The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[viole]

Adagio? (I saw that movie, about a horse I think). They were simply examples of where theories have been preferred to thousand year old certainties since the secular dominance of science. You will have to excuse the appearance of what is to me a exhaustive and well grounded certainty that secularism is always accompanied by moral decline and the negation of truth. The examples are irrelevant as secularism increases traditional truths recede (and without sufficient justification or any justification at all). You can call it a conspiracy (I wouldn't) or the natural result of separation for the source of truth or whatever you will but the result is undeniable.

Well, I don't see how that is related to the nature of spacetime. Incidentally, I come from a very secular country. We do not seem to experience any inconvenience because of that.

You could but you would be wrong. Christians more than any other similar group has contributed more to science. Not only the enlightenment but science it's self relies upon the proposition of a rational universe that is only expected if God exists. However I think we are getting off topic.

We are.

That is like saying a ruler is good for measuring feet but not seconds. A deficiency is only a deficiency if there is a failure where success was expected. Newton knew little of the world of electrons he did not know there was a place where his physics was not applicable. That is not failure. There is precious little of what Newton did that has been supplanted by modern science. Modern science has accounted (partially) for other areas that Newton was ignorant of. His theory of time is however still far more justified than any other and is by far the most dominant model. BTW I am only referring to the tenseness of time not some vagary associated with his view I am ignorant of.

It was justified at that time. It is not today, because it can be easily shown to be wrong.

The A-theory is simply untenable today. Fact, sorry.

Did you invent a conspiracy to counter the conspiracy I never mentioned. Conspiracy's require intent. I think modern scientists are involuntarily wrong not plotting.

1. Science has become a huge industry. Money and our love of it have corrupted it accordingly.
2. It has become a intolerant world where little patience is extended to anything inconsistent with it.
3. Tenure, getting published, and peer review will always produce as much or more corruption than they prevent. It is human weakness and it cannot be systematized away.
4. In modern culture scientists are the rock stars and headlines and TV spots have cost integrity.

Anyway no conspiracy just the same human frailty present in any system given time. I also believe that theological preference get sin the way and can supply quotes that prove it but that is not what I have been trying to discuss.

Partially tue. Nevertheless, not applicable to relativity, given its evidential status, which seems to be independent from the metaphysical beliefs of its discoverer and the ones testing it.

There would have been little basis on which to establish relativity 100 years ago and no need to believe it even if proven to be true later. Skepticism of even true things can be justified given a lack of data. Because one theory might be true does not suggest that all theories have equal merit. By far most physicists in history have held a tensed time view. I would think many if not most do today but have no idea how to get that data.

If I were born two hundred years ago, I would only contemplate a tensed theory of time, obviously. But now, it is simply untenable. Like most things we know today that would have been unconceivable in the past.

You said manifolds did not begin to exist and I said they did. I do not know how to make it any simpler. Even if you (for some unknown reasons equate seconds with feet) somewhere or "sometime" manifolds first came into being.

Nope, if tenseless theory is correct, as it seems.

The north pole is and has been physically explained by a thousand factors. It most certainly requires an explanation of it's existence as a reality but less so as concept.

Manifolds are irrelevant. I am talking about nature not pictures used to represent it.

The north pole on a sphere requires an explanation? What about the other points?

In any realistic theory the point requires an explanation.

Selah,

Not really if the surface is eternal and, by definition, trascending space and time. And this is what the block universe is. A static 4 dimensional continuum that simply is.

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

However it is not a permanent quality. I can lack existence. However my claim was about what it isn't not exactly what it is. It is not an entity but a quality.

The "Being" is the entity part and being entails existing. Being existence is a bit different even though I grant that being means existing. Nothing can "be existence" but the source of all existence, everything else is being or existing within existence.

 

[viole]

Unless Christ return we will not only try but utterly fail.

Cause and effect were around a long time before Islam. Are you merely talking about the words I used in their order or something? Causation goes back to before the Greeks.

Sorry, but who cares how long it has been around? Astrology has been around a long time too.

You did not use physics. You simply used declaration. You did not even hint under what conditions the second premise was false.

Simple. The Universe did not necessarily begin to exist, if tenseless theory is correct.

Necessary as in modal being or required?

Necessary as following logically fronm the premises.

My analogies were agreed to (in fact originated individually) by four others with degrees in relevant fields in my lab. I can certainly be mistaken but have yet to see any evidence I am.

Good. Then show to me, in simple words, how you resolve the experimentally inconsistencies of the tensed view of time. Or, alternatively, the logical inconsistencies of the tenseless one.

You said manifolds are eternal. Manifolds are models and are finite in existence.

Spacetime can be seen as a manifold, yes. And by definition, it is eternal. After all, traditional space can be seen as a manifold too. That does not make it any less real althought it does not need to be eternal. Spacetime does.

I think almost everyone assumes it is true but that was not the basis for my arguing it is. I am not qualified to say that the tens less view is impossible but have no justification for thinking it is equally plausible.

You should. Since the tensed theory does not support the evidence.

I have never heard of the relativity fact. I assume it contains much that is fact but it is very young and theories always change.

Hope springs eternal. Althought it is more likely to be proven wrong before Jesus returns than the other way round.

Stating your confusing lesson of a model with natural entities was so devastating I did not see any need to expand. I could grant your premises (thought I would almost choke) and still couldn't get to your conclusions. That was the unanimous unsolicited opinion of everyone I showed your post to and one specialized in the field and the rest had relevant degrees.
Does not make you wrong but does make my position more than justified.

Not really, since you cannot offer any justification for a tensed theory that explains away the experimental inconsistencies.

Not very original. I have come to regard much of philosophy as far more reliable than much of theoretical science and to contain far more integrity. You can disagree but that is not very persuasive.

No doubt. Althought it is puzzling that you consider relativity the bleeding edge of speculative science.

Specifically what view did the links validate? The links I saw were a little general.

Mooi loop

What specificity do you need?

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

No matter how you define it nature requires a cause.

Existence doesn't need a cause or so does any existing God.

 

[idav]

As an abstract essence used for classification. You cannot draw a picture of existence. It is an abstract label for an eternity of being.

Existing doesn't necessarily entail being. Being doesn't happen till time gets involved, its an action word, existing requires no action.

 

[1robin]

Existence doesn't need a cause or so does any existing God.

Then maybe you can list all the things that exist that do not have causes.

 

[1robin]

Existing doesn't necessarily entail being. Being doesn't happen till time gets involved, its an action word, existing requires no action.

Being is not dependent on time but time is dependent on being. Time does not exist except in relation to something else but at least theoretically things can have being without the existence of time. However I do not see how any of this is relevant. It gets you no where nearer to getting something from the absence of anything.

 

[idav]

It gets you no where nearer to getting something from the absence of anything.

I would never try to do that.

 

[idav]

Then maybe you can list all the things that exist that do not have causes.

Everything is without cause. When you drive it down to the nitty gritty, whatever is in existence without cause is what is responsible for everything else. Just like if evil exists its cause of god, everything would be cause of the source yet the source should/would be without cause. Nothing we know of evidence suggests we need an external cause that has no cause, it is within, otherwise your just grasping at straws.

 

[Willamena]

No matter how you define it nature requires a cause.

We require; nature, not so much.

 

[1robin]

Everything is without cause. When you drive it down to the nitty gritty, whatever is in existence without cause is what is responsible for everything else. Just like if evil exists its cause of god, everything would be cause of the source yet the source should/would be without cause. Nothing we know of evidence suggests we need an external cause that has no cause, it is within, otherwise your just grasping at straws.

Nothing is without a cause. In fact everything ever observed has a cause. It's only that we eventually run out of natural causes, not the need of a cause, eventually. That is why only the supernatural is an ultimate explanation of everything and anything. You are right to suggest that infinite regression of causation is impossible at that eventually you must arrive at an uncaused first cause, only we run out of nature before that point so we must grant something beyond nature to ultimately account for everything else. Without examining the logic behind your derivation you have painted yourself into a corner. You must either deny God or the existence of evil which are equally unjustifiable. God cannot be the source of evil and not exist. Keep in mind I am no granting your deduction just holding you to your logic. There is ultimately nothing within. No matter how you slice up reality from the macro to the micro whatever you have does not contain the explanation of it's self. Not a single solitary observation ever made of any thing justifies your last claim. Your not even attempting to grasp at a straw. Your just making declarations which have no known example anywhere. Not even the potential for any.

 

[1robin]

We require; nature, not so much.

So if we discover anything that seems to be true of the external reality of the universe, even if true in every observation ever made, it is irrelevant. Guess I wasted a lot of my money at the university, need a good bookstore for these textbooks I guess since science, philosophy, and reason no longer are relevant.

 

[idav]

Nothing is without a cause. In fact everything ever observed has a cause. It's only that we eventually run out of natural causes, not the need of a cause, eventually. That is why only the supernatural is an ultimate explanation of everything and anything. You are right to suggest that infinite regression of causation is impossible at that eventually you must arrive at an uncaused first cause, only we run out of nature before that point so we must grant something beyond nature to ultimately account for everything else. Without examining the logic behind your derivation you have painted yourself into a corner. You must either deny God or the existence of evil which are equally unjustifiable. God cannot be the source of evil and not exist. Keep in mind I am no granting your deduction just holding you to your logic. There is ultimately nothing within. No matter how you slice up reality from the macro to the micro whatever you have does not contain the explanation of it's self. Not a single solitary observation ever made of any thing justifies your last claim. Your not even attempting to grasp at a straw. Your just making declarations which have no known example anywhere. Not even the potential for any.

Actually because of general reality, nature shows us that it has an eternal aspect to it, and it is detectable and testable. We don't know much about nature beyond that point but that doesn't mean its magic. Your right that we run out of causes but we don't run out of nature, we simply don't know what existence is capable of in that state we call the singularity, only cause the physics is way different. It is still physics and it is still nature and existence, potentially a state where uncaused things are a non-issue, except not to us because we are stubborn like that.

 

[1robin]

Actually because of general reality, nature shows us that it has an eternal aspect to it, and it is detectable and testable. We don't know much about nature beyond that point but that doesn't mean its magic. Your right that we run out of causes but we don't run out of nature, we simply don't know what existence is capable of in that state we call the singularity, only cause the physics is way different. It is still physics and it is still nature and existence, potentially a state where uncaused things are a non-issue, except not to us because we are stubborn like that.

I had relativity (as opposed to reality) theory in college. I never ever heard it used to justify an eternal natural anything. It mainly deals with the perception of time from an observers position. Even then it is only the observation of a slowing or speeding up and not a eternal reality that is posited. You cannot by necessity test eternity. How do you verify infinity? The universe is defined as everything natural known or unknown. Someone very familiar with both relativity and the author of one of the most modern and accepted models in cosmology said:

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” Not some, not everything but relativity, but everything including relativity. To make an even more emphatic point he went on to claim with justification that most other possible models of an eternal universe were not unlikely but impossible. Then he added:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. - See more at: Craig on Vilenkin on Cosmic Origins

You may produce other scholars that disagree but you will not find any better and what is more relevant is that you will not find a more robust or evidence based model in cosmology. Any opposing model will be based on almost complete speculation. BGVT is not.

 

[idav]

I had relativity (as opposed to reality) theory in college. I never ever heard it used to justify an eternal natural anything. It mainly deals with the perception of time from an observers position. Even then it is only the observation of a slowing or speeding up and not a eternal reality that is posited. You cannot by necessity test eternity. How do you verify infinity? The universe is defined as everything natural known or unknown. Someone very familiar with both relativity and the author of one of the most modern and accepted models in cosmology said:

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” Not some, not everything but relativity, but everything including relativity. To make an even more emphatic point he went on to claim with justification that most other possible models of an eternal universe were not unlikely but impossible. Then he added:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. - See more at: Craig on Vilenkin on Cosmic Origins

You may produce other scholars that disagree but you will not find any better and what is more relevant is that you will not find a more robust or evidence based model in cosmology. Any opposing model will be based on almost complete speculation. BGVT is not.

What cosmologists are saying is that time has a beginning which doesn't have a lot to do with existence itself having a beginning. Relativity shows that in gravity states like black holes and going the speed of light time is no longer a factor, that could stand still in theory. I am sure you have heard speculation of black holes and such but when we are talking about the state of the singularity time goes right out the window as that is what general relativity shows. Physics breaks down as they say. We can see that timeless states are part of natural existence.

 

[Willamena]

So if we discover anything that seems to be true of the external reality of the universe, even if true in every observation ever made, it is irrelevant. Guess I wasted a lot of my money at the university, need a good bookstore for these textbooks I guess since science, philosophy, and reason no longer are relevant.

I don't believe that.

 

[idav]

Here is something from wiki, I am not making this stuff up.

A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter.
Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However I am not familiar with what exactly happens at or beyond the event horizon, how time or space are even involved at that point, but has little to do with time in our universe.

 

[Willamena]

It is no more of a concrete object than length or duration. It is a tool used to qualify the essence of a thing.

It's used as a concrete property, yes, but incorrectly in my opinion. It's actually used to disqualify some things from a "plane" or realm where "things" reside, and paint an unrealistic picture of a fixed reality.

 

[Mycroft]

Other games in town which have no known occurrence .

Please provide an example, that we can observe and interact with, of God creating something.

 

[Thief]

I don't see we are getting anywhere.

God either exists or doesn't.

If not, then all of this is a complex accident.
Man has no purpose.
A mystery with no resolution.

If Spirit first....the all of this is God's creation.
And Man is that item that will produce a unique spirit on occasion of each life.

If Spirit first then God is the Creator.

Kinda hard to call God....nothing.

To do so goes back to the notion of a complex accident.
Substance that forms without cause?
Something sets itself into motion?
That would fly in the face of laws of motion.

Spirit first.