The first cause argument

[firedragon]

It's uncaused in the classical sense

But its not uncaused.

 

[blü 2]

But its not uncaused.

It's uncaused in the sense used in the Cosmo / Kalam argument. As I keep telling you. Did you read the page on Bell's theorem?

And please talk me through the First Cause causing the Big Bang, because as it stands I have no idea of what you mean by 'cause' there.

 

[firedragon]

It's uncaused in the sense used in the Cosmo / Kalam argument.

Absolutely false.

 

[ratiocinator]

Can you just make your direct claim that electron-positron pairs in quantum fluctuations came from nothing, uncaused, not eternal, and its "proven fact"?

Science doesn't do absolute proof, but there is evidence. I don't really know why you're still asking about this, way back in post #10, I gave you this link: Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia. It also give links to some of the effects that are a direct result of this (evidence), like the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift.

 

[firedragon]

Science doesn't do absolute proof,

Exactly. Good thought.

 

[ratiocinator]

Exactly. Good thought.

Look up! The point is passing over your head. P1 is undermined.

 

[blü 2]

Absolutely false.

Interesting.

Demonstrate the falsity.

But first give the definition of 'cause' that you're using.

And then talk me through how you say it worked at the Big Bang.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Physicists are well aware that general relativity is incomplete. They are also aware that quantum additions tend to eliminate the singularity and allow for an infinite past.

"tend to"? No.
They either do or they don't.

It is generally accepted that the universe began at a point of singularity. When the singularity of the universe started to expand, the Big Bang occurred, which evidently began the universe. The other explanation, held by proponents such as Stephen Hawking, asserts that time did not exist when it emerged along with the universe. This assertion implies that the universe does not have a beginning, as time did not exist "prior" to the universe. Hence, it is unclear whether properties such as space or time emerged with the singularity and the known universe.
-wiki Cosmogony-

"time" as we measure it [define it], did not "exist".
The problems involved in understanding what exactly happened at the point of singularity stems from not knowing the origin of natural laws.
It can be hypothesised that the universe had no "beginning", but that is not a satisfactory explanation, imo, as it doesn't effectively answer the question of the origin of "physical reality". It assumes that everything we see and experience has no cosmic meaning.
It is all hypothetical.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I already said above: electron-positron pairs in quantum fluctuations.

Ha!
Anything else?

 

[ratiocinator]

"tend to"? No.
They either do or they don't.

Since they are a work in progress, we can't actually draw firm conclusions.

It is generally accepted that the universe began at a point of singularity.

Wiki is just wrong in this instance (maybe just very out of date). The following is from Matt Strassler, an actual theoretical physicist.

"I’ve talked over the years with many experts in “quantum gravity” [the poorly understood but required blend of Einstein’s gravity and quantum physics, a blend that will be needed to explain extreme gravitational phenomena] and I’ve never spoken to one who believed that the universe began with a real singularity. Why? Because

• the singularity arises from using Einstein’s equations for gravity
• but we know Einstein’s equations aren’t sufficient — they aren’t able to describe certain extreme gravitational phenomena.

Specifically, when the density and heat become extremely large, quantum physics of gravity becomes important. But Einstein’s equations ignore all these quantum effects. So we already know that in certain extreme conditions, Einstein’s equations simply don’t apply. How could we then use those very same equations to conclude there’s a singularity at the beginning of the universe?

We can’t.

And if we don’t know how to alter Einstein’s gravity equations to make them into quantum gravity equations, then — well, we don’t know what happens instead of a singularity.

Now that was where things stood before inflation was known. Inflation changes the details of the history of the universe quite a lot. But it doesn’t change the basic conclusion about singularities: we don’t and can’t yet know what happened at the earliest moments of the universe, because we have neither data nor sufficiently clear equations to help us answer basic questions about it. Related to this, we don’t know precisely how inflation started (or even could have started) in the first place.

I’m not making this up out of my head. Just yesterday I was involved in a long conversation with professors and post-doctoral researchers at Harvard, in which we discussed various exotic mathematical methods for exploring the inflationary epoch and the era before it. The possibility that there really is a singularity at the beginning of the universe never came up once.

...

Yet all over the media and all over the web, we can find articles, including ones published just after this week’s cosmic announcement of new evidence in favor of inflation, that state with great confidence that in the Big Bang Theory the universe started from a singularity. So I’m honestly very confused. Who is still telling the media and the public that the universe really started with a singularity, or that the modern Big Bang Theory says that it does? I’ve never heard an expert physicist say that. And with good reason: when singularities and other infinities have turned up in our equations in the past, those singularities disappeared when our equations, or our understanding of how to use our equations, improved."

-- Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?​

 

[firedragon]

Look up! The point is passing over your head. P1 is undermined.

Thats because you dont understand it mate. So to return the rhetoric, it is passing over your head.

 

[firedragon]

Interesting.

Demonstrate the falsity.

But first give the definition of 'cause' that you're using.

And then talk me through how you say it worked at the Big Bang.

Done in the OP.

 

[ratiocinator]

Thats because you dont understand it mate.

Back to your usual tactic of vacuous claims that other people don't understand.

 

[firedragon]

Back to your usual tactic of vacuous claims that other people don't understand.

The atheists who engage heavily in this kind of thread are prone to use ad hominem. That seems like an ultimate goal. Not all of course, but most.

What you dont understand is that you are repeating the main argument of the OP and confirming it repeatedly. It is not debunking the OP, but confirming it. Only if you yourself understand it will it be fruitful. If not, it will just be another rhetorical response with some ad hominem. Its a usual case now. So, I dont know who you are to tell me my usual tactics, but I can tell you that I expect another ad hominem as the last say from you as I do from many others. Its pretty normal.

Thanks.

 

[ratiocinator]

The atheists who engage heavily in this kind of thread are prone to use ad hominem. That seems like an ultimate goal. Not all of course, but most.

What you dont understand is that you are repeating the main argument of the OP and confirming it repeatedly. It is not debunking the OP, but confirming it. Only if you yourself understand it will it be fruitful. If not, it will just be another rhetorical response with some ad hominem. Its a usual case now. So, I dont know who you are to tell me my usual tactics, but I can tell you that I expect another ad hominem as the last say from you as I do from many others. Its pretty normal.

Thanks.

You've just done the same thing again. You keep telling people that they don't understand but don't make any attempt to explain in what way they have misunderstood or to address the points being made.

So, in the OP, you stated the first premiss as "Every being that has a beginning has a cause for its beginning." I, and others, have pointed out that electron-positron pairs in quantum fluctuations begin to exist without a cause, hence contradicting your premiss. Now, if there is some sense in which "Every being that has a beginning has a cause for its beginning." means something that somehow isn't contradicted by things starting to exist without a cause, then you could explain what it does mean and why you phrased it as you did, instead of just saying "you don't understand".

 

[firedragon]

and others, have pointed out that electron-positron pairs in quantum fluctuations begin to exist without a cause

Can you prove that this is scientific fact? I asked who ever your so called "others" are but they are absolutely vague because they know better. So this is usual apologetic that cannot be reiterated. So if you can prove this is fact, I will accept it.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Polymath257]

I know you want to bring science into this discussion.

Can you just make your direct claim that electron-positron pairs in quantum fluctuations came from nothing, uncaused, not eternal, and its "proven fact"?

Well, they are uncaused. They are not eternal. And they are as much of a fact as anything.

You are asking for absolute proof, but that is NOT what is required to negate your argument.

ALL that is required is logical possibility. And that we certainly have that for *both* uncaused causes that are not eternal AND for infinite regresses.

 

[firedragon]

Well, they are uncaused.

Is that fact?

 

[Polymath257]

Please give an example and how it is known as a fact to be uncaused.

Quantum events are *random*: they are uncaused in the classical sense. NOTHING prior to the event determines what happens in the event.

This is well known and a discovery of modern physics. And it shows the biases of philosophers.

If the Big Bang was the origination of the universe, the first cause caused it.

IF the Big Bang was when time started, there *could not* be a cause of it. A cause would have to be *before* the event and if time starts at the BB, there was no 'before'.

The alternative is that there is time before the BB and in that case, there is no reason to think time is finite into the past.

Either way, your argument fails.

Yeah. This is not the argument from design.

No, it is an argument from first cause. And we are showing the limitations of that argument.

 

[firedragon]

Quantum events are *random*: they are uncaused in the classical sense. NOTHING prior to the event determines what happens in the event.

This is well known and a discovery of modern physics. And it shows the biases of philosophers.



IF the Big Bang was when time started, there *could not* be a cause of it. A cause would have to be *before* the event and if time starts at the BB, there was no 'before'.

The alternative is that there is time before the BB and in that case, there is no reason to think time is finite into the past.

Either way, your argument fails.



No, it is an argument from first cause. And we are showing the limitations of that argument.

Is that fact? Scientific fact?