Moral Compass

[Janoah]

You insist that there can be no miracles:

I state once again that the natural Law is unchangeable.

Then I have to say that I don't think you know what a scientific "law" is. It's not some sort of rule that's universally binding...it's just a description of how physical things tend to operate provided nothing else intervenes. But when something else intervenes, the scientific law is not "violated" in some sense; rather, something more powerful overcomes it. The science remains fine.

Everything is in order with science, because everything that you listed below happens naturally.


***In fact, it would mean it would not even be as strong as one of the scientific "laws" you suppose it created.***

Natural Law was not created, but has always been.


***That doesn't make sense. If God is actual, then doing things is exactly what He would be doing...performing acts.***

Natural Law is real, and more real than the transitory material things that are here now and then gone a moment later.
But at the same time, the natural Law does not “do” anything, but everything obeys the Law.


***In fact, you stumble at the first verse of Torah, Genesis 1:1. You would have to say that in the beginning, God didn't "make" anything. Remember? You said He can't do anything.***

Literally, and not allegorically, the world has always been, and did not appear at some point in time.


***You're not even quoting a full sentence. How is anybody supposed to understand such an answer?

I certainly can't make sense of what you mean. Can you clear that up?***

There are other commandments, but I consider this the main one,
"and speaketh truth in his heart" (Psalm 15), "and gladness for the upright in heart" (Psalm 97).


*** o what do you really believe? ***

I tried my best to explain what I believe in,
I would be grateful if you could tell me what is your moral compass?

[Immanuel Can]

I state once again that the natural Law is unchangeable.

Then I have to say that I don't think you know what a scientific "law" is. It's not some sort of rule that's universally binding...it's just a description of how physical things tend to operate provided nothing else intervenes. But when something else intervenes, the scientific law is not "violated" in some sense; rather, something more powerful overcomes it. The science remains fine.

Everything is in order with science, because everything that you listed below happens naturally.

Miracles, by definition, don't happen "naturally." If they "happen naturally," then there's no miracle to them at all.

***In fact, it would mean it would not even be as strong as one of the scientific "laws" you suppose it created.***

Natural Law was not created, but has always been.

That's obviously not the case, since the universe itself is not eternal. Since the universe had a beginning, so did the so-called "laws" involved in it.

***In fact, you stumble at the first verse of Torah, Genesis 1:1. You would have to say that in the beginning, God didn't "make" anything. Remember? You said He can't do anything.***

Literally, and not allegorically, the world has always been, and did not appear at some point in time.

Genesis says that's not so. So you're denying Torah?

I would be grateful if you could tell me what is your moral compass?

HaShem.

Only He is righteous. https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Medit ... adosh.html

[Janoah]

Natural Law was not created, but has always been.

That's obviously not the case, since the universe itself is not eternal.

On what basis do you claim that there was a time when there was no matter?

Literally, and not allegorically, the world has always been, and did not appear at some point in time.

Genesis says that's not so. So you're denying Torah?

I have already said that understanding the Torah depends on scientific proof; there is something that can be understood allegorically, and there is something that should be understood allegorically in principle.

I would be grateful if you could tell me what is your moral compass?

HaShem.

Do you leaf through Bible at every moment to check for proper conduct?
And after all, the same “paragraph” can be performed differently in different situations.

[Immanuel Can]

Natural Law was not created, but has always been.

That's obviously not the case, since the universe itself is not eternal.

On what basis do you claim that there was a time when there was no matter?

Simple. Matter is in the process of entropy...which means that scientifically, we can observe that it's developing from a state of higher organization to one of lower organization. It's deteriorating, in other words.

You can see this if you take something highly organized, like a bunch of scrabble tiles that spell something out, and put them in a bag and shake them. And you can see this if you leave an orange on your counter for a week. Or if you look at geological erosion. Or cosmic expansion. Or if you look at the decay of solar bodies. Or if you look at the wrinkles in your own skin.

We can actually measure the rate of decline of order in each particular case. We can see it every day, for ourselves. So there's no doubt: the universe is running down.

We can also see it in causality. Because there is not such thing as an infinite chain of backward causes...because such a chain never starts. So it's mathematically certain, as well as scientifically demonstrable. The universe had a beginning. There's no reasonable doubt.

Genesis says that's not so. So you're denying Torah?

I have already said that understanding the Torah depends on scientific proof;

Torah says the universe began. Science says the universe began. So there you go.

I would be grateful if you could tell me what is your moral compass?

HaShem.

Do you leaf through Bible at every moment to check for proper conduct?

No. What I do is two things: one is to study the Word of God, pay attention to what it teaches, and attempt to apply it in the situations I face. The other is to learn on an ongoing basis from my dynamic personal relationship with HaShem, through Yeshua ha Massiach, just as it is written in the prophet Jeremiah, 31:34.

That is how I make my moral decisions. How do you do it?

[Dontaskme]

The universe had a beginning. There's no reasonable doubt.

You can only say that with absolute certainty because you were actually present at the universe's beginning, you literally are it's very conception, and is why you are able to self reflect on your self in the here and now as and through this conception. Everything that is, was, and ever will be right now, must always have existed, right here now, for there is nowhere else other than right here / now /here.

The universe is not outside of you, the universe in within you reflected outside, you are both the inside and out of life in this conception. Love is life which reflects the entire world through the mirror of knowledge.
Every known thing is a reflection of the ALL/everything - The echoes of eternity, the photo-copies of the original. We are never not here.


_____________Here you go > lots of people are saying/parroting it.


“Not only are we in the Universe, the Universe is in us. I don’t know of any deeper spiritual feeling than what that brings upon me.” — Neil deGrasse Tyson

“Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.” — Leonardo DaVinci

“The world is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.” — Eden Phillpotts

“We are the scientists, trying to make sense of the stars inside us.” — Christopher Poindexter

“To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders.” — Lao Tzu

“The Universe is saying: ‘Allow me to flow through you unrestricted, and you will see the greatest magic you have ever seen.’” — Klaus Joehle

“Everything amazing about the universe is inside of you, and the two are inseparable.” — Carl Sagan

“The universe took its time on you / crafted you precisely so you could offer the world / something distinct from everyone else / so when you doubt how you were created / you doubt an energy greater than us both.” — Rupi Kaur

“Everything you’ll ever need to know is within you; the secrets of the universe are imprinted on the cells of your body.” — Dan Millman

“Do not feel lonely, the entire universe is inside of you.” — Rumi

“There are as many atoms in a single molecule of your DNA as there are stars in the typical galaxy. We are, each of us, a little universe.” — Neil deGrasse Tyson

“She was half human… half universe.” — A.R. Lucas

“You are not IN the universe, you ARE the universe, an intrinsic part of it. Ultimately, you are not a person, but a focal point where the universe is becoming conscious of itself. What an amazing miracle.” — Eckhart Tolle

“The universe buries strange jewels deep within us all, and then stands back to see if we can find them.” — Elizabeth Gilbert

“We are not figuratively, but literally stardust.” — Neil deGrasse Tyson

“Everything in the universe has a rhythm, everything dances.” — Maya Angelou

“The universe had to fall apart into dust first to become its majestic, incredible, infinite self. What makes you think this breaking, this trauma, this destruction, won’t be the making of a more powerful you too?” — Nikita Gill

“The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.” — Neil DeGrasse Tyson

“The Universe’s timing is perfect, even if it doesn’t suit your ego.” — Dean Jackson

“You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.” — Max Ehrmann

“Shine like the whole universe is yours.” — Rumi

“Enlightenment, for a wave in the ocean, is the moment the wave realizes it is water. When we realize we are not seperate, but a part of the huge ocean of everything, we become enlightened. We realize this through practice, and we remain awake and aware of this through more practice.” — Thich Nhat Hanh

“When you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it.” — Paulo Coelho

“You are the universe, expressing itself as a human for a little while.” — Eckhart Tolle

“If we would just take a moment to look around, we would find that the universe is in constant communication with us.” — Alexandria Hotmer

[Iwannaplato]

Simple. Matter is in the process of entropy...which means that scientifically, we can observe that it's developing from a state of higher organization to one of lower organization. It's deteriorating, in other words.

You can see this if you take something highly organized, like a bunch of scrabble tiles that spell something out, and put them in a bag and shake them. And you can see this if you leave an orange on your counter for a week. Or if you look at geological erosion. Or cosmic expansion. Or if you look at the decay of solar bodies. Or if you look at the wrinkles in your own skin.

We can actually measure the rate of decline of order in each particular case. We can see it every day, for ourselves. So there's no doubt: the universe is running down.

We can also see it in causality. Because there is not such thing as an infinite chain of backward causes...because such a chain never starts. So it's mathematically certain, as well as scientifically demonstrable. The universe had a beginning. There's no reasonable doubt.

There are reasonable doubts in physics/cosmology. There are scientists who think there could be thing prior to the Big Bang or that this universe punched through from another or that there is a potentially eternal cycle of Crunch to Bang. To a more encompassing meta-verse - not to be confused with a or the multiverse - out of which this one formed. They don't really know what came before, if anything, or not.

Some recent finds are also challenge much of the standard theory....
https://news.utexas.edu/2023/04/13/jame ... e-evolved/

But there has always been questions about whether this was THE beginning. And given the nature of the earlier universe at that time, it is very hard to look before it. Or look at/find evidence of what was there before.

[attofishpi]

That's obviously not the case, since the universe itself is not eternal.

On what basis do you claim that there was a time when there was no matter?

Simple. Matter is in the process of entropy...which means that scientifically, we can observe that it's developing from a state of higher organization to one of lower organization. It's deteriorating, in other words.

So how is Heaven going to work where you would like to spend the rest of eternity? Is there a place in the universe where entropy is not at play?

[Immanuel Can]

Simple. Matter is in the process of entropy...which means that scientifically, we can observe that it's developing from a state of higher organization to one of lower organization. It's deteriorating, in other words.

You can see this if you take something highly organized, like a bunch of scrabble tiles that spell something out, and put them in a bag and shake them. And you can see this if you leave an orange on your counter for a week. Or if you look at geological erosion. Or cosmic expansion. Or if you look at the decay of solar bodies. Or if you look at the wrinkles in your own skin.

We can actually measure the rate of decline of order in each particular case. We can see it every day, for ourselves. So there's no doubt: the universe is running down.

We can also see it in causality. Because there is not such thing as an infinite chain of backward causes...because such a chain never starts. So it's mathematically certain, as well as scientifically demonstrable. The universe had a beginning. There's no reasonable doubt.

There are reasonable doubts in physics/cosmology.

Lots. But none that are reasonable concerning the laws of entropy. There's no doubt the universe is tending from a state of higher order to one of lower order, and we can measure it very easily indeed.

There are scientists who think there could be thing prior to the Big Bang

Well, all of them must agree that's so. One can hardly be a scientist if one does not suppose there was something prior to the BB capable of causing that phenomenon in the first place. But one also cannot be a scientist without being able to do basic maths, and thus realizing inevitably that that chain of regressing causes cannot possibly be infinite. At some time prior to the BB, there had to be an Original Instigation that was not itself subject to being caused.

But there has always been questions about whether this was THE beginning. And given the nature of the earlier universe at that time, it is very hard to look before it. Or look at/find evidence of what was there before.

That's why empirical methods, ordinary experimentation will not help us as much as we would wish. But logic and mathematics will help us when empiricism fails.

We know there is no such thing as an actual infinite regress of prerequisites: it cannot be done in maths, and it cannot be done in life, since an infinite chain of prerequisites can never commence. So we may not be able to test, in a scientific way, for the origins of the universe -- but we cannot have any reasonable doubt there was one. That much, we know for sure.

[Iwannaplato]

Lots. But none that are reasonable concerning the laws of entropy. There's no doubt the universe is tending from a state of higher order to one of lower order, and we can measure it very easily indeed.

Ah, Hello. I was responding to this part:

The universe had a beginning. There's no reasonable doubt.

There are scientists who think there could be thing prior to the Big Bang

Well, all of them must agree that's so. One can hardly be a scientist if one does not suppose there was something prior to the BB capable of causing that phenomenon in the first place. But one also cannot be a scientist without being able to do basic maths, and thus realizing inevitably that that chain of regressing causes cannot possibly be infinite. At some time prior to the BB, there had to be an Original Instigation that was not itself subject to being caused.

That's not true. As I mentioned some believe in Bangs to Crunches. And remember if you suddenly have all this low entropy state universe a Big Bang, there is no reason, within science to decide this could not have happened before. Or that this running down universe is part of something vaster and more infinite. And yes, some cosmologists think this is or might be the case.

But there has always been questions about whether this was THE beginning. And given the nature of the earlier universe at that time, it is very hard to look before it. Or look at/find evidence of what was there before.

That's why empirical methods, ordinary experimentation will not help us as much as we would wish. But logic and mathematics will help us when empiricism fails.

We can deduct away, but there is reaonable doubt within the scientific community.

We know there is no such thing as an actual infinite regress of prerequisites:

We do not know that the universe has a beginning or that it is impossible for it to have always been here.

it cannot be done in maths, and it cannot be done in life, since an infinite chain of prerequisites can never commence.

It wouldn't have a start.

So we may not be able to test, in a scientific way, for the origins of the universe -- but we cannot have any reasonable doubt there was one.

You may not, but there is doubt in the scientific community.

That much, we know for sure.

You're sure. I don't contest that.

[Immanuel Can]

Lots. But none that are reasonable concerning the laws of entropy. There's no doubt the universe is tending from a state of higher order to one of lower order, and we can measure it very easily indeed.

Ah, Hello. I was responding to this part:

The universe had a beginning. There's no reasonable doubt.

There are scientists who think there could be thing prior to the Big Bang

Well, all of them must agree that's so. One can hardly be a scientist if one does not suppose there was something prior to the BB capable of causing that phenomenon in the first place. But one also cannot be a scientist without being able to do basic maths, and thus realizing inevitably that that chain of regressing causes cannot possibly be infinite. At some time prior to the BB, there had to be an Original Instigation that was not itself subject to being caused.

That's not true. As I mentioned some believe in Bangs to Crunches.

There's no such thing as "Big Crunch". That theory isn't just old, but now completely debunked. There simply is no force in the universe capable of generating a "crunch," and the amount of matter present is dwarfed by the amount of empty space.

Or that this running down universe is part of something vaster and more infinite.

No, that's a misunderstanding of the word "universe." The "universe," by definition, includes all the matter and energy that exists. So proponents of "alternate universes" are actually positing the existence of things that depend on ideas like "folded time" or "alternate levels of reality," which by definition do not contact this one -- because if they did, they'd be part of THIS universe, not of some other.

So there's no "science" in those theories at all, because they're pure speculations about the existence of levels of reality to which we have, and by definition can have, no scientific access at all. So we don't know if/how any such could even exist.

But there has always been questions about whether this was THE beginning. And given the nature of the earlier universe at that time, it is very hard to look before it. Or look at/find evidence of what was there before.

That's why empirical methods, ordinary experimentation will not help us as much as we would wish. But logic and mathematics will help us when empiricism fails.

We can deduct away, but there is reaonable doubt within the scientific community.

We know there is no such thing as an actual infinite regress of prerequisites:

We do not know that the universe has a beginning or that it is impossible for it to have always been here.

Yes, we do. The belief in the universe being eternal died with Edwin Hubble and the Red Shift discovery. As cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin has summarized the situation, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” (quoted in New Scientist)

it cannot be done in maths, and it cannot be done in life, since an infinite chain of prerequisites can never commence.

It wouldn't have a start.

Now you've got it! An infinite chain cannot ever start. There is always another prerequisite that has to happen before the chain can commence! So all the causal chains you see around you are known to be finite ones, because infinite ones lack a starting point.

[Age]

Then I have to say that I don't think you know what a scientific "law" is. It's not some sort of rule that's universally binding...it's just a description of how physical things tend to operate provided nothing else intervenes. But when something else intervenes, the scientific law is not "violated" in some sense; rather, something more powerful overcomes it. The science remains fine.

Everything is in order with science, because everything that you listed below happens naturally.

Miracles, by definition, don't happen "naturally." If they "happen naturally," then there's no miracle to them at all.

So, what "jesus" was said to have performed, and which some say were 'miracles', to "immanuel can" now, ACTUALLY had NO miracle to them AT ALL.

So, WHY were those occurrences called 'miracles' IN 'the bible' "immanuel can"?

But, OBVIOUSLY, "immanuel can" will NOT ANSWER 'this CLARIFYING QUESTION' BECAUSE of the REPERCUSSIONS, to "immanuel can", which WOULD OCCUR.

***In fact, it would mean it would not even be as strong as one of the scientific "laws" you suppose it created.***

Natural Law was not created, but has always been.

That's obviously not the case, since the universe itself is not eternal. Since the universe had a beginning, so did the so-called "laws" involved in it.

***In fact, you stumble at the first verse of Torah, Genesis 1:1. You would have to say that in the beginning, God didn't "make" anything. Remember? You said He can't do anything.***

Literally, and not allegorically, the world has always been, and did not appear at some point in time.

Genesis says that's not so. So you're denying Torah?

I would be grateful if you could tell me what is your moral compass?

HaShem.

Only He is righteous. https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Medit ... adosh.html

[Iwannaplato]

There's no such thing as "Big Crunch". That theory isn't just old, but now completely debunked.

Its not debunked, it just looks, now, that the Big Freeze is more likely. Granted, much more likely. But it's not ruled out, nor are the other scenarios I mentioned.

Or that this running down universe is part of something vaster and more infinite.

No, that's a misunderstanding of the word "universe." The "universe," by definition, includes all the matter and energy that exists. So proponents of "alternate universes" are actually positing the existence of things that depend on ideas like "folded time" or "alternate levels of reality," which by definition do not contact this one -- because if they did, they'd be part of THIS universe, not of some other.

Nope, you're ruling things out that cosmologists have not ruled out.

So there's no "science" in those theories at all, because they're pure speculations about the existence of levels of reality to which we have, and by definition can have, no scientific access at all. So we don't know if/how any such could even exist.

It's pure speculation to say that there was nothing before the Big Bang. And again, if there can suddenly be the present of a universe of matter in low entropy and we don't know how this happened, then there is no reason to rule out cycles of this. Yes, some scientists have the hubris to do this, just as a they have the hubris to rule out God.

Yes, we do. The belief in the universe being eternal died with Edwin Hubble and the Red Shift discovery. As cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin has summarized the situation, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” (quoted in New Scientist)

Which is quite different from ruling out other possiblities. The standard model took some serious recent hits.
And great you quoted one scientist from New Scientist. I can do that too...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -universe/

Now you've got it! An infinite chain cannot ever start.

But that doesn't mean it isn't the case.
Of course it wouldn't have a start, that's by definition. But you are assuming that everything must have a start, even though you have a central belief in something that does not have one.

There is always another prerequisite that has to happen before the chain can commence! So all the causal chains you see around you are known to be finite ones, because infinite ones lack a starting point.

I have no way of knowing if the causal chains around me have a start. Neither do you. Point to a causal chain you see around you that you can also point to the starting point.

Hell, there are a good number of scientists who think what we call our universe is or may be a simulation
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... out-50-50/
Which would mean that the rules we think are necessary may only be the programmed rules of some tiny part of whatever the broader universe that made the simulation is like.
That there is a broader universe, a metaverse, may be testable
https://www.livescience.com/15530-multi ... -test.html
Recent evidence that there may have been a universe before the Big Bang...
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... -big-bang/

We don't know. Reasoning minds have not closed off these issue. Other reasoning minds have.

But it is not settled in the scientific community. Paradigms break and change. Marginal theories come to the center and then perhaps back off again.

[Immanuel Can]

There's no such thing as "Big Crunch". That theory isn't just old, but now completely debunked.

Its not debunked...

Yeah, it is. There simply isn't anything close to the mass-to-space ratio in the present universe for any known force to induce a "Big Crunch," and that's by orders of vast magnitude. Furthermore, because of the red shift effect, we know for certain that the universe is expanding even further, not contracting. The mass in the universe is well beyond escape velocity. It's never coming back.

Or that this running down universe is part of something vaster and more infinite.

No, that's a misunderstanding of the word "universe." The "universe," by definition, includes all the matter and energy that exists. So proponents of "alternate universes" are actually positing the existence of things that depend on ideas like "folded time" or "alternate levels of reality," which by definition do not contact this one -- because if they did, they'd be part of THIS universe, not of some other.

Nope, you're ruling things out that cosmologists have not ruled out.

There are people willing to speculate. There will always be speculators. But science requires more: it requires evidence. And those who speculate are doing so not in order to respond to the evidence, but only to escape the evidence. That's not scientific.

So there's no "science" in those theories at all, because they're pure speculations about the existence of levels of reality to which we have, and by definition can have, no scientific access at all. So we don't know if/how any such could even exist.

It's pure speculation to say that there was nothing before the Big Bang.

That's why nobody says that.

Everybody who believes in the BB recognizes that there had to be something prior to that to explode. But from where did that hydrogen, oxygen, quark gluon plasma or whatever else one postulates come from?

And again, if there can suddenly be the present of a universe of matter in low entropy and we don't know how this happened, then there is no reason to rule out cycles of this.

Yes, there is. "Low entropy" isn't the answer. If the entropic rate were a million times slower than it actually is, it would still give us exactly the same problem. All it would do is extend the time span.

Yes, we do. The belief in the universe being eternal died with Edwin Hubble and the Red Shift discovery. As cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin has summarized the situation, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” (quoted in New Scientist)

Which is quite different from ruling out other possiblities. The standard model took some serious recent hits.
And great you quoted one scientist from New Scientist. I can do that too...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -universe/

But as I said, nobody says the BB was the beginning of the universe. So that's not a relevant observation.

Now you've got it! An infinite chain cannot ever start.

But that doesn't mean it isn't the case.

Actually, it does. If something "cannot" happen, then by definition, it "didn't" happen, too.

Of course it wouldn't have a start, that's by definition.

No, by maths and logic. You can do the experiment yourself. It's very easy.

A causal chain is made up of no less than two items: a cause, and an effect, right? It can be longer, but it cannot be shorter, or either the cause or the effect is missing. Is that not obvious?

And by definition, the cause must happen before the effect. Otherwise, it's not the cause. That, too, has to be perfectly obvious.

So now, run the test. Assign a number to an effect. Let's give it the designation "1". That makes the cause "O," which is numerically just before "1".

So now we can count the sequence: cause "0"...then "1" the effect. Our sequence is 0-1. And if 1 becomes the cause of anything, we can have a 2...a 3...a 4...and so on.

With me so far?

But before "0", there has to be a "-1": because our "0" is a physical cause of something, and itself has to have a cause. So let's label that earlier cause as "-1".

But before "-1", there has to have been a "-2"...and before that, a "-3", and a "-4" and so on.

But that backward sequence cannot be infinite. And why not? Because if I make you locate the number prior to every other number, you will recede back into an infinite regress...and you will never, ever find the starting point for the sequence.

In other words, in any causal chain...of which we have billions, of course...if we guess that there was not original starting point, then the sequence itself never got going. It never began. Nothing happened. And nothing ever could. Because the absolute prerequisite is never reached.

Get it now? So we know for certain, mathematically, that no causal chain is ever infinite. All must have a starting point. And that starting point cannot itself be something that has been caused by something else, or once again, we fall down the infinite-regress hole, and nothing ever happens.

But something HAS happened. A universe has appeared. That means there was an uncaused Cause at the beginning of that grand effect. And though we can't say for sure what it was, we can say for certain that there was one.

But you are assuming that everything must have a start, even though you have a central belief in something that does not have one.

Not quite. I'm pointing out that whatever started the causal chain was uncaused. It's only the Atheists, Materialists, Physicalists and Naturalist types who have to believe that everything has to have a cause...but if they were right, the universe would not exist.

But it does exist. We're in it. So you can be absolutely sure they're wrong.

There is always another prerequisite that has to happen before the chain can commence! So all the causal chains you see around you are known to be finite ones, because infinite ones lack a starting point.

I have no way of knowing if the causal chains around me have a start.

Yes, you do. Mathematics. Logic. You cannot, yourself, reproduce any causal chain that has an infinite set of prerequisite conditions. If you can't start your sequence at "-1,236,754," or whatever other point you choose, you cannot produce any numerical sequence at all. Ever.

There's your proof.

[Iwannaplato]

But that backward sequence cannot be infinite. And why not? Because if I make you locate the number prior to every other number, you will recede back into an infinite regress...and you will never, ever find the starting point for the sequence.

IC, you are saying an infinite series cannot be the case because of human limitations.

In other words, in any causal chain...of which we have billions, of course...if we guess that there was not original starting point, then the sequence itself never got going. It never began. Nothing happened. And nothing ever could. Because the absolute prerequisite is never reached.

In our minds. LOL.

Get it now? So we know for certain, mathematically, that no causal chain is ever infinite.

Nope, lol.

All must have a starting point. And that starting point cannot itself be something that has been caused by something else, or once again, we fall down the infinite-regress hole, and nothing ever happens.

But something HAS happened. A universe has appeared. That means there was an uncaused Cause at the beginning of that grand effect. And though we can't say for sure what it was, we can say for certain that there was one.

Yes, you do. Mathematics. Logic. You cannot, yourself, reproduce any causal chain that has an infinite set of prerequisite conditions. If you can't start your sequence at "-1,236,754," or whatever other point you choose, you cannot produce any numerical sequence at all. Ever.

There's your proof.

Again, since I cannot carry out some infinite operation, the universe could not have always existed. It's almost as if you expect me to be omniscient. If I can't show the whole series, it can't exist. That's just silly.

I added some links to my previous post while you were writing this one.

It is NOT settled in science, what you are saying is settled in science.

I get that you are sure, but you are confused about what the scientific community considers closed. Also you are confused - albeit, so are some scientists - about how easy it is to close doors and rule out things.

Your proof is not proving something about ontology, it is dependent on the limited abilities of humans to perform certain actions.

[Gary Childress]

I have no way of knowing if the causal chains around me have a start.

Yes, you do. Mathematics. Logic. You cannot, yourself, reproduce any causal chain that has an infinite set of prerequisite conditions. If you can't start your sequence at "-1,236,754," or whatever other point you choose, you cannot produce any numerical sequence at all. Ever.

There's your proof.

I don't know. Those could be assumptions. One thing I always noticed when I took quality courses in college was that the more I learned, the more it became evident that there are limits to human understanding.

If the universe had a beginning, then what was there before that beginning? No one knows, IC. It's a logic puzzle that cannot be understood by the human mind.

Or if the universe is expanding, then what is it expanding into? Questions like that show just how much the human mind is hamstrung by our own cognitive limitations. If you didn't learn that in college, IC, then you need to get your money back. You're way too cocky about what you think you know.