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

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes

No.

The stuff that exists in the universe, is part of the universe.
The stuff of the universe doesn't exist if the universe doesn't exist.

And also, there is no logical "before" the universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No.

The stuff that exists in the universe, is part of the universe.
The stuff of the universe doesn't exist if the universe doesn't exist.

And also, there is no logical "before" the universe.

That is not science, that is philosophy.

 

[leroy]

We have plenty of evidence of watchmakers...
What are you talking about...

Forget watches even... we have plenty of evidence of human manufacturing. That's how we recognize it. By signs of manufacturing. That's how we recognise a watch as being manufactured as opposed to a natural occurence. Because we understand what manufacturing is and how to recognize it.




Yes. A human that lived in the last 100 years, to be specific.



Don't need to. We would know it came from earth and was made by a human.
Even if we had no clue how it ended up on mars.

and how to recognize it.

Yes that is the point, one can recognize design in a thing even if you don’t have prior evidence for the existence of the designer.

Do you grant this point?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes that is the point, one can recognize design in a thing even if you don’t have prior evidence for the existence of the designer.

Do you grant this point?

No, not the way you use it. You use design in 2 different ways. We know humans design things. We don't know that the universe is designed or not. That is unknown.

 

[We Never Know]

No.

The stuff that exists in the universe, is part of the universe.
The stuff of the universe doesn't exist if the universe doesn't exist.

And also, there is no logical "before" the universe.

Everything always existed or it mgicalky appeared, maybe from leprechauns.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Everything always existed or it mgicalky appeared, maybe from leprechauns.

I don't know and I don't care.

 

[Polymath257]

Please correct me IF i am making a straw man but .

1 you believe that probably there was something before the big bang

That depends on which version of quantum gravity is correct. I believe neither way.

2 there is no evidence for anything existing before the big bang

3 therefore you believe in something without evidence.

Isn’t this what you are saying?

Nope. I am saying that *if* the universe began with the Big Bang, there was no time 'before', so causality is impossible.

If the universe existed before the Big Bang, then there is a possibility that the Big Bang was caused. but in that case, the universe would still be uncaused.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't know and I don't care.

The answer to the question 'How do I combat ignorance and apathy?'

 

[gnostic]

for example you would have to invoke the existence of “something” before the big bang , and there is no evidence for anything before the big bang

There you go, you not understanding that outside the scopes of the Big Bang theory. There are no “before the Universe”.

Based on the current knowledge of the Universe, which is the Planck (2013) refining the WMAP’s results, the Universe is calculated to be 13.798 billion years old.

This is the current known age of the Observable Universe.

I said “current”, because in the future, ESA or NASA (or both) may send another space observatory with even higher resolution than that of the Planck.

There is no “before the Big Bang”, but that’s the limit or scope of the theory on our Observable Universe. There are nothing that say there anything outside the universe. And no where in the Big Bang theory does it say there were “nothing” before the Universe.

As to the Universe being “caused vs uncaused”, if you seriously believe that God “caused” the universe to come into exist through “creation”, then it is YOU, who must provide evidence that God actually “created the universe” and YOU must show evidence that God actually “exist” outside of spacetime of our Universe.

YOU, you are the one who is making positive claims about God “existing” and God “creating”, then as claimant, the burden of proof falls upon YOU.

And if YOU can’t or won’t give any evidence about “God did it”, then the only person making speculations, is YOU.

 

[PruePhillip]

If there is no cause, then that thing isn't an effect.

Well sorry, but the universe appeared from no other universe - so that's an effect, no?

 

[PruePhillip]

It's upto the one who proposes a designer to provide evidence for it.
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I don't need to "disprove" your evidenceless assertions. All I need to do is point out the lack of evidence. That is enough to reject it.

If you disagree, then you should give 5kg of gold or I'll send my undetectable dragon to come and feed on your children and / or loved ones.

You are here, alive, enjoying the sunshine, breathing the air. This either:
a - came from utterly N.O.T.H.I.N.G. and for N.O...R.E.A.S.O.N. or
b - it was created by someone outside of the physical realm.

 

[leroy]

That depends on which version of quantum gravity is correct. I believe neither way.



Nope. I am saying that *if* the universe began with the Big Bang, there was no time 'before', so causality is impossible.

If the universe existed before the Big Bang, then there is a possibility that the Big Bang was caused. but in that case, the universe would still be uncaused.

So what? Ether way there is no evidence for “uncaused” universes anyway…. Nor evidence for anything that can cause a big bang……………..so ether case, you have to believe in something without evidence…….. naturalism and theism have the exact same problem

 

[PruePhillip]

Why are assuming there was a "who"? Where did you get that idea?

All we lay people have to do is fdefer to what experts say. They are doing the work, and they report their conclusions. The average person can get caught up in disinformation and religious dogmas way too easily, and not be aware they are repeating irrelevant ideas in debate.

I would respect theists who get science right, but at the most overlay their religious meaning over it. The 20th century is marked by creationists trying hard to replace science and expertise with religious nonsense, and it's still having a negative effect on people.

There is a cause and effect for the discussion: creationists causing harm to society in regards to science.

There's TWO issues when it comes to the how and why of why we are here -
We have a reasonably good grasp of how the physical universe works, or at least, we are well on the way to understanding this.
The realm of how it began from nothing, and why, is an altogether different question.

Either something or someone started the physical universe
Saying that 'something' raises the obvious question, WHY DID SOMETHING (OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL REALM) CREATE ALL THIS?
Saying 'someone' started it raises the question of why, but at least you are dealing with a conscious entity.

 

[Polymath257]

So what? Ether way there is no evidence for “uncaused” universes anyway…. Nor evidence for anything that can cause a big bang……………..so ether case, you have to believe in something without evidence…….. naturalism and theism have the exact same problem

All the evidence we have is that causality is determined by natural laws and only works inside of the universe.

The only universe we know of is this one and we have no evidence supporting the idea that this universe is caused.

But, let's go a different direction: what do you mean when you say that something is a cause of something else? What does the word 'cause' mean?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Irrelevant to the topic.

Are you trying to deflect from supoprting the claims you made about some sort of god existing, and how it is all things?

If you are interested in realizing the reality represented by the concept of God, then by all means do so and I will be happy to support you. But if you are not prepared to seek union with the underlying unity of all that exists for whatever reason you have, then all that is left for you is a life of whining against that which you reject.

 

[Polymath257]

There's TWO issues when it comes to the how and why of why we are here -
We have a reasonably good grasp of how the physical universe works, or at least, we are well on the way to understanding this.
The realm of how it began from nothing, and why, is an altogether different question.

The real mystery is why there is something as opposed to nothing.

Before even attempting to answer the question you asked, we have to first understand what, precisely, you mean by the word 'nothing'.

Do you simply mean no matter and no energy?

Or does it include no space and time?

How about no natural laws?

Either something or someone started the physical universe

Justify this conclusion.

Also, please be clear what you mean by the word 'universe'. is it just the current expansion phase? or does it mean literally everything physical that exists?

And what do you mean by the word 'physical'? Is energy physical? How about thoughts?

Saying that 'something' raises the obvious question, WHY DID SOMETHING (OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL REALM) CREATE ALL THIS?
Saying 'someone' started it raises the question of why, but at least you are dealing with a conscious entity.

Well, the why question would need to address whatever came before whatever caused the universe. So in what realm and by what physical laws does this previous 'universe' operate?

 

[Polymath257]

Well sorry, but the universe appeared from no other universe - so that's an effect, no?

No. Not if it isn't caused.

Also, you are assuming the universe 'appeared'. Does that mean you suspect a time before the universe?

 

[PruePhillip]

I think he might be referring to the B model of time which has all of space time just existing always. You have always been there reading this and time can even go backways, ignoring and cause effect and so you would be reading this before I wrote it, even if it would still be after I wrote it because time would be going backways.
It seems most physicists believe in this B model of time these days.

Here's the problem - some will ask 'How did it all start?'
and some might use this 'B model' and say, 'Well, space and time were always here... and within it the universe began.' (probably some virtual particle anomaly or whatever)
The B-Modle folks haven't answered the question.
How did it all start takes on board the question of 'all', as in space and time included.
Space is a Big Deal - it's a weird foam-like structure with particles popping in and out of existance - it's not just a 'nothing' sitting there forever.
So no, I don't accept B-models.

 

[PruePhillip]

The real mystery is why there is something as opposed to nothing.

Before even attempting to answer the question you asked, we have to first understand what, precisely, you mean by the word 'nothing'.

Do you simply mean no matter and no energy?

Or does it include no space and time?

How about no natural laws?



Justify this conclusion.

Also, please be clear what you mean by the word 'universe'. is it just the current expansion phase? or does it mean literally everything physical that exists?

And what do you mean by the word 'physical'? Is energy physical? How about thoughts?



Well, the why question would need to address whatever came before whatever caused the universe. So in what realm and by what physical laws does this previous 'universe' operate?

Sabine's take on 'nothing'
Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: What is "Nothing"?

It's worth watching. She doesn't attempt the ultimate question, but she at least defines nothing.
To me 'nothing' is the ABSENSE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. And this includes mathematics.

Sabine:
This is why for level 6 of nothing, things get decidedly weird because we remove space and time, too. And just to make sure, we will also remove all other equations and laws of nature that might give rise to space and time, such as strings or quantum gravity, or whatever other idea you believe in. Remove all of it. At this point there is nothing left from our theories of physics.

So why is there any physics at all? This question is one of the reasons we’ll never have a theory of everything, because even the best theory can’t explain its own existence. Scientific explanations end at this level, and it’s probably where this video should end, but I admit I enjoy talking about nothing, so let’s see what else there is to say.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Please demonstrate to me that anyone has the "experience" to "understand" the "workings of the spirit".

Or that that is even a thing to begin with.

Are you prepared to do serious religious practice to experience it yourself? God is one, you must be one with God to experience God. You can not find God outside of yourself.