Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[KBC1963]

Do you possess the required evidence that allows you to posit God as a possibility? Ciao - viole

There is no more evidence by scientific method for a specifiable god than there is for an infinite regress of cause. That was the point. Now when you do experience something in our reality (that is repeatable by the scientific method) that could provide a referential understanding of perpetuity that you could then convey to others then you could take it down a path of logical rationale.

 

[KBC1963]

So you have a cause and then an effect and then a cause and then an effect as links in a chain... but then the second cause would have been caused by an effect and not a cause... how does that work?

LOL. In the infinite regression concept that has come from the imagination of man all supposed causes are also effects.
In our experience a lesser cause can be an effect from a previously greater cause but, it can't cause an effect equal to that which caused it to begin with. It's a descending order of potential with the logical conclusion of a final effect. Cosmic background radiation is considered a final effect. Heat death of the universe is considered the logical conclusion or final effect of the big bang which leaves the infinite regression concept people in a corner for how the energy which initiated the chain of causality from a point in space which is now spread out over a vast distance could ever gather itself back together to become the same point of potential that it began as.
The only logical rationale of causation that makes any sense based on what we observe is that there is ultimately an uncaused cause that begins the chain of causality.

 

[viole]

There is no more evidence by scientific method for a specifiable god than there is for an infinite regress of cause. That was the point. Now when you do experience something in our reality (that is repeatable by the scientific method) that could provide a referential understanding of perpetuity that you could then convey to others then you could take it down a path of logical rationale.

Therefore, you agree that it should be impossible to posit a God as possible, too. Correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

The only logical rationale of causation that makes any sense based on what we observe is that there is ultimately an uncaused cause that begins the chain of causality.

So when we start to look at the chain from now and look back we can count effect, cause, effect, cause, effect, cause and then suddenly we will come across a god or a designer or whatever who wasn't caused? Then what exactly is the reason for the existence of this god or designer or whatever if nothing caused him?

 

[KBC1963]

Therefore, you agree that it should be impossible to posit a God as possible, too. Correct? Ciao - viole

It would be impossible to posit a 'specific' god as possible in the absence of evidence to back a specification. However, I do not agree that it is "impossible to posit a god as possible" since it can be rationalize that the necessary uncaused cause required for the explanation of the observable reality we experience could be considered to possess the potential that has been typically ascribed to our concept of gods in general thus, allowing for the concept of a god (being the uncaused cause) to be asserted as a logical possibility.
One of the logic based arguments that I observed for this line of thought was that it appears that the initial cause of our reality is not currently acting or causing anything we can observe and link to so, it could be rationalized to have the potential to choose when it will act which essentially invokes the possibility of an intelligent cause in line with current and historic god concepts that inferred that they were intelligent agents with the potential to cause an effect and the ability of choice to act.
This is why I pointed out that it is important to have some experience that could form a basis for logical reasoning. We experience daily how intelligent agents are causal and can choose to act or choose not to. The observable evidence in our reality is that a cause we have not experienced directly began a line of causation that we have come to observe and we are trying to form logical rationales for specifics to describe this cause. As for calling the cause god, we can all form different naming conventions for what we call this necessary uncaused cause but in the end you cannot assert anything about it beyond what can be logically rationalized based on experience and so far we can only rationalize 2 things;
1) an uncaused cause acted at some point in historic time and space.
2) the uncaused cause is not currently acting.

That is all we have to work with so whatever logical rationale you would like to propose must explain the evidence and right now an intelligent cause certainly could explain the evidence and If you want to name it god then that is your right by freedom of choice, if you want to call it something else then that also is within your right. In the end we are ascribing whatever you call it with the ability to be causal and to act in a non-continuous manner.

 

[viole]

It would be impossible to posit a 'specific' god as possible in the absence of evidence to back a specification. However, I do not agree that it is "impossible to posit a god as possible" since it can be rationalize that the necessary uncaused cause required for the explanation of the observable reality we experience could be considered to possess the potential that has been typically ascribed to our concept of gods in general thus, allowing for the concept of a god (being the uncaused cause) to be asserted as a logical possibility.
One of the logic based arguments that I observed for this line of thought was that it appears that the initial cause of our reality is not currently acting or causing anything we can observe and link to so, it could be rationalized to have the potential to choose when it will act which essentially invokes the possibility of an intelligent cause in line with current and historic god concepts that inferred that they were intelligent agents with the potential to cause an effect and the ability of choice to act.
This is why I pointed out that it is important to have some experience that could form a basis for logical reasoning. We experience daily how intelligent agents are causal and can choose to act or choose not to. The observable evidence in our reality is that a cause we have not experienced directly began a line of causation that we have come to observe and we are trying to form logical rationales for specifics to describe this cause. As for calling the cause god, we can all form different naming conventions for what we call this necessary uncaused cause but in the end you cannot assert anything about it beyond what can be logically rationalized based on experience and so far we can only rationalize 2 things;
1) an uncaused cause acted at some point in historic time and space.
2) the uncaused cause is not currently acting.

That is all we have to work with so whatever logical rationale you would like to propose must explain the evidence and right now an intelligent cause certainly could explain the evidence and If you want to name it god then that is your right by freedom of choice, if you want to call it something else then that also is within your right. In the end we are ascribing whatever you call it with the ability to be causal and to act in a non-continuous manner.

The necessary uncaused cause? How did you come to the conclusion that there is a necessary uncaused cause?

Because of the infinite regress thing? Why?

Ciao

- viole

 

[KBC1963]

So when we start to look at the chain from now and look back we can count effect, cause, effect, cause, effect, cause and then suddenly we will come across a god or a designer or whatever who wasn't caused? Then what exactly is the reason for the existence of this god or designer or whatever if nothing caused him?

The real question that you need to ask before you ask the one you have currently posed is "Must there always be a cause for every cause". Even the alternative concept that proposes infinite regress would still be subject to the same question "what is the reason for the existence of this infinite regress if it had no initial cause" so no matter what concept you would consider you will always be left with your question standing without a rationale answer. From a scientific perspective we can only logically rationalize and extrapolate based on the foundations of experience and so far we have no experience that allows for the consideration of an infinite regression of cause.

 

[KBC1963]

The necessary uncaused cause? How did you come to the conclusion that there is a necessary uncaused cause? Because of the infinite regress thing? Why? Ciao - viole

If you can't logically rationalize an infinitely regressing causation then what do you have left as a rational possibility? I would have thought this would be simple deductive reasoning for a mind such as yours.

 

[viole]

If you can't logically rationalize an infinitely regressing causation then what do you have left as a rational possibility? I would have thought this would be simple deductive reasoning for a mind such as yours.

I would appreciated if you restrain from condescending arguments like " I would have thought that were easy for a mind like yours". They are also self defeating, if you think about it. They just tell me that I am winning and that a mind like yours is running out of arguments.

I can easily rationalize an infinitely regressing causation. Even one that takes finite time; it takes very basic calculus to do that.

What is the problem with it? You say it is impossible because we have no evidence of that, and then you say that because it is impossible then there can only be finite causation chains that make it possible to posit the existence of something that has even less evidence.

I could use your lack of evidence argument to state that a God cannot possibly exist. And if infinite regress is equally impossible, then the first uncaused cause cannot come from a God., unless you use special pleading in your criteria to rule things out. For, if you accept the possibility of God, why do you not accept the possibility of infinite regress, since both seem to be excluded by your evidential criteria?

On a related note. i do not have any evidence that aliens exist, either. But it would be ridicolous to conclude that because of that I cannot posit their existence as possible.

Let's cut through the chase. Suppose that I tell you that the universe could be the result of an infinite regress, how would you counter this?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

whatever logical rationale you would like to propose must explain the evidence and right now an intelligent cause certainly could explain the evidence

So what you are saying is that "an intelligent cause" could explain the existence of the universe but you can't explain the existence of this "intelligent cause"? Can you find "him" so we can ask "him" why "he" exists in the first place?

 

[ArtieE]

Let's cut through the chase. Suppose that I tell you that the universe could be the result of an infinite regress, how would you counter this?

Ciao

- viole

If you imagine this chain of cause and effect as a metal chain stretching from your feet now and back and you start to walk back along it is there any logical or rational reason why the chain would have to stop at some point and there was no more chain to follow?

 

[KBC1963]

I can easily rationalize an infinitely regressing causation. Even one that takes finite time; it takes very basic calculus to do that.

Based on what exactly?

What is the problem with it? You say it is impossible because we have no evidence of that, and then you say that because it is impossible then there can only be finite causation chains that make it possible to posit the existence of something that has even less evidence.

The problem as I have stated numerous times now is that you have no basis in your experience for founding a rationale. If you disagree then define exactly what in our existence would allow for the assertion of an infinite regression of cause. Pretty plain.... pretty simple.
And again we can only posit finite chains because of our EXPERIENCE.... you do understand what is meant by experience right? The scientific method allows for rationales that have a basis in what we can EXPERIENCE. So if in our EXPERIENCE we can observe and test how causal chains function then you can form logical extrapolation based on that foundational EXPERIENCE for that which is not immediately observable. So, as I pointed out to you just above you need to show what exactly in our EXPERIENCE you can found a logic based argument for infinite regression of causality.

I could use your lack of evidence argument to state that a God cannot possibly exist. And if infinite regress is equally impossible, then the first uncaused cause cannot come from a God., unless you use special pleading in your criteria to rule things out. For, if you accept the possibility of God, why do you not accept the possibility of infinite regress, since both seem to be excluded by your evidential criteria?.

You could use it if I had no foundation to extrapolate with or you could attempt to infer that I was asserting a specific god but of course I have defined the foundational EXPERIENCES that allow for the logic of an uncaused cause and I have also pointed out that I would not posit a specifiable god, so, you are left right where you began with no evidence for your concept and an illogical attempt to assert equivalence for the mutually exclusive concepts.

On a related note. i do not have any evidence that aliens exist, either. But it would be ridicolous to conclude that because of that I cannot posit their existence as possible.

Why can't you posit their existence as possible? The current concept of aliens asserts that they are intelligent right? this would fall within the extrapolation of a cause that could choose to act. For all we know god and aliens could be the same thing since we do not possess any specifics for their existence. In its essence any assertion for a god or aliens or whatever your mind can imagine is simply an inference to a cause that did not originate from this earth and has causal powers that it can choose to use or not. You can only cross the line of logic when you try to specify anything about it that is beyond what can be extrapolated from the evidence based on our experience.

Let's cut through the chase. Suppose that I tell you that the universe could be the result of an infinite regress, how would you counter this? Ciao - viole

I see you still don't get my point even after explaining it a number of times. So here is my answer to your assertion; BASED ON WHAT EXACTLY?

It's interesting to observe how much an intelligent agent will look past the obvious and plain explanations to attempt to force a concept to be viable even when every evidence from mans experience is staring you in the face and saying this is not how our reality works.

 

[KBC1963]

If you imagine this chain of cause and effect as a metal chain stretching from your feet now and back and you start to walk back along it is there any logical or rational reason why the chain would have to stop at some point and there was no more chain to follow?

If the metal chain as you envision it ends just a short distance ahead of you then you have a rational and logical basis for the assumption that it does not stretch infinitely back nor could it be considered infinite in any sense if you can see an end at any point along its path. We observe the evidence that all matter / energy is moving away from a starting point that means there was logically a beginning and we observe that there is cosmological background radiation which is the ultimate end for energy in this reality so, we can see an end and we can logically rationalize a beginning based on observable evidence so what observable evidence do you possess that would allow for a different possibility?

 

[ArtieE]

If the metal chain as you envision it ends just a short distance ahead of you then you have a rational and logical basis for the assumption that it does not stretch infinitely back nor could it be considered infinite in any sense if you can see an end at any point along its path. We observe the evidence that all matter / energy is moving away from a starting point that means there was logically a beginning

No, it just means there was a beginning of this universe. Our universe could for example have been born inside a black hole in another earlier universe and we can follow the metal chain through the event horizon.

"The so-called arrow of time, in which time flows in one direction but not another, is a fundamental aspect of our experience. This isn't accounted for at all by physics, as all of its laws are apparently time-symmetric in that they work just as well whether time flows forwards or backwards. However, the passage of matter through the event horizon would provide a time asymmetry in the new universe, giving it a forward arrow to time. In that way, time itself is a gift of our mother universe on the other side of the black hole."
http://io9.com/5586017/was-our-universe-born-inside-a-black-hole-in-another-universe
https://www.insidescience.org/content/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe/566

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No, it just means there was a beginning of this universe. Our universe could for example have been born inside a black hole in another earlier universe and we can follow the metal chain through the event horizon.

Yes, there are many exciting possibilities. Our universe is a very weird and very wonderful place, and "God did it" probably just isn't weird or wonderful enough to be credible.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, there are many exciting possibilities. Our universe is a very weird and very wonderful place, and "God did it" probably just isn't weird or wonderful enough to be credible.

Not when there are more rational and logical and scientific explanations available with a lot more explanatory power.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Not when there are more rational and logical and scientific explanations available with a lot more explanatory power.

And some fun ones too:

 

[KBC1963]

No, it just means there was a beginning of this universe. Our universe could for example have been born inside a black hole in another earlier universe and we can follow the metal chain through the event horizon.
"The so-called arrow of time, in which time flows in one direction but not another, is a fundamental aspect of our experience. This isn't accounted for at all by physics, as all of its laws are apparently time-symmetric in that they work just as well whether time flows forwards or backwards. However, the passage of matter through the event horizon would provide a time asymmetry in the new universe, giving it a forward arrow to time. In that way, time itself is a gift of our mother universe on the other side of the black hole."
http://io9.com/5586017/was-our-universe-born-inside-a-black-hole-in-another-universe
https://www.insidescience.org/content/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe/566

What is mans experience with other universes? can you by scientific method test this concept of the imagination?
all you are doing here is asserting the currently hypothetical (and still untested) to be capable of eventually explaining what we observe in our experience which in no way actually explains or provides evidence for anything in the here and now but, if your imagination allows for evidence of possibility to exist within an untested concept then you have all the evidence you need to believe in whatever you want to be true. Who am I to oppose the imaginary.

Of course it should also be noted here that your references have their detractors.

https://indico.cern.ch/event/211539...ents/331637/462686/Crothers-Protvino-2013.pdf

The history of general relativity is such that
the torsion tensor was not known in the era leading to the EH equation of
1915. When the torsion form and tensor were inferred by Cartan in 1922 the
EH equation remained as it was in 1915. So all claims to the existence of
Big Bang, black holes and dark matter are based on an internally incorrect
geometry and are therefore unscientific. There are many other criticisms [12]
of conventional general relativity which must be addressed if progress is to be
made. These criticisms have been made by many leading scientists [12] and
ECE is a suggestion for progress.
http://aias.us/documents/uft/paper103.pdf

 

[ArtieE]

Of course it should also be noted here that your references have their detractors.

Of course they have! Interesting articles. But we all know that scientists have different opinions. I would be very interested in any articles of this quality supporting your theory of "intelligent design". The first thing I see in Google when I put in "intelligent design" is "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Could you point me to some papers by reputable scientists providing argumentation and evidence for the existence of this intelligent designer?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Your were not asked to show me how a cause has the ability to make an effect.

You didn't ask me anything, but posed this issue to another. I offered my response to what you wrote (not that the member you addressed couldn't have done so at least as well). You made certain statements in an open debate forum, I responded, and you took one tiny part of my response out of context in order to apply it to a situation I never intended (as was obvious given what I responded t0>

You attempted an answer that in part inferred emergence possibly allowing that something can come from nothing.

No, I didn't, as I don't know what "inferred emergence" means. And you didn't address emergence, but provided an inaccurate description of the nature of QFT zero-point-energy/vacuum states.

So I gave you an answer to that.

I didn't ask a question. I gave you an answer, you apparently thought I referred to something I didn't, and have not responded to what I answered.