The cosmological argument revisted.

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so my question is, when did I ever made a mistake in this thread?..............can you quote such mistakes ? can you quote at least 1 mistake?

Every time that I do you pretend that it did not happen. Live in the present. Own up to your errors when corrected.

 

[leroy]

Poor analogy since that is not what virtual particles do. And no, they do not have a cause. At least not a known one. They appear to do so without cause.

Virtual particles pop in and out of existence on their own and their is no "cause". If you could find one you would earn a Nobel Prize. They pop into and out of existence constantly. One the quantum level events are a matter of statistics and not cause and effect.

You are just playing semantics,

The particles arising out of the fluctuation of quantum fields are called virtual particles .

The cause (cause as defined and understood in the contexts of the KCA) of this particles is a quantum field + a fluctuation + some other unknown (and probably random) factors.

Without the quantum field the virtual particles would not “pop” this is what I mean by cause

 

[leroy]

No, just acknowledge corrections when they are given. I am not playing that game since it is an endless attempt to distract from your failures. Let's keep it in the present.

How am I supposed to acknowledge my mistakes, If you don’t quote them?

 

[leroy]

Every time that I do you pretend that it did not happen. Live in the present. Own up to your errors when corrected.

Then quote a situation where you corrected a mistake and I pretended that it never happened.

 

[Heyo]

So are you saying that the universe/cosmos came in to existence without a cause ?

That seems to be the result of our discussion. Even when we stretch the boundaries of logic, we run into into contradictions. So, if we haven't made errors on the way, the original premise must be wrong.

I need more clarification on what you mean and why is it relevant

The claim is that the universe had a cause......I define cause as something that the effect (universe) needs to come in to existence.

And you haven't shown that need, neither have we evidence of something else but the universe existing. And what is more, the assumption of the existence of such a cause leads to more inconsistencies than it solves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are just playing semantics,

The particles arising out of the fluctuation of quantum fields are called virtual particles .

The cause (cause as defined and understood in the contexts of the KCA) of this particles is a quantum field + a fluctuation + some other unknown (and probably random) factors.

Without the quantum field the virtual particles would not “pop” this is what I mean by cause

Nope. You seem to think that the "quantum field" is an entity. It is a description of a feature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How am I supposed to acknowledge my mistakes, If you don’t quote them?

Acknowledge them when the corrections are given. Don't bring up your failures from the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then quote a situation where you corrected a mistake and I pretended that it never happened.

Wow! You just don't get it.

How are you going to understand complex corrections when you don't or won't, understand simple ones?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Virtual particles “pop” in to existence as a consequence of an imbalance in a “sea” of energy .. they do have a cause.
As an analogy. ..

That is quite a silly analogy. Parables, analogies, and similes most of the time lead people astray. Most of the time, they are just a word-salad.
I have already said that I believe in cause, but that does not mean a God. Just like in case of virtual particles, the cause may be quantum fluctuation.
"Microscopic quantum fluctuations that occurred because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle were amplified into the seeds that would later form the large-scale structure of the universe." Big Bang - Wikipedia (Alan Guth 1998).

 

[leroy]

That seems to be the result of our discussion. Even when we stretch the boundaries of logic, we run into into contradictions. So, if we haven't made errors on the way, the original premise must be wrong.

nothing creating the universe is incoherent, therefore impossible by default.

And you haven't shown that need, neither have we evidence of something else but the universe existing

Yes but the universe seems to have an important property “it began to excist” which means that it most have a cause.





.

And what is more, the assumption of the existence of such a cause leads to more inconsistencies than it solves.

For example? Which are those inconsistencies?

Using that quote, we removed the impossible

1 the universe came from nothing

2 the universe is infitie in to the past

So we are only left with

3 the universe had a cause…….

 

[leroy]

Nope. You seem to think that the "quantum field" is an entity. It is a description of a feature.

irrelevant,

it is still a fact that no scientists claims that virtual particles come from literally nothing

But as we will see, we cannot actually have zero-energy. Instead, the quantum field gently vibrates randomly. Sometimes this produces enough energy to form particles out of seemingly nothing! The particles arising out of the fluctuation of quantum fields are called virtual particles

 

[Heyo]

So we are only left with

3 the universe had a cause…….

I think we have eliminated that also and lengthy.

So, there has to be something wrong 1) in our reasoning, 2) our premises or 3) the universe.
Of course, our reasoning is flawless and our premises are solid, so ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

irrelevant,

it is still a fact that no scientists claims that virtual particles come from literally nothing

So what?

You just gave my favorite sort of argument. After being corrected you brought up a point that is refuted with a "So what?"

 

[night912]

Aja, so what?

My claim is that the triangles begin to exist exactly when you cut the square in halves…….any disagreement?

No it wasn't. Your claim.....

Cause: cut the square in 2 halves

Effect: 2 triangles appear.

But eventhough you've dishonestly moved the goalpost, I reply with this. The triangles beginning to exist us effect that was caused by the square beginning to be cut in half.

Check mate!

 

[night912]

The claim is that the universe had a cause......I define cause as something that the effect (universe) needs to come in to existence.

Agreed. So no timeless, space less, immaterial, especially personal, is not necessary. All of those are just your assertions that is being added on. All of assumptions should be left out. In other words, God should be left out until evidence is presented that he is the cause. Occam's razor. Just like what you often say but ignore doing.

Checkmate again.

And you disagreeing does not change anything.

 

[leroy]

No it wasn't. Your claim.....



But eventhough you've dishonestly moved the goalpost, I reply with this. The triangles beginning to exist us effect that was caused by the square beginning to be cut in half.

Check mate!

I am confused, according to you, what is our point of disagreement?

 

[leroy]

Agreed. So no timeless, space less, immaterial, especially personal, is not necessary. All of those are just your assertions that is being added on. All of assumptions should be left out. In other words, God should be left out until evidence is presented that he is the cause. Occam's razor. Just like what you often say but ignore doing.

Checkmate again.

And you disagreeing does not change anything.

But arguments and justifications have been given to support the claim that the cause must be timeless spaceless inmaterial personal etc.....why don't you refuted those arguments?


For example the cause of the universe / multiverse / cosmos (including time) most be timeless (otherwise it wouldn't be the cause of Time)

In other words if time had a cause, the cause necessarily has to be timeless.......for the same reason the cause of the first computer necessarily has to be a" non-computer" .....(if the cause of the first computer would have been a computer then it wouldn't be the first computer)


Any disagreement from your part?

 

[night912]

I am confused, according to you, what is our point of disagreement?

You just realize that you're confused?

On the bright side of things, you're actually being honest about being confused. Try to do this more often.

 

[night912]

But arguments and justifications have been given to support the claim that the cause must be timeless spaceless inmaterial personal etc.....why don't you refuted those arguments?


For example the cause of the universe / multiverse / cosmos (including time) most be timeless (otherwise it wouldn't be the cause of Time)

In other words if time had a cause, the cause necessarily has to be timeless.......for the same reason the cause of the first computer necessarily has to be a" non-computer" .....(if the cause of the first computer would have been a computer then it wouldn't be the first computer)


Any disagreement from your part?

So you just provided new attributes for your God. So according to your reasoning, this perfect and orderly universe was caused by a chaotic and imperfect cause, your God. You're the first theist that I know of to believe that their theistic God is chaotic and imperfect, but whatever floats your boat, I guess.


Some how, this reminds me so much of the argument that nonbelievers of evolution used.

I don't know how it is for you, but for me, the effect of me being a human was caused by my parents being humans.

 

[Heyo]

But arguments and justifications have been given to support the claim that the cause must be timeless spaceless inmaterial personal etc.....why don't you refuted those arguments?


For example the cause of the universe / multiverse / cosmos (including time) most be timeless (otherwise it wouldn't be the cause of Time)

In other words if time had a cause, the cause necessarily has to be timeless.......for the same reason the cause of the first computer necessarily has to be a" non-computer" .....(if the cause of the first computer would have been a computer then it wouldn't be the first computer)


Any disagreement from your part?

Can you explain what you mean with timeless?

For me time-less is at no time, same for space-less = not in space. We have words for those. So it is logical to say that the cause existed never and nowhere.

I have a feeling you wouldn't agree to that.