me, you are not one with all the exists. It is that simple.

 

[Polymath257]

f religious beliefs have become less relevant partly because of speculation and flawed thinking by science which some people like to say is scientific truth then maybe those who say science has it all right are not being rational.

On the contrary, it is the rise of rationalism that lead to the decline of religious superstition. it was the flawed thinking of religious apologists that showed the illogical core of religious beliefs.

I don't mind having a faith to justify but some people want to say that I oppose science when really all I am doing to opposing what some people call the truth (which is derived from scientific ideas) and they are using religious type faith to do that.

On the contrary, because the scientific discoveries contradict your religious beliefs, you reject them. And that does, in fact, mean you oppose science. Science requires going whether the evidence goes no matter what your previous beliefs.