PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
There is difference. One series requires an uncaused cause (other elements in this series have only instrumental nature) and the other can be without such cause.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The first cause argument
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
Really? Which is which and why?
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Nope. We are talking about infinite quantity.
Either we refer to an 'absolute infinity' which can't be increased, or an 'infinity' which can be increased .. which is not really infinity .. it can't be.
It is just a very large quantity.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Sun-->moon-->room-->illumination
This series requires a fundamental/principal cause. Others are instrumental in relation to it.
John-->John Jr.--> John the third
Causes in this series do not essentially depend for their efficacy on the activity of preceding causes.
We are talking about space and whether it has finite volume or not.
Multiply an infinite quantity by 2 and what do you get? And infinite quantity.
If you hold on to your misunderstandings, there is no possibility of learning.
But this is NOT the causal sequence. We have light produced from the sun. That light travels to the moon and is reflected. it then travels to the room, illuminating it.
You leave out the most important part: the light.
if the sun goes out, it would still take a bit over 8 minutes for the light from it to travel to the room. So the room would stay illuminated for that 8 minutes even if the sun does not exist.
The 'efficacy' of the moon in the previous is only in its ability to reflect light. That ability does not depend on the existence of the sun. It *does* depend on the existence of light. And, if light is available from some other source, it will also be reflected.
The efficacy of the sun is only in its ability to form light. it does so through nuclear reactions. Those nuclear reactions are possible because of the temperatures and pressures at the core. That, in turn, is due to the mass of the sun and its gravity. That, in turn is produced from the gas cloud from which the sun formed.
it is the light that is the causal agent of the illumination.
In the case of the John's, John transfers DNA to the egg from which John II is developed. That DNA then multiplies and is transferred to the egg from which John III is developed. Unless that DNA is transferred, John II and John III don't even come into existence.
Again, I fail to see a meaningful difference: which one requires an uncaused cause? Which one does not?
Last edited:
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
What do you want me to learn?
I realise that that modern Math/Science speaks about an 'infinity' which is not absolute. It is a concept. It can be mathematically manipulated.
..but I have yet to see what it actually means in reality.
What does an 'infinite quantity which can be increased" represent in the terms of a physical volume, for example?
Yes. And just like other mathematical concepts, t can be used to help us understand the world around us.
And I have told you that repeatedly.
Not that it can be 'increased': that it can 'expand'. Do you see the difference?
To *be* an infinite volume *means* that it has a volume more than any finite volume. That is the definition of the phrase 'infinite volume'.
To say that a volume 'expands' means that the distances between things in that volume increase.
For *finite* volumes, if the volume expands, the measure of the volume gets larger. But the larger volume is still finite. If the volume contracts, the distances between the points gets smaller and the measure of the volume gets smaller and is still finite.
BUT, if the volume expands (the distances between the points increases) and the volume is initially infinite (more than any finite amount), then the resulting volume will also be infinite (more than any finite amount). if the volume acts (distances between the points decreases), then the measure of the volume will still be infinite after (i.e, larger than any finite amount).
Is this clear?
Until this post is clear, limit yourself to questions about this post, please. From that, we can expand to other things. Don't (yet) worry about multiplying infinity by 5. We will get to that. But does what I wrote about make sense? Do you have any questions about it?
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Either the volume increases or it remains the same .. which is it?
Yes, and that is an abstract concept. One needs to explain it's precise meaning.
In physical terms, how can a quantity be larger than any particular quantity, but still be increased?
I wouldn't say that it means that, but is a consequence of the volume increasing.
Certainly.
The volume is larger than any finite volume in both cases. It does not have a numerical value, though.
By having the distance between the points increase.
Nope, precisely the opposite. To expand means the distances increase. For *finite* volumes, that means the numerical value of the volume increases.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Of course it doesn't, because you don't know what it is
Can you tell me how this "unknown numerical value" can exist in this physical reality?
Now, if you are suggesting the quantity is "without limit", that suggests an infinite volume which can't increase.
I quite understand that you have been taught that it does, yet you can't explain exactly what it is .. because it doesn't in reality exist. It is merely a concept.
A concept that has no observable proof of existence.
You are tallking nonsense man
According to inflation theory, during the inflationary epoch about 10^−32 of a second after the Big Bang, the universe suddenly expanded, and its volume increased by a factor of at least 10^78 (an expansion of distance by a factor of at least 10^26 in each of the three dimensions).
Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia
I'm alright with the above .. but this:
Even if the overall spatial extent is infinite and thus the universe cannot get any "larger", we still say that space is expanding because, locally, the characteristic distance between objects is increasing. As an infinite space grows, it remains infinite.
Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia
No. That is boulderdash to me.
What does 'locally' mean in this context? There can be heavenly bodies throughout the whole universe. The whole metric is expanding.
"As an infinite space grows, it remains infinite", although it can't get any larger, is contradictory.
Of course it doesn't, because you don't know what it is
Can you tell me how this "unknown numerical value" can exist in this physical reality?
No, it is NOT an 'unknown value'. It simply is not any finite value.
Do you understand the difference? We are talking about *all* of space and whether that entirety is finite or not.
Also, weren't you the one claiming that time *must* be infinite into the past?
But it *can* expand, right? The distances between points can increase?
And can you prove that claim?
That remains to be seen. If the universe is negatively curved, that would be very good evidence for infinite space.
You are tallking nonsense man
According to inflation theory, during the inflationary epoch about 10^−32 of a second after the Big Bang, the universe suddenly expanded, and its volume increased by a factor of at least 10^78 (an expansion of distance by a factor of at least 10^26 in each of the three dimensions).
Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia
I'm alright with the above .. but this:
Even if the overall spatial extent is infinite and thus the universe cannot get any "larger", we still say that space is expanding because, locally, the characteristic distance between objects is increasing. As an infinite space grows, it remains infinite.
Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia
No. That is boulderdash to me.
Read it with what I wrote about in mind.
Locally means 'close by' (admittedly on a cosmic scale---say a few hundred million light years).
No, it is not. As I explained above, if it is larger than every finite volume and expands, it is still larger than every finite volume.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
..and the emperors clothes are magnificent.
Two swindlers arrive at the capital city of an emperor who spends lavishly on clothing at the expense of state matters. Posing as weavers, they offer to supply him with magnificent clothes that are invisible to those who are stupid or incompetent.
The emperor hires them, and they set up looms and go to work. A succession of officials, and then the emperor himself, visit them to check their progress. Each sees that the looms are empty but pretends otherwise to avoid being thought a fool. Finally, the weavers report that the emperor's suit is finished.
They mime dressing him and he sets off in a procession before the whole city. The townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretense, not wanting to appear inept or stupid, until a child blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all. The people then realize that everyone has been fooled. Although startled, the emperor continues the procession, walking more proudly than ever.
Well, if you aren't interested in understanding, why do you continue to ask questions?
Yes, I know the story of the emperor's new clothes. Who doesn't?
The problem is that it is classical theology/philosophy that is naked and doesn't like it when that is pointed out.
We, like the child in the story, have learned a few things. But there are still many clinging to their nakedness.
ppp
Well-Known Member
#1 is not true. I don't claim that it is false, but it is certainly not true. Unless, of course, you have a way to demonstrate that it is true?
#2 is not true. We don't know if the universe has a beginning. We have no idea what happened in or before the Planck time. Or even if there was a "before" that epoch.
Therefore, while that argument is valid in structure, it is not sound.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
In this case, I Ihink not.
You just keep saying that 'infinite' means that it is not finite, and fail to explain what else it could be?
You suggest that it is possible for a quantity to be 'not finite', but nevertheless be capable of increasing.
I'm yet to be convinced.
Just because there are concepts of infinite sets being defined axiomatically, it does not mean they can exist in physical reality.
Well, infinite. That is the other option.
Why do you think everything *must* be finite?
OK, think of a line with no beginning and no end. What is its length? It isn't a FINITE length. So we say it has an infinite length.
As to whether or not it exists in reality: we do not know. Current evidence is ambiguous. But we certainly *could* have evidence one way or the other.
For example, if we measure the curvature and it is positive, that is good evidence for a finite volume to the universe. If the curvature is negative, then that is good evidence for an infinite volume.
In either case, it makes sense for the universe to be expanding: galaxies are moving away from each other. And that is an observation that *has* been made and is established.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I'm not saying that.
That is a clear case of an absolute infinite length. It cannot be increased.
Again, I have no issue with that. It cannot be increased.
Yes .. we do have evidence that the universe is expanding.
It is just that I find that it is not coherent to have an expanding volume that is infinite. It is a contradiction.
To suggest that the distance between galaxies are moving away from each other, and the volume correspondingly increases contradicts the notion of the behaviour of a non-finite quantity.
That is, "as an infinite space grows, it remains infinite" is a paradoxical concept. Something that cannot be increased, cannot grow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, your suggestion that it is only the distance between galaxies that is increasing, and the volume of space is constant is in question. It is understood that it is the metric of spacetime itself that increases.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
How in the world could that "Not be true"? Its impossible.
The premise is a true premise. Read it carefully. Then please give your reason why its not true.
ppp
Well-Known Member
I have read it. And am very familiar with the Kalam, of which this is a variation.
What have you seen begin to exist? I would wager nothing, but I could be wrong. Tell me.