The Cosmological Argument

[shawn001]

New Nova's

The Fabric of the Cosmos: What Is Space?

[youtube]wy9gXKwRpXc[/youtube]
The Fabric of the Cosmos: What Is Space? - YouTube


THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS: THE ILLUSION OF TIME

[youtube]Rp3_cPRQSh0[/youtube]
THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS: THE ILLUSION OF TIME - YouTube

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

How can you "decide" something - deciding is a process, you can't do it without time.

God is eternal and he planned to create the universe from eternity. So it wasn't a process as you indicated. If God always intended to create the universe from eternity, at what point did he decide to create it?

Where exactly has this simultaneous causation been observed? I'll help you out - it hasn't been - as far as we know, there is no such thing.

No so fast. I am sitting on a recliner right now and of course on a cushion. With my weight i am making an impression on the cushion. I am simulatenously the cause and effect of the impression being made on the cushion. And you just asked where has this simultaneous causation been observed..real talk...i just called my wife in here and asked her do she see me sitting on the cushion, she said yes. So simultaneous causation has just been observed :0)

So the strenght of the argument of simultaneous causation is no greater than simply asserting that the universe did not have a cause or that it cause itself (you know, being the cause and the effect).

Well, as i just demonstrated, simultaenous causation is as simple as me sitting on a chair.

I don't really understand your example, if time began when the ball started to drop (for reasons unexplained, it would seem), the cause and the effect do not occur at the same time. It took time for the ball to drop 3 feet, it took time for enery to transfer (in order to create an indentation).

Point granted. Well just imagine the ball resting on the cushion for eternity, being the cause and effect of the dent on the cushion. Still, simultaenous causation.

I don't think you understood Kant's point if that's what you were going for. His point was that even if the ball was on the cushion for all eternity, we could still tell that the ball caused the indentation - so the argument has to do with the cause "preceeding" the effect even in the absence of time.

Kant who? The cause did preceed the effect. God is the cause of time. Matter,Space and time had to be created simultaenously because if you have matter with no space, where would you put it? And if you have matter and space with no time, when would you put it? And second, it is logically impossile to have an infinite amount of cause and effect regressions (do to the impossibility of an actual infinite number of things).

You visualize a ball on a cushion and your mind jumps to the effect you're used to seeing, so you assume it even in an example where time does not pass. You require time for the transfer of energy (making the dent), so either this is some different kind of thing altogether (in which case, we have no grounds for assuming anything) or the indentation was not caused by the ball and the argument does not work.

In the example i gave i tried to first make the case for time beginning to exist (with time beginning at the moment the ball went in motion), to it being both the cause and effect of the dent. I was in error for the reason you mentioned. BUT, that doesn't change the fact that if God had an eternal will to create the universe he can freely do so at which time comes into existence along with the universe.

There's the rub, though, if you assume sim. causation, the cause does not have to come before the effect (neither in temporal terms, nor othrewise - or at least, Kant, I think, didn't show that). Therefore there is no reason to think that the universe did not create itself and is also the effect.

So you really ponder the idea of the unvierse creating itself? That is worse than magic.

No, it's the opposite of semantics, it does indeed matter. There is no reason to think that, because laws as we observe them apply to that which we observe (nature?), the same laws, or laws in general couldn't apply to anything else.

I said "natural laws cant work outside the universe". Now of course, i am assuming that this is the only universe there is. But that isn't a problem, because even If there is a universe outside of this one, it would still be bound by some kind of natural law, laws that are different from ours. Natural law cannot work outside of nature. That is why it is called "natural law". So maybe i should have said natural law cannot work outside of anything that is consider.........NATURAL.

You add nothing to this by saying they are "natural" laws (or in other words, they apply to everything we have observed) and so cannot use the tautology to establish that laws, outside of nature, do not apply. There is no way that could be established (by argument alone). An existence of a law outside nature which allows for "uncaused causes" or "self-caused causes" is just as plausible or implausible as any other analysis.

There is no possible world at which uncaused causes are possible. In other words, nothing can create itself. There is no universe that will allow such a thing to happen.

 

[Commoner]

God is eternal and he planned to create the universe from eternity. So it wasn't a process as you indicated. If God always intended to create the universe from eternity, at what point did he decide to create it?

That's more a ploblem for you than it is for me, I don't assume such a thing is possible.

No so fast. I am sitting on a recliner right now and of course on a cushion. With my weight i am making an impression on the cushion. I am simulatenously the cause and effect of the impression being made on the cushion. And you just asked where has this simultaneous causation been observed..real talk...i just called my wife in here and asked her do she see me sitting on the cushion, she said yes. So simultaneous causation has just been observed :0)

Well, as i just demonstrated, simultaenous causation is as simple as me sitting on a chair.

It might seem like it's instantaneous, but transfer of energy requires time - the cause and the effect aren't simultaneous. And the cause of the dent isn't your ***, it's you sitting down and applying force on the cushion with your ***. That's not what the proponents of simultaneous causation even suggest. Now try making the dent without sitting down - because that's the real trick. The ball never fell on an undented cushion (because the dent had been there for all eternity), never put pressure on it and never did the fabric of the cushion move one iota. Yet the ball caused it? I call bs on that.

Point granted. Well just imagine the ball resting on the cushion for eternity, being the cause and effect of the dent on the cushion. Still, simultaenous causation.

How did the ball cause the dent? How was the dent created if it was there for eternity. And if eternal effects have causes - what caused god? Either both are "uncaused" or both require an explanation.

I can easilty imagine the ball causing the dent - as can you - because I know what would happen if I took a ball and placed it on a cushion - given the physical laws of the universe and the properties of the ball. But we only understand these relationships because we can observe how they happen. An eternal ball making an indentation in an eternal cushion is just as likely as an eternal dented cushion causing a not perfectly spherical ball to become perfectly spherical. There is no reason to assume that one is the cause and not the other, because what is the cause of what and what the effect relies on the physical laws around you. In our world spheres don't morph in the pressence of eternal dentel cushions, but that's why Kant's example is useless - he simply presupposes that the ball makes the dent and exploits your intuition to make the argument seem plausible.

Kant who? The cause did preceed the effect. God is the cause of time. Matter,Space and time had to be created simultaenously because if you have matter with no space, where would you put it? And if you have matter and space with no time, when would you put it? And second, it is logically impossile to have an infinite amount of cause and effect regressions (do to the impossibility of an actual infinite number of things).

Why do you keep making so many assumptions? Neither you nor I nor anyone else know anything about any of this so kindly stop regurgitating other people's nonsense.

In the example i gave i tried to first make the case for time beginning to exist (with time beginning at the moment the ball went in motion), to it being both the cause and effect of the dent. I was in error for the reason you mentioned. BUT, that doesn't change the fact that if God had an eternal will to create the universe he can freely do so at which time comes into existence along with the universe.

And what caused time? Where was this ball in the absence of space time? The ball isn't the effect of the dent, the dent is the effect of the ball.

So you really ponder the idea of the unvierse creating itself? That is worse than magic.

But magic is the basis of your argument. They are equally absurd, yet you seem to have no problem asserting the truth of your claims. I'm simply pointing out that there are no grounds for believing either.

I said "natural laws cant work outside the universe". Now of course, i am assuming that this is the only universe there is. But that isn't a problem, because even If there is a universe outside of this one, it would still be bound by some kind of natural law, laws that are different from ours. Natural law cannot work outside of nature. That is why it is called "natural law". So maybe i should have said natural law cannot work outside of anything that is consider.........NATURAL.

Honestly, do you not see this is nonsensical? It's like claiming Belgian waffles don't exist outside Belgium. Of course they do, I just had one yesterday and I'm nowhere near Belgium.

They are "natural" laws because we observe them in nature, not because they're necessarily exclusive to nature. You can claim what I had weren't really "BELGIAN" waffles, but then I know you dislike semantics, right?

There is no possible world at which uncaused causes are possible. In other words, nothing can create itself. There is no universe that will allow such a thing to happen.

Great - then God is either not a cause, in which case my work here is done, or God has a cause, in which case you've not solved anything.

 

[shawn001]

God is eternal and he planned to create the universe from eternity. So it wasn't a process as you indicated. If God always intended to create the universe from eternity, at what point did he decide to create it?



No so fast. I am sitting on a recliner right now and of course on a cushion. With my weight i am making an impression on the cushion. I am simulatenously the cause and effect of the impression being made on the cushion. And you just asked where has this simultaneous causation been observed..real talk...i just called my wife in here and asked her do she see me sitting on the cushion, she said yes. So simultaneous causation has just been observed :0)




Well, as i just demonstrated, simultaenous causation is as simple as me sitting on a chair.



Point granted. Well just imagine the ball resting on the cushion for eternity, being the cause and effect of the dent on the cushion. Still, simultaenous causation.



Kant who? The cause did preceed the effect. God is the cause of time. Matter,Space and time had to be created simultaenously because if you have matter with no space, where would you put it? And if you have matter and space with no time, when would you put it? And second, it is logically impossile to have an infinite amount of cause and effect regressions (do to the impossibility of an actual infinite number of things).



In the example i gave i tried to first make the case for time beginning to exist (with time beginning at the moment the ball went in motion), to it being both the cause and effect of the dent. I was in error for the reason you mentioned. BUT, that doesn't change the fact that if God had an eternal will to create the universe he can freely do so at which time comes into existence along with the universe.



So you really ponder the idea of the unvierse creating itself? That is worse than magic.




I said "natural laws cant work outside the universe". Now of course, i am assuming that this is the only universe there is. But that isn't a problem, because even If there is a universe outside of this one, it would still be bound by some kind of natural law, laws that are different from ours. Natural law cannot work outside of nature. That is why it is called "natural law". So maybe i should have said natural law cannot work outside of anything that is consider.........NATURAL.



There is no possible world at which uncaused causes are possible. In other words, nothing can create itself. There is no universe that will allow such a thing to happen.

"So you really ponder the idea of the unvierse creating itself? That is worse than magic. "

Its not magic and doesn't break any laws of physics.

Astronomical Society of the Pacific

A Universe from Nothing


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Adapted from The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 1st edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko, © 2001. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of "nothing" is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called "virtual particle" pairs are known as "quantum fluctuations." Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.[/FONT]

ASP: A Universe from Nothing

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That's more a ploblem for you than it is for me, I don't assume such a thing is possible.

This is actually a problem for you. You are the one making the assertion that God can begin to decide something that he always intended to do. He intended to create the universe from all eternity so there was never a deciding process for him as you asserted.

It might seem like it's instantaneous, but transfer of energy requires time - the cause and the effect aren't simultaneous. And the cause of the dent isn't your ***, it's you sitting down and applying force on the cushion with your ***.

What?????? Whatever you want to call it, if I sit down on the cushion, I am the cause and effect of the dent on the cushion. As I sit down in a stationary position, my weight is still applied on the cushion and I remain the cause and effect of the cushion all in one fixed and continuous state. I really don’t understand why this is even an issue.

That's not what the proponents of simultaneous causation even suggest.

How is a person sitting on a cushion and being the cause and effect of the dent on the cushion not an example of simultaneous causation??

Now try making the dent without sitting down - because that's the real trick. The ball never fell on an undented cushion (because the dent had been there for all eternity), never put pressure on it and never did the fabric of the cushion move one iota. Yet the ball caused it? I call bs on that.

I don’t even understand this one. You are saying the ball never fell on the cushion and yet in the example I gave, the ball DID fall on the cushion. Either you are purposely attacking straw man or you are failing to understand the argument.
　

How did the ball cause the dent? How was the dent created if it was there for eternity. And if eternal effects have causes - what caused god? Either both are "uncaused" or both require an explanation.

I never said the dent was there for eternity so I don’t know where you got that from. As far as you claiming that eternal effects have causes and then asking what cause god, God is not an effect, God is the CAUSE. And nothing caused God.
　
　

I can easilty imagine the ball causing the dent - as can you - because I know what would happen if I took a ball and placed it on a cushion - given the physical laws of the universe and the properties of the ball. But we only understand these relationships because we can observe how they happen. An eternal ball making an indentation in an eternal cushion is just as likely as an eternal dented cushion causing a not perfectly spherical ball to become perfectly spherical. There is no reason to assume that one is the cause and not the other, because what is the cause of what and what the effect relies on the physical laws around you. In our world spheres don't morph in the pressence of eternal dentel cushions, but that's why Kant's example is useless - he simply presupposes that the ball makes the dent and exploits your intuition to make the argument seem plausible.

?????????

Why do you keep making so many assumptions? Neither you nor I nor anyone else know anything about any of this so kindly stop regurgitating other people's nonsense.

Sorry but I didn’t make any assumptions. I stated that if the universe had a beginning (which is where all evidence points), then it must have has a cause. That is because everything that begins to exist has a cause. Neither you or I ever saw anything beginning to exist without there being a reason why. So if you are really a opened minded and logical person, you will just accept this premise on face value instead of raising these silly objections.

And what caused time? Where was this ball in the absence of space time? The ball isn't the effect of the dent, the dent is the effect of the ball.

If the ball existed in a eternal state there WAS no time. Time was caused only after the ball began to drop.

But magic is the basis of your argument. They are equally absurd, yet you seem to have no problem asserting the truth of your claims. I'm simply pointing out that there are no grounds for believing either.

Saying that things can pop into being uncaused out of nothing is worse than magic. At least I can say that God is the cause of the universe. I am not out there postulating the universe popping out of complete nothing. If anything is worse than magic, that sure is. That is like voodoo gone bad lol.
　

Honestly, do you not see this is nonsensical? It's like claiming Belgian waffles don't exist outside Belgium. Of course they do, I just had one yesterday and I'm nowhere near Belgium.

Comparing apples and oranges, are we? This is easy. So if you had a Belgian waffle and gave it to a spirit creature, would that spirit creature be able to eat it? Obviously not

They are "natural" laws because we observe them in nature, not because they're necessarily exclusive to nature. You can claim what I had weren't really "BELGIAN" waffles, but then I know you dislike semantics, right?

Are you serious?? If natural law is not exclusive to only nature then where else is it exclusive to???? Natural law can only govern what is considered nature. The definition of natural law is “a law that governs the behavior of natural phenomena”. Do you see that? NATURAL PHENOMENA.

Great - then God is either not a cause, in which case my work here is done, or God has a cause, in which case you've not solved anything.

I meant uncaused causes in the sense of things that BEGINS TO EXIST. God never began to exist, so therefore God doesn’t have a cause for his existence.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

"So you really ponder the idea of the unvierse creating itself? That is worse than magic. "
Its not magic and doesn't break any laws of physics.

Astronomical Society of the Pacific

A Universe from Nothing

Read it. You cannot read this article and conclude that our universe popped into being uncaused out of nothing. Nonsensical

 

[shawn001]

Read it. You cannot read this article and conclude that our universe popped into being uncaused out of nothing. Nonsensical

at first it may seem that way but its actually not. Most cosmologist today actually believe in more then one universe and they are looking into it.

This explains it better

Is the Universe a free lunch?



Scientists now have their own version of the creation story. There was no epoch before the big bang; time, space, the Universe and everything came from nothing; We feel cheated when told that the Universe just popped into being, like a rabbit from a cosmic magician's hat


The temperature at the end of the first second was a staggering 10 billion degrees - too hot for composite atomic nuclei to exist. The cosmic material would have been reduced to a soup, or plasma, of subatomic particles. Though this condition seems extreme, it is well within the range of laboratory physics to reproduce. Indeed, subatomic particle accelerators can simulate conditions that prevailed at a mere one trillionth of a second after big bang, when the temperature was 10,000 trillion degrees.
From such laboratory studies, cosmologists have computed the likely nuclear reactions that would have taken place in the primeval plasma. It turns out that about a quarter of the material should have been converted into the element helium, the rest mainly remaining as hydro- gen. Astronomers have checked, and found the predicted proportions to be entirely correct.
These concordances between theory and observation are impressive, and have convinced cosmologists that the idea of a hot big-bang origin for the Universe is correct. But people still feel compelled to ask: what happened before the big bang? What actually caused it? Where did all the matter and energy come from?

Is the Universe a free lunch? - Arts & Entertainment - The Independent

Or, Stephen Hawkings can explain it for you. It does not break any laws of physics.

[youtube]X4nCQmO3st0[/youtube]
Curiosity Did God Create The Universe Part 1-3 - YouTube



[youtube]kQeN21NTMzU[/youtube]
Curiosity Did God Create The Universe Part 2-3 - YouTube




[youtube]KkSE2f3t7v8[/youtube]
Curiosity Did God Create The Universe Part 3-3 - YouTube



They are worth watching.

 

[Commoner]

*Preface: I purposefully left some things out that I thought didn't necessarily need to be addressed any further to focus on what I think are the important points. Otherwise, these discussions tend to spiral out of control, but - if you want me to address anything in particular, let me know.*

What?????? Whatever you want to call it, if I sit down on the cushion, I am the cause and effect of the dent on the cushion. As I sit down in a stationary position, my weight is still applied on the cushion and I remain the cause and effect of the cushion all in one fixed and continuous state. I really don’t understand why this is even an issue.

How is a person sitting on a cushion and being the cause and effect of the dent on the cushion not an example of simultaneous causation??

Firstly, you are not the "effect" - the effect is what you are causing, and that's the dent. Right? You wouldn't want the cause and the effect to be the same anyway - that goes against your proposition that the universe cannot cause itself. On to your question...

Imagine your wife came in the room and magically stopped time. You're there, sitting on your chair and there is a dent in the cushion where your *** is displacing it. Right? What I'm trying to point out to you that the dent in which your *** is now suspended had been caused by the force apllied to it some (very, very, very short) time ago. The transfer of energy that you observe as instantaneous actually takes time. So, what I'm trying to say is that - yes, you had caused it, but you're not continuing to cause it, because any transfer of energy had ceased. In that state, there is no difference between a dented cushion with your *** in it and a dented cushion with no ***** in it. So the cause came before the effect (and continues to do so as long as you continue to apply pressure to the cushion).

I don’t even understand this one. You are saying the ball never fell on the cushion and yet in the example I gave, the ball DID fall on the cushion. Either you are purposely attacking straw man or you are failing to understand the argument.

I never said the dent was there for eternity so I don’t know where you got that from. As far as you claiming that eternal effects have causes and then asking what cause god, God is not an effect, God is the CAUSE. And nothing caused God.
　
?????????

No, I was trying to explain to you why Kant's example doesn't work - the example on which the proponents of simultaneous causation base their arguments and the example I thought you were trying to give - but I now see you find it as absurd as I do. Your example is not an example of simultaneous causation - I thought you'd understood this point - it's an example of the regular, temporal causation. You know, such as we see everyday in every thing we do and in everything that happens - that's NOT simultaneous causation.

Sorry but I didn’t make any assumptions. I stated that if the universe had a beginning (which is where all evidence points), then it must have has a cause. That is because everything that begins to exist has a cause. Neither you or I ever saw anything beginning to exist without there being a reason why. So if you are really a opened minded and logical person, you will just accept this premise on face value instead of raising these silly objections.

How do you know there even is such a thing as "didn't begin to exist"? Neither you nor I have seen it or simultaneous causation either (please look up what s.c. actually means), yet you seem perfectly happy in asserting it as factual.

Are you serious?? If natural law is not exclusive to only nature then where else is it exclusive to???? Natural law can only govern what is considered nature. The definition of natural law is “a law that governs the behavior of natural phenomena”. Do you see that? NATURAL PHENOMENA.

Yes, and natural phenomena are that which is governed by natural law. It's circular logic, don't you see it? It doesn't even matter - whether you want to call it "natural" or just "law" - there is no reason to think the same "law" isn't in effect elsewehere. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for you, I really don't.

I meant uncaused causes in the sense of things that BEGINS TO EXIST. God never began to exist, so therefore God doesn’t have a cause for his existence.

So he is indeed an uncaused cause, is he not?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

*Preface: I purposefully left some things out that I thought didn't necessarily need to be addressed any further to focus on what I think are the important points. Otherwise, these discussions tend to spiral out of control, but - if you want me to address anything in particular, let me know.*

Yup yup

Firstly, you are not the "effect" - the effect is what you are causing, and that's the dent. Right? You wouldn't want the cause and the effect to be the same anyway - that goes against your proposition that the universe cannot cause itself. On to your question...

Gotcha, what i meant was i am the reason why there was a cause, and i am the reason why there was an effect. The cause and effect relation (me causing the indent on the cushion) is a continuum event, until i decide to get up from the cushion.

Imagine your wife came in the room and magically stopped time. You're there, sitting on your chair and there is a dent in the cushion where your *** is displacing it. Right? What I'm trying to point out to you that the dent in which your *** is now suspended had been caused by the force apllied to it some (very, very, very short) time ago. The transfer of energy that you observe as instantaneous actually takes time. So, what I'm trying to say is that - yes, you had caused it, but you're not continuing to cause it, because any transfer of energy had ceased. In that state, there is no difference between a dented cushion with your *** in it and a dented cushion with no ***** in it. So the cause came before the effect (and continues to do so as long as you continue to apply pressure to the cushion).

How am i not continuing to cause the dent if i am still seated on the cushion?? Yes, the cause does come before the effect in this instance, but, the effect is still in effect (no pun intended) as long as my weight applies pressure on the cushion.

Your example is not an example of simultaneous causation - I thought you'd understood this point - it's an example of the regular, temporal causation. You know, such as we see everyday in every thing we do and in everything that happens - that's NOT simultaneous causation.

It is, i just dont think you understand it :0)

How do you know there even is such a thing as "didn't begin to exist"? Neither you nor I have seen it or simultaneous causation either (please look up what s.c. actually means), yet you seem perfectly happy in asserting it as factual.

I dont think you quite understand the concept of causation my friend.

there is no reason to think the same "law" isn't in effect elsewehere. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for you, I really don't.

Right, you just said it yourself!! The law may be the same elsewhere, but it would still be natural law. As long as there is nature, there will be some kind of natural law to govern it. My point was, assuming that this is the only universe that exists, natural law doesn't work outside of the universe. And assuming that the supernatural does exist, natural laws dont apply to what is considered supernatural.

So he is indeed an uncaused cause, is he not?

Absolutely

 

[Commoner]

Gotcha, what i meant was i am the reason why there was a cause, and i am the reason why there was an effect. The cause and effect relation (me causing the indent on the cushion) is a continuum event, until i decide to get up from the cushion.

How am i not continuing to cause the dent if i am still seated on the cushion?? Yes, the cause does come before the effect in this instance, but, the effect is still in effect (no pun intended) as long as my weight applies pressure on the cushion.

But that's the point of simultaneous causation - that it happens in the same instance. It's not that (what was) the cause and what is the effect exist at the same time - that's easy. No, a cause must "cause" the effect without any time having passed. In the case of you sitting, it's your *** moments ago that is "making" the dent now - and this interaction continues until you get up. But it's not a static process exactly, it's more like a flow of energy from your *** to your chair and it takes time for that transfer to occur (and keep occuring).

It is, i just dont think you understand it :0)

I dont think you quite understand the concept of causation my friend.

I've been quite detailed in my explanations and I've made an effort to make things as understandable as possible. If you really think I don't understand something, I would ask you to explain it - you know, with arguments n stuff.

Right, you just said it yourself!!The law may be the same elsewhere, but it would still be natural law. As long as there is nature, there will be some kind of natural law to govern it. My point was, assuming that this is the only universe that exists, natural law doesn't work outside of the universe. And assuming that the supernatural does exist, natural laws dont apply to what is considered supernatural.

I don't see how this is helpful.

Absolutely

Good, then you wouldn't object to a proposition that a law might exist "outside" the universe that allows for uncaused causes?

 

[cottage]

There are those who claim that their faith rests on such arguments. All I can say is that if that's the case, their faith is based on a very loose and unstable foundation. What if the caution of Meow Mix is borne out by physicists, who somehow manage to refine their mathematical models to the point that they can definitively determine that the universe -- or at least "stuff" -- is, for lack of a better word, eternal? What happens then to the person whose faith rests on the basis of an argument for the ontological dependency of matter on God?

And that is a very good point to make. The Cosmological Proof is, after all, only an inferential argument. Even St Thomas argued that the word is eternal, although he believed its eternity was dependent upon God.

It seems to me that religious belief is essentially about faith, which doesn't of course mean that reason has no part to play, but if there were an ontologically certain proof of God it would rather leach away the commitment and trust that sets religious beliefs apart from ordinary beliefs. And on that account 'Faith' would then have very little meaning.