How can the universe be uncaused?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-08-2012, 03:33 PM
RE: How can the universe be uncaused?
Pachy was a tool. TR, I think, just don't know how young he is.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
25-08-2012, 03:48 PM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2012 09:02 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: How can the universe be uncaused?
The fact that these questions are still being asked in this way, leads one to think, not much was comprehended, especially in Krauss. If the Big Bang was the singularity in which the universe began, then the quantum universe did not exist "eternally", and in fact the statement is meaningless, as the dimensions of spacetime came into existence at the singularity. At a singularity, (such as a black hole), time slows, and comes to a stop, the closer one gets. From Relativity, we know, in this universe, time does not exist apart from space, so asking about "eternal" without asking also "where" is an inappropriate, nonsence question. If the quantum universe was actually eternal, by definition, it requires no explanation, or cause, as there wouldn't be one, ... or the word "eternal" is not appropriately used. So, in the first example the question is meaningless. The trouble is, what people actually mean when they use the word "eternal" may not be what they mean. If they mean "endless time", then spacetime are in place already, and must be explained, (and god is not changeless, and these dimensions is required for "his" existence). If what is meant, is some hypothetical, (and as yet unproven, and unobserved), "timeless" dimension, then asking about quantum mechanics, in that dimension, is meaningless, and the question, is simply nonsensical. So the word has to be defined, before the question is asked. Apparently, the second case is also a meaningless question.

Seems those who are pre-programmed to think in fundie terms of "contingent" beings, are unable to drop that memetic, and unable to see that it is a meaningless exercise. If "contingency", (necessary causality), exists as a principle in/of the structure of this universe, there is no getting around the begged question, what put that structure into place ? The property of contingency requires causality, a priori, or god is not the creator of all things. So, it answers nothing. That means contingency/causality itself had to be caused, (or the presumed "creator" cannot be the creator of everything). If there are principles of truth, reality, and the structure of contingency, then the fact that they must exist APART from the god, and proves the god is not, and cannot, be their creator, and THAT leads only to Infinite Regression. If a god caused causality, then causality had to be in place already. If, (for this argument), the Principle of Contingency is valid in this universe, it HAD to be put there, BEFORE the cause, caused something. What is SO difficult about that ? Contingency requires an explanation. If it does not, or cannot be explained, then god is not the creator of everything.

Premise : Contingecy, (contingent and non-contingent beings) is a fundamental principle in the nature of reality.
The concept is used as a principle in Philosophy, as if Contingency, (with a capital "C"), is a property, sui generis (??) of, at least, this universe.
(Apart from the non-intuitive nature of this universe, which for the moment I will ignore), there remains the origin problem.
The use of the concept is stated, as a principle, without asking how it came to have it's place in the structure of reality.
If the nature of reality is that there are non-contingent beings, or "a" non-contingent being, then that structure, or "fabric", or "law" had to come from somewhere.
or ... if it did not, reality, including the fundamental, underlying nature of reality, was not entirely created by a creator.
So we have 4 possibilities.
a. Contingency existed before god, and god was not it's source, (thus not the creator of all things).
b. Contingency existed alongside, always concurrectly with god, which also makes god not it's creator.
c. Contingency was created by god, who already existed as a non-contingent being before contingency was created, thus existed in a non-contingent environment, as a non-contingent being. To say god was non-contingent before contingency existed, or was created, as a part of reality, is like, (actually the same as), saying god existed "before" time existed, which is meaningless, as the principle had not yet been created.
d. In creating contingency, as a princple in the structure of reality, a god could have, in creating contingency, defined itself as non-contingent. But that is a temporal concept, also and cannot happen if god is immutable, and eternal. If a god created contingency and non-contingency, and defined itself as non-contingent, it could not have always been non-contingent, and still be the creator of the principle of contigency.
Thus all four possibilities rule out the use of contingency, in a discussion of god, as it makes god subject to the Principle of Contingency.

Craig did not cook up "contingency", although he certainly used it, and popularized it. I think it qualifies as a 'meme", in Dawkin's definition. It really comes from the 5 proofs in Aquinas, (and Aristotle), whcih are quite easy to refute. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ht=aquinas

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-08-2012, 03:59 PM
RE: How can the universe be uncaused?
(25-08-2012 02:31 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  Okay, I watched all the videos that were posted and I've read up more on this issue, and I have scientific american articles written by Krauss on hand if I need to read more.

You need to read more. And re-read. These things are not understood with one reading.

Quote:I actually enjoyed the videos immensely, and they peaked piqued my interest in quantum physics/mechanics, an area I am less familiar with. The main question that arose from my watching and reading is what evidence would you give to support the claim that the quantum universe has existed eternally and is non-contigent?

None. There isn't any convincing evidence, yet. These are hypotheses.

Quote:I also briefly examined the big crunch, and one of issues that appeared to arise with that would be the enormous amount of excess radiation from an infinite amount of explosions. What say you on that? If I have confused the oscillating theory for the big crunch, I apologize and request more specific information about the big crunch.

What do you mean by 'excess radiation'?
The latest data show the expansion of our universe is accelerating and may continue to do so forever.

The point here is to explore and learn. Science does not have all the answers, but it has a method. Religion offers no method, and nothing but made-up answers.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
26-08-2012, 07:40 AM
RE: How can the universe be uncaused?
(25-08-2012 02:31 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  what evidence would you give to support the claim that quantum universe has existed eternally and is non-contigent?

Time began with the big bang, which was the start of the universe, so the universe is eternal by definition. The evidence is the evidence for the big bang. "Universe" means everything, so by definition the universe is self-contingent, which is a specific form of non-contingency.

Please tell us the videos you watched.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeff's post
26-08-2012, 07:58 AM
RE: How can the universe be uncaused?
Kay, I'm new to the forums, but I guess this would be a good place to post the first time.

While I still don't know the final answer to the question, I believe the universe was uncaused. Before the Big Bang, there was apparently, no space-time, and we don't know if causation applies to it. Additionally, we see a bunch of quantum fluctuations coming out of nothing, uncaused, so I don't see what's the problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SarcasticIndeed's post
26-08-2012, 11:51 AM
RE: How can the universe be uncaused?
(26-08-2012 07:58 AM)SarcasticIndeed Wrote:  Kay, I'm new to the forums, but I guess this would be a good place to post the first time.

While I still don't know the final answer to the question, I believe the universe was uncaused. Before the Big Bang, there was apparently, no space-time, and we don't know if causation applies to it. Additionally, we see a bunch of quantum fluctuations coming out of nothing, uncaused, so I don't see what's the problem.

Infinite Regress,
Causation,
Something from a literal nothing (or else, infinite regress)

Just to name a few.

We're sitting inside a universe when, if there's not cause, then there should be no "we" there should be no universe, matter, space-time... there should be no thing.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2012, 12:57 PM
RE: How can the universe be uncaused?
I ponder on this a lot.

For me, it's impossible for absolute nothing to exist.

Try to imagine absolute nothing, you cant do it. what do you see? black?....sorry, black is still something. emptiness? sorry still something. infinite vacuum?finite vacuum? sorry, still something.

To me the best answer is that the universe exist out of inevitability. because it has to. And thats just this universe. who knows if there are other universes with other laws of physics.

Forget Jesus. Stars died so you could live.-Lawrence Krauss

For god loved the world so much he tortured his only begotten son, gave him a 3 day nap only to wake up in ultimate awesomeness and called it a sacrifice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2012, 03:07 PM
RE: How can the universe be uncaused?
(26-08-2012 11:51 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(26-08-2012 07:58 AM)SarcasticIndeed Wrote:  Kay, I'm new to the forums, but I guess this would be a good place to post the first time.

While I still don't know the final answer to the question, I believe the universe was uncaused. Before the Big Bang, there was apparently, no space-time, and we don't know if causation applies to it. Additionally, we see a bunch of quantum fluctuations coming out of nothing, uncaused, so I don't see what's the problem.

Infinite Regress,
Causation,
Something from a literal nothing (or else, infinite regress)

Just to name a few.

We're sitting inside a universe when, if there's not cause, then there should be no "we" there should be no universe, matter, space-time... there should be no thing.


That's rather a large leap. Quantum mechanics shows that causation as you appear understand it does not necessarily apply.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
26-08-2012, 03:10 PM
RE: How can the universe be uncaused?
(26-08-2012 03:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  That's rather a large leap. Quantum mechanics shows that causation as you appear understand it does not necessarily apply.

Is there a way you can sum up your understanding of Quantum Mechanics on Causation?

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2012, 03:55 PM
RE: How can the universe be uncaused?
(26-08-2012 03:10 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(26-08-2012 03:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  That's rather a large leap. Quantum mechanics shows that causation as you appear understand it does not necessarily apply.

Is there a way you can sum up your understanding of Quantum Mechanics on Causation?

Radioactive decay and electron energy levels.

Both of these can only be understood statistically. There is no known cause for a particular electron to drop to a lower state and emit a photon, nor for any particular nuclear particle to decay and emit ionizing radiation.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: