Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Algol]

An eternal universe doesn't escape the necessity of providing sufficient cause.

If the universe has always been, then it doesn't need to have been created. That it has no beginning and has no end is a viable concept. We as finite beings can't understand this maybe because are logic isn't equal or superior to existence. Just because we can reason and survive by are logic as humans doesn't mean we can or need understand all aspects of existence. Existence may be bigger then the capacity of our minds. Even Christians claim, "we cannot know the mind of God," so maybe the same applies for the universe as well.

[Persecrates]

The "first cause" portion of the O.P. was only offered as one example of how "god did it" is a better heuristic for science than what science offers in that particular case, which is "nothing created the universe".

Still, the first cause is not necessary for an eternal universe. You fail to acknowledge that fact.
"Science" (not "mainstream science") has more to offer. I already refered you to the Electric Universe/Plasmacosmology hypotheses in other threads.

In other cases, such as Newton, I showed how the "god did it" heuristic not only didn't stop science, but informed the search for rational, universal laws, whether or not they were generated at any creation point.

I reckon we had the same discussion in the "Can knowledge stem from faith?" topic.
I demonstrated that faith cannot be a cause for knowledge. It can be concomitant at best.

The "mind of god" argument (for the investigatory heuristic) can be seen either as a prime mover or a first cause argument.

No, even the Aristotelian Prime Mover argument doesn't refer to/argue the existence of an intent/Mind.

If you wish to speak specifically about the Aristotelian Prime Mover (motion) not necessarily related to the creation of the universe please do so.

I already have, in prior posts.

Not, in this thread.

Infinite regress and "lack of human cognitive capacity to find alternatives" is not a rational explanation for the universe as we find it.

The argument I develop render the "infinite regress paradox" in the context of the creation of the universe null. You're still failing to acknowledge that.
If you have other examples where a first cause seems to be a logical necessity please present them. We'll discuss them.

The lack of human intellectual capacities is a fact. It's no appeal to ignorance fallacy as I don't use it to demonstrate anything but to try to include measure in both our demonstrations and assertions.

The prime mover is still a necessary aspect even if the universe is eternal.

Please develop.

As far as "definitive proof", that is up to the individual to decide.

So now you're a Relativist? Ok.

Unless you are going to argue that thermal entropy is somehow compensated for or reversed, the fact that there is order in the universe is pretty conclusive evidence (for many) that entropy hasn't been in effect since "forever".

There are so many wrongs with the state of astro and quantum physics today that I don't want to use concepts of, therefore, little significance.
Tell me, how can you empirically determine that a decrease in entropy has occured at a universe-level?
Change doesn't mean decrease nor increase in entropy in a given system (here the universe). A seemingly increase in entropy in a "corner of the universe" can very well be compensated by a decrease in another one.
Global entropy could stay unchanged. Therefore the very concept of entropy (at a universal-level) would make no sense.
It could only be used when and if we decide to arbitrarely study a "part"/subset/sub-system of the universe as if it was a coherent/independent one... Which is, of course, not.

If you are defining the universe as a rational acausal cause with intent and purpose, then our difference is just one of semantics. If not, then your "universe as cause" fails to account for logic, intent, purpose, and the comprehsible nature of the world.

Why are you confusing the "universe" with the (conscious) beings inhabiting it?
The universe doesn't need to have a consciousness (mind) to house (conscious) beings. If you believe so, please demonstrate it.

[Algol]

Persecrates, I take it you last post wasn't directed toward me?

[Persecrates]

Persecrates, I take it you last post wasn't directed toward me?

You're right. It's addressed to Meleagar.
I didn't quote you because I had nothing to contradict nor add to your post. I happen to globaly agree with you.

[Algol]

Cool, I'm happy you agree. Thanks. It's nice not knowing your alone in your views.

[Anthony Edgar]

Meleagar, I would sincerely be inclined to agree with you if I thought that the Big Bang was a scientific/empirical fact.
But it's not. It's an hypothesis.

That's a lie, the big bang happened for a fact(as much as it gets in science that is), the evidence for it is overwhelming ... By using string theory, scientists have actually done calculations about BEFORE the big bang and gotten sensible results.

When scientists start claiming "facts" about some theoretical event that happened billions of years ago, I know it's time to tune out. I never was a Trekkie.
String theory and sensible results ... yeah, right. We may as well be talking about propulsion methods in Flying Saucers or what angels eat for breakfast.

[Renee]

Anthony, you're quite the skeptic, aren't you.

"Science has been invented solely for the purpose to discredit faith in God. All other aspects of science therefore may be and must be duly and safely disregarded."

[Sy Borg]

Yes, how silly to imagine that the universe expanded suddenly after a threshold was reached.

It's obviously far more sensible to believe in the big man in the sky posited by ancient Iron Age peoples who assumed that viral and bacterial diseases were the work of evil spirits.

[Anthony Edgar]

Anthony, you're quite the skeptic, aren't you.

"Science has been invented solely for the purpose to discredit faith in God. All other aspects of science therefore may be and must be duly and safely disregarded."

I don't know who this quote belongs to, but I don't agree with it.

-- Updated November 21st, 2016, 1:30 am to add the following --

Yes, how silly to imagine that the universe expanded suddenly after a threshold was reached.

It's obviously far more sensible to believe in the big man in the sky posited by ancient Iron Age peoples who assumed that viral and bacterial diseases were the work of evil spirits.

How silly to imagine that humans can ascertain the origins of the universe. Inflation may be true or it may be false; we have no way of knowing, so it's nothing more than a pointless curiosity. If a theory can't be tested or falsified, does it even belong in science?

[Renee]

"Science has been invented solely for the purpose to discredit faith in God. All other aspects of science therefore may be and must be duly and safely disregarded."
I don't know who this quote belongs to, but I don't agree with it.

However, your posts seem to indicate that you do.

Case in point:

How silly to imagine that humans can ascertain the origins of the universe. Inflation may be true or it may be false; we have no way of knowing, so it's nothing more than a pointless curiosity. If a theory can't be tested or falsified, does it even belong in science?

The theory of Big Bang can be tested and falsified. You claim it can't because you have no training in physics. So far the theory stands on evidence -- very strong and compelling evidence. The evidence, however, is not easy to comprehend. It is complex and involving. Those two qualities, however, do not diminish its validity. Only for those who ab ovo reject the validity of anything they can't understand. Angels and six days of creation -- easy to understand. Big Bang theory, in all its details and supporting evidence that we have on it at present -- impossible to understand for many, many people.

The theory of Big Bang does not purport to be the beginning of the universe. It only purports to be the beginning of the known universe.

No cosmology scientist or quantum physicist, or theoretical physicist will make a scientific claim what went on before the Big Bang. This does not equal to the idea that there was nothing before the Big Bang.

[1i3i6--]

OP's post (by Meleagar » September 8th, 2010, 6:57 am)
A blast from the past but a very good post and very good reflections.

A scientist's world view's can definitely have a way of limiting and/or misdirecting their capability to be effective in their craft.
There is seemingly no point in holding a grudge with the direction almost everything in the Universe points.
Ultimately, in trying to disprove God, some may actually come to Prove God
Science is funny like that I guess.

The something from nothing concept is definitely comedy Gold and has absolutely no support by any scientific findings ever.
You have to tip your hat to the fellows who carry this torch.
Prominent scientists believing in Magic.... Who would have thought.

Infinite just 'is'. It has no beginning or end.
Finite constructs have beginnings and ends. A beginning has a cause.
Space and time are linked and our most prominent theories reflect on their beginning. Everything within that 'frame' is relative past that point.
Something that exists infinitely beyond this creation (frame) has no cause per-say at it has no beginning point or end point. Even if it could, What does it reference as to where/when it began? It's infinite.

The universe having a beginning is supported by 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
From high energy particles, to increasing structures/matter, and on over to heat death.

Pure science, logic, set theory, physics, and mathematics.
Beyond that is nonsensical 'magic' which scientist especially prominent ones are supposed to be beyond.

Now, one can get into very deep metaphysical thinking/discussions which can guide brilliant scientific findings as to the characteristics of this 'frame', 'function', and purpose but beyond this frame is no-man's land and non-man's thinking.

If I had the capability to go into a corner of space and set in motion a spinning top for no other purpose than because I wanted to for kicks, I would perfectly be within my right to do so.
If you were to come along and question this 'creation' of mine and I responded : I simply did it because I could.. I wanted to reflect on my ability to be able to do so ...
I would have provided a perfectly truthful and sound explanation.
Not to say that this is the answer for our frame but it helps one frame this discussion.

Science, philosophy of science, and inquiry are indeed beautiful.
It's sad that people engage in pointless hand-waving and beliefs in magic even when their own findings disavow it.

[Anthony Edgar]

"Science has been invented solely for the purpose to discredit faith in God. All other aspects of science therefore may be and must be duly and safely disregarded."
I don't know who this quote belongs to, but I don't agree with it.

However, your posts seem to indicate that you do.

You're not even close.

Case in point: The theory of Big Bang can be tested and falsified. You claim it can't because you have no training in physics. So far the theory stands on evidence -- very strong and compelling evidence.

I would agree with the Big Bang in that the universe had a beginning (but every beginning needs a cause).  As to BB theory being testable and falsifiable, well, some of it maybe, but you probably believe macroevolution is testable and falsifiable too.  So I remain skeptical.
-------------------
Whenever an atheist insists that there is "very strong and compelling evidence" some useless, untested theory, this can usually be translated as,  "Pseudo-science is vital to my atheist theology, so don't you dare question it, otherwise I'll get upset."

[Renee]

"Science has been invented solely for the purpose to discredit faith in God. All other aspects of science therefore may be and must be duly and safely disregarded."

I don't know who this quote belongs to, but I don't agree with it.

However, your posts seem to indicate that you do.

You're not even close.

You don't agree with science... and you don't agree with your not agreeing with science...

Which makes your statements... self-contradictory?

I mean, you claim that the Big Bag theory is pseudo-science. Then you deny that you don't believe in science.

Then people try to lead you to knowledge about science... and you refuse to take it in.

It's a typical case of "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." No disrespect meant with the quote; only the similarity applies of intention shown followed by application refused.

Which is it, Anthony Edgar? You can't play for both teams. You can't continue here on these forums cherry-picking your beliefs and skepticism without risking complete, or in the least partial, public ridicule.