The first cause argument

[muhammad_isa]

Unsupported assertion and contradicted by current evidence.

Well, I know you are stubborn.
What I consider evidence and what you consider evidence are clearly different things.
You cite something that happens millions of years ago on planet earth as "a fact", when you can't possibly know for sure.
Furthermore, eternity is not something that can be measured.
It can't have a beginning or an end.

You presume that time is a finite measurable quantity, whereas we have very good reason to believe that it is not.
Time manifests itself in the universe, and it cannot in reality, be measured in an absolute way. It depends on the frame of reference.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So time does not have a cause?

It most certainly does.
Without G-d and souls, there would be no-thing.
There would be no perception. There would be no reality.

 

[Polymath257]

It most certainly does.

Hey, you were the one hat said that time 'just is'. That usually means it isn't caused.

Without G-d and souls, there would be no-thing.
There would be no perception. There would be no reality.

That's a pretty big claim! Care to support it in any way?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, I know you are stubborn.
What I consider evidence and what you consider evidence are clearly different things.
You cite something that happens millions of years ago on planet earth as "a fact", when you can't possibly know for sure.

But we can know within a reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, eternity is not something that can be measured.
It can't have a beginning or an end.

That is a claim with no argument to support it.

You presume that time is a finite measurable quantity, whereas we have very good reason to believe that it is not.

Such as?

And, no, that is NOT a presumption. We do not know either way. it is a *possibility*.

Time manifests itself in the universe, and it cannot in reality, be measured in an absolute way. It depends on the frame of reference.

Right, just like any coordinate system. But that doesn't mean the geometry of the universe (spacetime) is arbitrary. Like latitude and longitude, the specific coordinate system is arbitrary to a great extent. But also like those, the underlying geometry is fixed. In the case of spacetime, like with latitude on the Earth, there is no way to extend that coordinate past a certain point in the geometry.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well, I know you are stubborn.

What I consider evidence and what you consider evidence are clearly different things.

Obviously because you seem to think that evidence is anything you happen to like. You have presented no reasoning and no objective facts that support your assertions.

You cite something that happens millions of years ago on planet earth as "a fact", when you can't possibly know for sure.

We have theories supported by objective facts (evidence) that confirm them. Hence we can be confident in the conclusions.

Furthermore, eternity is not something that can be measured.
It can't have a beginning or an end.

Another unsupported assertion.

You presume that time is a finite measurable quantity, whereas we have very good reason to believe that it is not.

Which is...?

Time manifests itself in the universe, and it cannot in reality, be measured in an absolute way. It depends on the frame of reference.

We've already covered that. The whole basis of relativity is that time is not absolute.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The whole basis of relativity is that time is not absolute.

Mmm .. but we define time as if it is.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Hey, you were the one hat said that time 'just is'. That usually means it isn't caused..

It has a cause.
You claim that it is possible that "time" has a beginning.
What would that mean?
Would it mean that something can appear from nothingness?
It is a meaningless concept.

A beginning implies a point in time. The only reason we can talk about "a point in time" is because we are measuring it relative to something. In this case, space.
It does not follow that because space has a beginning, the concept of existing disappears along with it. Mathematical equations can't show that.

 

[ratiocinator]

Mmm .. but we define time as if it is.

Who's this 'we'? In relativity it's defined with reference to a particular observer (or notional observer). I already gave the simple example in 'flat' space-time where relative motion will determine what direction through space-time you think time is pointing in.

Would it mean that something can appear from nothingness?

To appear from anything requires time. If time has a start it didn't appear from anything. The manifold just ends at that point.

It does not follow that because space has a beginning, the concept of existing disappears along with it.

The model that actually matches reality (i.e has supporting evidence), says that space and time are not separate. All you are doing here is expressing your own incredulity in the face of tested science. We already know that human intuition is a bad guide to fundamental physics. Argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy (a basic mistake in logical thinking).

Nobody actually knows if time had a start, but just dismissing it on the basis that you can't imagine it, is irrational.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Who's this 'we'? In relativity it's defined with..

It's only defined once, as far as I know

Currently, the international unit of time, the second, is defined by measuring the electronic transition frequency of caesium atoms.

The model that actually matches reality (i.e has supporting evidence), says that space and time are not separate.

It doesn't say anything.
We define time .. we define space.
..and then we show how these two fundamental quantities interact with each other.
The operational definition of time does not address what the fundamental nature of it is.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's only defined once, as far as I know

Currently, the international unit of time, the second, is defined by measuring the electronic transition frequency of caesium atoms.

That's a definition of a unit of time. Do you really not understand the difference between a physical aspect of reality and the units used to measure it? You do get that temperature is a thing whether we measure it in Celsius or Fahrenheit, yes?

It doesn't say anything.

Sorry but that's a seriously bizarre and absurd statement.

We define time .. we define space.

No, we build models of them, and then test them against reality by experiment and observation.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..that's a seriously bizarre and absurd statement.

No .. you say that "time and space are not separate". We don't define them as one. We define them separately and then show how they interact with each other.
In any case, you can't show that 'time' is identical to measured time. Measured time is dependent on the frame of reference.

Time is not an absolute phenomenon. Talking about a beginning or and end is relatively meaningless.
All you are doing in effect, is saying that physical space and time behave identically, which they don't.
We define time in a measured way, and that is what GR equations reflect.

 

[leroy]

On the contrary, none of these paradoxes is in any way contrary to being a part of reality. The first, third, and fourth, mistake what it means for an infinite interval to pass and in no way prevent non-simultaneity, moving faster, or happening at the end of an infinite time interval (there is not an infinite amount fo time between any two events, ever).

More detail: precisely what is unrealistic about these? all they say is that the infinities involved correspond. That is an incredibly weak statement and has no effect on things like simultaneity, speed of motion, etc.

As for 2, this is related to a misunderstanding of probability: that zero probability things cannot happen. That is simply not the case.

So, ALL of these are the result of bad intuition, not of any real paradox, let alone anything that would prevent them from being reality.

Well as i said before if the KCA forced you to accept these paradoxes as part of reality I would claim victory for the theist side.

As for 2, this is related to a misunderstanding of probability: that zero probability things cannot happen. That is simply not the case.

Yes by definition events with zero probability cant happen

How can something with zero probability happen?

 

[Polymath257]

Well as i said before if the KCA forced you to accept these paradoxes as part of reality I would claim victory for the theist side.

What, precisely, is the problem? OK, so one planet orbits 10 times as fast as another. Both planets go an infinite distance. So?

What is the problem with that being the reality?

There is a one-to-one correspondence, but that does NOT imply equality, only equality of size.

The same is the case of the simultaneity issue: yes, both s happen after an infinite time has passed. But the actual time intervals are not equal, even though they are the 'same length'.

So?

Yes by definition events with zero probability cant happen

No, that is NOT the definition. That is *only* the case for finite measure spaces.

How can something with zero probability happen?

Well, what is the probability of choosing a square number from the integers? It is the limit of n/n^2 and n->infinity, which is zero. But square numbers exist.

The point is the definition of probabilities in this case is a *limit* and not a simple ratio. Once you get the correct definition, the paradoxes go away.

 

[leroy]

If


I'm entirely agnostic about whether the universe is finite in the past, and about whether there is some larger context in which it might possibly have has a cause. I'm just pointing out the we don't know these things and making assumptions about them is basically just guessing.

The premises on the KCA are not mere assertions , but rather they are supported by arguments

If you whant to remain agnostic you are expected deal and refute these arguments

Thise article provides 3 arguments for premise 1 and 4 arguments for premise 2, if you whant to remain agnostic have to refute these arguments.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith

Just like every other theory in science. Science works on the basis of testing its theories against the evidence. The evidence for evolution is more than enough to put it beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes and if someone claims to be agnostic about the theory of evolution you would expect him to refute the arguments that support the theory of evolution.

How do you think one thing can cause another without time?

You made the positive claim, the burden proof is on you. , why does causality requires time necessarily?

The concept of simultaneous cause and effect is atleas logically coherent , why can't the cause and the effect happen at the same moment without time between them ?

 

[Polymath257]

The premises on the KCA are not mere assertions , but rather they are supported by arguments

If you whant to remain agnostic you are expected deal and refute these arguments

Thise article provides 3 arguments for premise 1 and 4 arguments for premise 2, if you whant to remain agnostic have to refute these arguments.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith

Dealt with previously.

Yes and if someone claims to be agnostic about the theory of evolution you would expect him to refute the arguments that support the theory of evolution.


You made the positive claim, the burden proof is on you. , why does causality requires time necessarily?

Because that is in the definition of causality: something that happens prior to the event that, through the action of physical laws, brings about the event.

The concept of simultaneous cause and effect is atleas logically coherent , why can't the cause and the effect happen at the same moment without time between them ?

Because it is against the very definition of causality.

 

[leroy]

What, precisely, is the problem? OK, so one planet orbits 10 times as fast as another. Both planets go an infinite distance. So?

Two planets have traveled the same distance despite the fact that one is traveling faster than the other. This is paradoxical

Well, what is the probability of choosing a square number from the integers? It is the limit of n/n^2 and n->infinity, which is zero. But square numbers exist.
The point is the definition of probabilities in this case is a *limit* and not a simple ratio. Once you get the correct definition, the paradoxes go away.

Yes the probability of choosing a square number randomly from all the integers is ZERO.

This event can't happen .

In order to do that you would need a computer with infinite memory (such that it can consider all the numbers) and then you would need an algorithm that gives each number the same probability. (Which is impossible)

Such computer can't exist

In the real world computers have limited memories and can only choose frome a limited amout of numbers. In the real world N would be the the amout of numbers that the computer can manage.


So the statement remains true, events with zero probability cant happen .

 

[Kfox]

The first cause argument is simply a logical premise by premise argument.

P1: Every being that has a beginning has a cause for its beginning.
P2: The universe has a beginning.
C : Thus its "possesses" a cause for its beginning.

Why is this a valid argument that there is a first cause?.

The problem I see with P1 is that everyone will proclaim their being of choice does not have a beginning.
The problem I see with P2 is the same scientists who say the Universe has a beginning will say your being of choice doesn't exist. So if you can't trust scientists who say your Being doesn't exist, how can you trust them when they say the Universe has a beginning?

 

[leroy]

Because that is in the definition of causality: something that happens prior to the event that, through the action of physical laws, brings about the event.



Because it is against the very definition of causality.

One wonders which definitions are you talking about?
From Britannica

causation, Relation that holds between two temporally simultaneous or successive events

causation | philosophy


Can you quote any source that describes causation (cause and effect) as 2 events that are necessarily separated by time?

 

[Kfox]

Yes. As I have explained, this thread is only for the first cause argument.

The problem with the first cause argument is that it is not about a first cause. #1 says “everything that has a beginning, has a cause for it’s beginning”. This means not everything has a beginning; some things do, other things do not. So how can you call something a first cause when there were other things that has been around for as long as it has?

 

[Polymath257]

Two planets have traveled the same distance despite the fact that one is traveling faster than the other. This is paradoxical

Why? Only because 10*infinity=infinity. For any *finite* amount of time, the one travels farther.

Yes the probability of choosing a square number randomly from all the integers is ZERO.

This event can't happen .

And yet, there are square integers.

In order to do that you would need a computer with infinite memory (such that it can consider all the numbers) and then you would need an algorithm that gives each number the same probability. (Which is impossible)

Such computer can't exist

I gave a notion of probability: the limit of the number of items versus the number of numbers up to that point. This is known as the density of the set.

Now, it is true that the density isn't countably additive, but it *is* finitely additive, which is all that is required. And, the density of any single number is precisely zero.

In the real world computers have limited memories and can only choose frome a limited amout of numbers. In the real world N would be the the amout of numbers that the computer can manage.

So the statement remains true, events with zero probability cant happen .

Again, simply an assumption, with no actual background in probability theory.

Your misunderstandings about infinite sets are becoming very apparent.