Putting aside the term God, would you agree?

[Segev Moran]

Where are you placing that point in time ? If you are placing it before the universe you are placing it before time. Therefore my analogy applies.

I am placing it at 00:00
Not before as there is no before. that was exactly my point.
At 00:00 to the creation of the universe, there was no time, hence everything was contained in an "eternal state".

I took it you were talking about the perspective of an external observer seeing our universe from outside in that last post, therefore no past, present or future so to say. Which is completely unrelated to this topic.

My OP was in the human POV. i wrote that from a human POV (or an observer inside the system), at point 00:00, time is an eternity. i also said later that for an outsider, time is something else as it can "experience" the entire frames of the movie on the same time.. but that was an an answer to one's argument.

 

[Koldo]

I am placing it at 00:00
Not before as there is no before. that was exactly my point.
At 00:00 to the creation of the universe, there was no time, hence everything was contained in an "eternal state".

My OP was in the human POV. i wrote that from a human POV (or an observer inside the system), at point 00:00, time is an eternity. i also said later that for an outsider, time is something else as it can "experience" the entire frames of the movie on the same time.. but that was an an answer to one's argument.

But time is not an eternity at 00:00, it just doesn't exist. If you are imagining a human observer looking at everything standing still indefinitely at 00:00 that is incorrect. For us to observe something time is a necessity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah i can
You are the second person that tells me everything has multiple causes yet can't give me an example
If there are so many, please give one

I just did.

I will read what you've sent about the pencil, but can you have something less philosophical?

Okay: you. You have two biological parents.

Now it's your turn: give an example of something that has only one cause.

 

[blü 2]

And this mass energy was always there? sounds like God to me

Just so, but it may be relevant that we know mass-energy is real.

 

[sayak83]

This question is mostly to people who lack the belief in God (Mono).

Let's put aside for a second the term God and all the ways people try and define this god.

Would you agree that there must be an initial cause to everything?
I mean that from our human POV, we today know that time had a starting point, this means that (from our POV) there was a point in our history when time "stood still". We can refer to this idea as an eternity (again, only from our POV as we don't really know what happened before that).

Also, there has to be an event (or something else ) that started the whole process of reality. even if you somehow believe that reality started itself, this means that some sort of "reality version" existed before our reality, we can refer to this as the initial state of existence.

This means that eventually, going back chronically (events wise), there must be an initiator (regardless of what that initiator is) that was there without being initiated in the first place.

So we can assume regardless of our belief that there was an initial event that was "placed" in what we can only describe as eternity as we have no understanding of time before our time.

We can also have the understanding that this thing, contained within it all our reality, meaning the universe as we know it emerged from that same initiator causing our reality to become what it is.

Thoughts?

Reality may have been existing timelessly "before" time, so to speak. A significant number of physicists posit that time is not fundamental to reality but something that is emergent in the macro-scale under certain conditions, and that the current state in this segment of reality satisfies those conditions thereby creating a causal directionality in the space of phenomena that exists.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nope

You sure fooled me.

In any case, then your request is nothing more that we agree that human beings have a tendency to phantasize that there is an Ultimate First Cause and to atribute divine will to that Cause.

That is of course true. But also a discussion about human neurology and psychology and nothing besides.

 

[LuisDantas]

As I see it, my understanding of God related to the Idea of cause and affect.

I would say so. You deify that idea, to the point of attributing to it the status of a rule of the universe (which it can't possibly sustain).

It seems that most Atheists do agree with the idea that something caused our universe to exist.

This thread suggests otherwise.

I find it quite odd as even when i was an atheist, i couldn't deny the fact that something made it all happen. our reality (in our POV) is to ordered and complex to be something that just pops into existence without order.

Really? That sounds odd fit for an atheist.

Did you ever have a Deist phase?

 

[Polymath257]

separation of a photon from an atom.
combustion.
energy.
lightning.
rain.

I understand what you mean though, it takes several things to happen an electron to separate from an atom, but there is order to things.

what i mean by that is that in order for an outcome to happen, things work in a specific way.

if it is so common, can you please give an example of multiple causes (that the outcome will happen regardless of the order of events)? instead of answering you threw the ball back at me

The 'order' is the physical laws and time. Without those, there can be no causality.

Almost always the 'immediate' cause of something is *two* things coming together to interact: the striking of a hammer on a piece of metal, the pulling of a rope by a wrench, etc. So, both things have to be there: two causes.

There are also many things that can be assembled in more than one way: different orders to the causes.

 

[Polymath257]

No, of course not. the singularity is a state.
The expansion is an event.
The cooling is an event (a series of events actually).
the merging of particles are events.
the formation of star dust is events.

The big bang initial state is not something i see as an event.
I do however assume that something caused this dot of concentrated energy to form in the first place, weirdly enough many people assume it is possible this enormous amount of energy all tucked into a single proton's size came to be with a cause, just our of the blue as a magical thing. i can't see how that is possible.

No, the singularity in GR is NOT a state. It is the absence of a state.

 

[Polymath257]

Exactly.
Energy existed from whenever there was time in OUR POV.
From the Human POV, when this energy was just a dot of energy, time wasn't... well, simply wasn't. so i see it as an infinite state. than an event, a single event caused a chain of reactions that caused this "dotted" energy to expand and create time, space and so on.

When you use 'when', you already have time. Time, energy, space, and matter are all co-existent. Whenever one of them exists, so do all the others.

 

[Polymath257]

Science is based on reality, wouldn't you agree?
So if our science demonstrates ALL OVER that there is always a cause, how come you cannot cast this to the beginning?

1. Science does NOT demonstrate that there is always a cause. As I have pointed out, there are many situations *in science* that are without causes.

2. The 'beginning', if there is one, is special precisely because it is the beginning (the end would be also). it is the point where time begins. There cannot be anything 'before' it because to be 'before' requires time. There cannot be a cause because a cause requires time.

Our entire "history of the universe" is based on casting current findings to the past. the assumption is that things worked than as they work today. we know there was a change of forces, we know to calculate the movement of the universe, all based on the assumptions that the universe works as it works. why the change? it sounds very much theistic way of thinking the the universe might have just popped into reality

yes, precisely. And when we apply the laws of physics we have discovered, the causal claims for the beginning no longer hold.

 

[Polymath257]

The only exception we have these days is spontaneous appearances of particles in a vacuum, but this is not yet confirmed as we can't really get to a 100% vacuum and we don't really have the ability to measure the creation of those particles as they almost imminently cancel each other and disappear.

But we *have* measured them! It is known as the Casimir effect and has been detected in the lab.

This raises the question of where do they go to?

See? You already assume causality and soemthing like conservation of mass. In quantum fluctuations, both are violated (the latter for only an instant, though--but measurable).

We have the assumption that we are in a closed system, meaning energy is not new, it is recycled. so it is assumed that those particles are not fading out of existence, rather transform to another whatever you decide to call it.

You are thinking classically, not quantum mechanically, here. Fluctuations violating conservation laws are allowed because of the uncertainty principle. Such fluctuations are important in many decay reactions and affect the lifetime of many particles.

As we have yet to encounter anything that simply pops into reality with a reason (cause), i can't see why we assume the the entire universe simply popped into existence.

Once again, particle-antiparticle pairs do so all the time. They have to be taken into account in our theories or else the results do not agree with observations.

It seems that if i say God created, you'll say i have no reason to believe so and if i say the universe just popped into existence it sounds logical. weird?

The thing is a dot of everything we know.
A single dot in the nothingness of our universe in the size of no more than one proton.
This one proton holds within it the entire energy that forms ALL our universe. all the starts, all the systems, the galaxies, the nebula.. all of it, condensed in one tiny dot.
this is what i mean by "thing" as i have now name to call it. some call it
singularity, so i guess it can be called the "singularity".

Nothing to be sorry about if we all thought the same this forum would render obsolete

Sorry, but this is a (common) caricature of what happens in the Big Bang. One aspect is that you certainly are imagining that dot lying inside some sort of space, existing for some time, then exploding outwards into that space. THIS IS WRONG. The 'dot' only makes sense *after* the start of time. It was the entire universe, including all of the space that existed at that time. It was space itself that expanded, and NOT some dot exploding. And, if the universe is infinite in extent (quite possible), that dot only was for our observable universe: the universe was actually infinite at all times.

 

[Polymath257]

Obviously.
The formation of one single drop of rain is an outcome of a series of many many events. thats why i used the term chain of events.
My question is, wouldn't you agree there is a chain of events (even if some of them occur in many place at the same time).
Water cannot boil if there is nothing to heat them first.

The idea of a 'chain' as opposed to a 'latticework' is the difficulty. There are many, interconnected, causes as opposed to a single linear string of causes.

 

[12jtartar]

This question is mostly to people who lack the belief in God (Mono).

Let's put aside for a second the term God and all the ways people try and define this god.

Would you agree that there must be an initial cause to everything?
I mean that from our human POV, we today know that time had a starting point, this means that (from our POV) there was a point in our history when time "stood still". We can refer to this idea as an eternity (again, only from our POV as we don't really know what happened before that).

Also, there has to be an event (or something else ) that started the whole process of reality. even if you somehow believe that reality started itself, this means that some sort of "reality version" existed before our reality, we can refer to this as the initial state of existence.

This means that eventually, going back chronically (events wise), there must be an initiator (regardless of what that initiator is) that was there without being initiated in the first place.

So we can assume regardless of our belief that there was an initial event that was "placed" in what we can only describe as eternity as we have no understanding of time before our time.

We can also have the understanding that this thing, contained within it all our reality, meaning the universe as we know it emerged from that same initiator causing our reality to become what it is.

Thoughts?

Segev Moran,
I think you have a good point worth considering. I believe you are saying that there had to be a cause, God or Supreme Being, was that cause. God is usually called, The First Cause. The symbols for God’s Name, YHWH, actually means, HeCauses to Become or. I Am Who I Am. No being ever on earth or any place else, can rightly use that name, because no person, but God has the power and knowledge to cause everything that He Purposes to turn out exactly as His stated Purpose, Isaiah 55:11, 14:24-27.
God’s Bible tells us that, in the beginning, meaning the beginning of God’s Creations, He Created the heavens and the earth, and that His Spirit was moving over the waters, Genesis 1:1,2. Much later God decided to create mankind on earth, in order to have intelligent creatures, able to enjoy all the things that An All Wise and Loving Father could produce for mankind’s comfort and pleasure. God is completely self sufficient in everything, needing nothing, but wanting for others to enjoy life.
The Bible tells us that God Created His Son, as the First of all His Creations, Colossians 1:13-15, Revelation 3:14, and Through Jesus and For Jesus, meaning with the assistance of Jesus, God Created ALL other things, Angels and the physical Creation, Hebrews 1:1,2. God was the First Cause, Jesus was the second Cause, and from them the world was made, with Jesus. being the Master Builder, Proverbs 8:30,31.
Since God expects the best from men, when Adam and Eve fell, God sent His Best, Jesus to give his life as a Ransom Sacrifice for mankind, so that mankind would be able to enjoy all the things that Adam and Eve lost when they rebelled against God.
When God Created mankind, He never meant for men to die, but to live forever on earth, with Heaven being God’s Abode, Psalms 37:29, Isaiah 45:18, Psalms 115:16.
God will resurrect Billions of the Dead, teaching them how to live, and bring many through the Great Tribulation,into a New Earth, John 5:28,29, Revelation 7:14, 21:1-5. All who obey and love their neighbor will have the chance to live forever in a Paradise Earth. Agape!!!

 

[12jtartar]

In a nut shell, the theory goes that in a vacuum, there are spontaneous particles being created with contrasting "currents", a positive and negative (matter and antimatter).
They appear only for a fraction of a time as they cancel each other.
The universe as we know it, should not have really existed as we observe that for every position particle, a negative one is created and they all cancel each other. our universe on the other hand, for some reason (not known yet) had positive particles remaining.
The fact those particles simply pop into existence, doesn't mean they are simply created out of thin air, i think it is logical to assume something creates those particles.

Segev Moran,
When a man tries, to understand God’s Creations we come against Egocentric Predicament, being so ignorant we are Doping Out what we think, which has nothing to do with God’s power or Wisdom, Job 37:5, Isaiah 55:8,9.
For Science to try to understand The Heavens, without God in the equation, is somewhat comparable to Einstein trying to find the energy formula without the speed of light, squared.
I have little confidence in Science when the posit the theory of a Big Bang!!! That theory goes against one of the most basic laws of nature; Explosians cause chaos, the greater the explosion the greater the chaos. God’s Created heavens are in complete harmony, we even set our clocks by the movements of heavenly bodies, which is the meaning of Cosmos!!!

 

[12jtartar]

The idea of a 'chain' as opposed to a 'latticework' is the difficulty. There are many, interconnected, causes as opposed to a single linear string of causes.

Your reasoning seems a might Pedantic, seeing you know what his meaning was.

 

[Polymath257]

Your reasoning seems a might Pedantic, seeing you know what his meaning was.

His reasoning is based on a linear 'chain' of causes. In reality, most causality (such as it exists) is not linear, but branching and intertwined. That negates the argument that there has to be only one 'uncaused cause'. In a branching network of causes, it is quite possible to have many 'first points'.

 

[12jtartar]

This question is mostly to people who lack the belief in God (Mono).

Let's put aside for a second the term God and all the ways people try and define this god.

Would you agree that there must be an initial cause to everything?
I mean that from our human POV, we today know that time had a starting point, this means that (from our POV) there was a point in our history when time "stood still". We can refer to this idea as an eternity (again, only from our POV as we don't really know what happened before that).

Also, there has to be an event (or something else ) that started the whole process of reality. even if you somehow believe that reality started itself, this means that some sort of "reality version" existed before our reality, we can refer to this as the initial state of existence.

This means that eventually, going back chronically (events wise), there must be an initiator (regardless of what that initiator is) that was there without being initiated in the first place.

So we can assume regardless of our belief that there was an initial event that was "placed" in what we can only describe as eternity as we have no understanding of time before our time.

We can also have the understanding that this thing, contained within it all our reality, meaning the universe as we know it emerged from that same initiator causing our reality to become what it is.

Thoughts?

Segev Moran,
This reasoning is called deereism, a Doping Out of knowledge to great for mankind’s brainpower, Epistemological Predicament.
Do you believe in God? God has always existed, so TIME has always existed, from eternity. Just because God did not need a Wristwatch, does not prove that time did not exist. God exists from eternity to eternity!

 

[Samantha Rinne]

This question is mostly to people who lack the belief in God (Mono).

Let's put aside for a second the term God and all the ways people try and define this god.

Would you agree that there must be an initial cause to everything?
I mean that from our human POV, we today know that time had a starting point, this means that (from our POV) there was a point in our history when time "stood still". We can refer to this idea as an eternity (again, only from our POV as we don't really know what happened before that).

Also, there has to be an event (or something else ) that started the whole process of reality. even if you somehow believe that reality started itself, this means that some sort of "reality version" existed before our reality, we can refer to this as the initial state of existence.

This means that eventually, going back chronically (events wise), there must be an initiator (regardless of what that initiator is) that was there without being initiated in the first place.

So we can assume regardless of our belief that there was an initial event that was "placed" in what we can only describe as eternity as we have no understanding of time before our time.

We can also have the understanding that this thing, contained within it all our reality, meaning the universe as we know it emerged from that same initiator causing our reality to become what it is.

Thoughts?

From my experience as a theist asking similar questions before. Some of them would.

Some of them would insist that what they have problem with is the idea that ANYTHING made this world we live in. Which brings me to an important philosophical question: How can something be here if it didn't come into being? You are left with two options: either the universe is eternal (but then why are there all kinds of things that die? Unless death is just temporary and we kinda move in a cycle of creation/destruction/recreation) or the universe is created.

In the latter case, you have to figure out how things started. Either it is possible for something to exist without being created (in which case something like God can definitely exist), or it is not (rationalizing that the reason God can't exist is something would have to create him to infinite regression), which creates a large Neither of this are acceptable options, so the only reasonable explanation is that "the definition of a God is that which can exist without being created, which may be a force, entity, or mathematical probability sequence but is definitely responsible for whatever this place we see is."

 

[David T]

Hypothesis is a word with a very clear meaning.

If you do not know what that meaning is, that shows a lot of where you stand, and very little of what the word and its use are.

Krauss is a crackpot in his theory of ex nihilo garbage. I have an hypothesis of a perpetual motion machine i would lile to sell you.