Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 169
Thanks Tree32Thanks

Thread: Simple question.

  1. #61
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,075
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    Wrong.
    Wrong because......

  2. #62
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    58,767
    Thanks
    28771

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    And the causal universe only goes back as far as the big Bang.
    Which then, itself, was caused by ... what?

  3. #63
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,075
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    All causal chains originate at the Big Bang, because that is as far back as we can "see"". We have no idea what happened before the Big Bang, or what laws of physics did, or did not exist, as we have no way of observing that. So, the Laws of Causality originate with the big Bang.
    Only physical laws originate from the big bang -- not causality itself.

    That is precisely why science does not speculate about what caused the big bang -- physical laws do not exist in a rational manner then. But physical laws are not the only tools of logical inquiry, now, is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Well? Why not? You're purporting an event that has no cause. I am just choosing a different event than you.
    Sorry, but this statement epitomizes your general lack of comprehension of what I am telling you.

    No one is saying that there is no cause. On the contrary, to say that something has no final cause (which is what your view of reality entails) is to say that something does not exist.

    I am saying that at some point, one gets to an uncaused cause, or an existence that is its own cause. Clearly, this existence is not subject to scientific inquiry, since --- you said it yourself -- science deals with phenomena whose causes can be measured.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Causality (physics)

    In physics, an effect can't occur before its cause. In the theory of relativity, causality means that an effect can not occur from a cause which is not in the back (past) light cone of that event. Similarly, a cause can not have an effect outside its front (future) light cone. In other words, as I stated, a causal universe is one in which, at a macroscopic level, ev3ents are caused by prior events, creating causal chans stretching back to the Big Bang.
    Telling me something I already understand doesn't answer the question, now, does it?

    We already know how cause is related to an effect. What I am asking you is how an a-cause (if it even exists) is related to an effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Once again, Black holes are causal events. We can even track the events that lead to the formation of black holes, so I really don't see your point. As to not following the laws of physics:




    I'm just a stupid layman, but those certainly look like physics equations for measuring, detecting, and predicting the behaviour of black holes...
    Yes, that is the equation for the schwarzchild radius.

    To your mind, what is the significance of the schwarzchild radius, hmmmm? It is the physical boundary within which the black hole has no interaction with the outside universe, is it not? To put it in your 'vocabulary', it is an 'a-causal' phenomenon, is it not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Example of what? The programming analogy was the example.
    And a computer program can be made to circumvent errors of logic.

    The analogy is that the physical laws instituted in creation is much like a computer program. This analogy is spot on. In fact, writing a computer program is one of those things man can do that closely resembles an act of creation.

  4. #64
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,075
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I chose to ignore the rest of your blathering, but this I just couldn't let go. That would make it, by definition, a rock God CAN lift. Which means he has not, in fact, created a rock he cannot lift. Even an omnipotent god is confined to being powerful enough to do only those things that are capable of being done. Even theologists concede that point It's why the question is moot to most theologists. Ask them If God can do this, they easily answer "No," and move on.
    So, its amateur night for you and your ilk then.

    The omnipotence paradox is merely a variation of russell's paradox.

    Let X be the set of all sets an entity Y cannot do.

    The paradox arises when you ask whether X is a member of itself.

    If X is a member of itself (X is a set Y cannot not do), then it isn't a member of itself (something that you cannot not do is like saying you can do it).

    If X is a not a member of itself (X is a set Y can do), then X is a member of itself (by the definition).

    The paradox works for almost anything, a barber who shaves, a liar who lies, a moron who says stupid things....and has nothing whatsoever to do with what god can or cannot do (omnipotence). The only important thing to consider is that this sort of argument accrues to a meaningless conclusion.

    In logic, this is called naive, which is apt, considering you're attempt at legitimizing this nonsense. The solution to the paradox is (which is what I have been telling you for the longest time) is form well-defined axioms.

    Oh, and btw, the theological solution to the paradox is to define the word omnipotence clearly.

  5. #65
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,075
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I'm not suggesting any such thing. I have not, and do not, presume to assert, with any certainty, how the universe came into being. I can only draw conclusions of what is, and is not possible, based on the nature of the real universe. As the real universe is causal, it is not possible for a-causal events to occur without collapsing the causal universe.
    Now you lie.

    That is exactly what you are suggesting -- that the universe has always existed and will always exist. You even provided a dubious scientific paper to this effect -- presumably to circumvent the implications of the cosmological argument. Your argument failed miserably because the 'science' you were proposing has no way of forming black holes -- which they do .
    Last edited by kingrat; 1st March 2018 at 01:11 AM.

  6. #66
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,075
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I'm actually borrowing these diagrams from someone to help illustrate my points. That being said, yeah...that's not how a causal universe works. A-causal events are simply not possible in a causal universe. And the causal universe only goes back as far as the big Bang. Even if there were something "before' the big bang, in order to be part of the causal chain an event would have to trace back through the Big Bang to that "something" in order to not disrupt the causal system. That is how a causal system works. You can't just "skip over" the chain. Skipping over the chain is exactly what makes an a-causal event an a-causal event.
    But you are ignoring the aristotlean philosophical tradition on which science is based on. What you are describing is a reality that only has efficient causes, no final cause. A thing that has no final cause is something that does not exist. Unless of course you are bending the rules of science to conform to your own ideas.

    The argument from sufficient reason is inescapable.

  7. #67
    Senior Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8,026
    Thanks
    6861

    From
    NY
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Which then, itself, was caused by ... what?
    THAT is the big question. Once we know that one, we could most likely close the conversation "Is there a god or not..".

    Problem of course is, as per our understanding time started with the big bang, we cannot at this moment even fathom how to go beyond that moment, and how to even start trying to find a - experimental verifiable - explanation of what happened before the current spacetime continuum came int existence.

    I am convinced one of the reasons that Stephen Hawking is beating all odds of modern medicine since decades, is because he just doesn't leave before he has that theory of everything. :-)

  8. #68
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,075
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    THAT is the big question. Once we know that one, we could most likely close the conversation "Is there a god or not..".
    Except we could logically infer a number of things from the simple premise of a big bang.

    1. That the cause of the big bang is an external force. If it were merely part of the universe, then the big bang violates a fundamental scientific law -- the law of inertia.

    2. That it it is the first cause and that this first cause is the cause of everything in everything, since the universe, the framework on which it is built and the laws that govern it started to exist at that point.

    3. That this first cause must be an uncaused cause. If it were, itself, caused, then it wouldn't be the first cause and a first cause would still be necessary.

  9. #69
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17702

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Only physical laws originate from the big bang -- not causality itself.
    And your evidence of this is?

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Sorry, but this statement epitomizes your general lack of comprehension of what I am telling you.

    No one is saying that there is no cause. On the contrary, to say that something has no final cause (which is what your view of reality entails) is to say that something does not exist.

    I am saying that at some point, one gets to an uncaused cause, or an existence that is its own cause. Clearly, this existence is not subject to scientific inquiry, since --- you said it yourself -- science deals with phenomena whose causes can be measured.
    So am I. I am just choosing a different uncaused cause - your words - than you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Telling me something I already understand doesn't answer the question, now, does it?

    We already know how cause is related to an effect. What I am asking you is how an a-cause (if it even exists) is related to an effect.
    It's not. that's the point. Because there is no causal chain to which an a-causal event can be connected, it breaks the causal nature of the universe, and makes it a-causal - a universe which is not de3p3endent on cause and effect. In such a universe, the laws of physics break down on a macrocosmic level, and chaos ensues.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Yes, that is the equation for the schwarzchild radius.

    To your mind, what is the significance of the schwarzchild radius, hmmmm? It is the physical boundary within which the black hole has no interaction with the outside universe, is it not? To put it in your 'vocabulary', it is an 'a-causal' phenomenon, is it not?
    No, it's not. The event itself is causal, the events leading to a black hole can even be observed, and measured. In fact, as far as we have observed, a black hole is simply the termination of a causal chain:

    A star is "born" ----> Star grows ---> Star dies ---> Star collapses into a black hole. The black hole is the termination of the chain. Now, in time, with better technology, and greater understanding, we may, one day, discover that there is a next step in the chain, but as it stands the black hole is the termination point.



    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    And a computer program can be made to circumvent errors of logic.

    The analogy is that the physical laws instituted in creation is much like a computer program. This analogy is spot on. In fact, writing a computer program is one of those things man can do that closely resembles an act of creation.
    Sure it can. Demonstrate the "programming" that allows a causal universe to overcome the "error of logic" of an a-causal event. Without that, the analogy stands. The universe is not composed in such a way to withstand a-causal events.

  10. #70
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17702

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Oh, and btw, the theological solution to the paradox is to define the word omnipotence clearly.
    Yes. Omnipotence is specifically defined as the ability to do anything that can. Be. Done. Even omnipotent beings cannot do things that logic, and the physical laws of the universe do not allow to be done. that's the point.

Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Simple question.
    By Czernobog in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 298
    Last Post: 14th July 2014, 11:09 AM
  2. Simple question #1...
    By Raoul_Duke in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 18th October 2013, 09:35 AM
  3. Simple question:
    By Czernobog in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 243
    Last Post: 19th September 2012, 01:35 AM
  4. A Simple Question On Morality
    By TortoiseDream in forum Civil Rights
    Replies: 169
    Last Post: 13th April 2010, 01:44 AM
  5. A simple question of efficiency
    By Oftencold in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 24th November 2008, 05:50 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed