Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:29 pm A thing cannot "cause" itself. The universe is a contingent entity, which necessitates that it has had a beginning. Thus, the universe is an effect.

What evidence led you assert that the universe is contingent?

Immanuel Can wrote:
Causality is a principle of all physics including quantum physics

The quantum and classical worlds are entirely different to each other and operate under very different rules
You cannot explain entanglement or the unpredictability of a particles momentum or location using causality

Your statement betrays a complete lack of understanding of quantum mechanics at the most basic level
All because you want there to be a first cause to the Universe and nothing will convince you otherwise

But when quantum mechanics disagrees with you are wrong - it really is that simple

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:35 pm What evidence led you assert that the universe is contingent?

Lots of things...the scientific findings on the microwave background and the red shift effect are more recent ones, but entropy is an incredibly obvious one. What evidence would you summon to suggest the universe is not contingent?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:17 pm But when quantum mechanics disagrees with you are wrong - it really is that simple

It's one thing to say, "we have no sufficient explanation for quantum mechanical observations," and quite another to say, "quantum mechanics have no explanations." The latter cannot possibly be supported by reference to the former. So quantum mechanics doesn't "disagree" with anything there.

Meanwhile, what's simple is to see that causality does not ever work the way you describe quantum mechanics as working. On the observable level, things are all products of cause and effect. And you can't produce one single scientific observation to the contrary...and yet you want to posit that the whole universe just "popped" into existence complete?

It's not me who's got the problem of explanation there.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:20 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:54 pm Each event, no matter how minuscule, relates to other events . Time is irrelevant. >

When we speak about causality time is never irrelevant.

At the very least we are speaking about ordering. It is impossible for A to cause B if B happened before A.

Time is irrelevant for causality except when we are discussing linear causation.


Simultaneous events cause each other. For instance the turning of Earth causes daylight/darkness cycle. For instance my heart's beating, together with other simultaneous events , causes my blood to be oxygenated. For instance you remain within Earth's atmosphere because of the gravity event.

You say "before"; time is a dimension which, like other dimensions, we use to enable us to establish probabilities.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:03 am

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:20 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:54 pm Each event, no matter how minuscule, relates to other events . Time is irrelevant. >

When we speak about causality time is never irrelevant.

At the very least we are speaking about ordering. It is impossible for A to cause B if B happened before A.

Time is irrelevant for causality except when we are discussing linear causation.


Simultaneous events cause each other. For instance the turning of Earth causes daylight/darkness cycle. For instance my heart's beating, together with other simultaneous events , causes my blood to be oxygenated. For instance you remain within Earth's atmosphere because of the gravity event.

You say "before"; time is a dimension which, like other dimensions, we use to enable us to establish probabilities.

So you say that that the darkness/daylight cycle causes the Earth to turn. "Simultaneous events cause each other." You can see what a great nonsense you wrote here.

My remaining in the atmosphere causes gravity event to happen. (Another nonsensical application of "Simultaneous events cause each other.")

The statement "Simultaneous events cause each other" is absolutely false, and nonsensical. It is non-intuitive, and laughably wrong.

For A to cause B, A has to preexist B. For B to cause A, B has to preexist A. It is impossible for A to preexist B and B to preexist A simultaneously.

This is the bread and butter of causation. Linear causation is the only one that is possible, if you want to give it an extra qualifier.

Where did you get this idea, Belinda?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:17 pm You cannot explain entanglement or the unpredictability of a particles momentum or location using causality

Wrong!

If there were no causality present in the quantum world, then things would behave randomly, "freely". But they events in the quantum world do follow repeated and predictable movement. Therefore they are not random. Therefore they do obey some rules... and the rules are the manifestation of causality.

What you wanted to say is that movements in the qm world are not governed by the same intuitive rules as movements in the macrophysical (MP) world.

But you can't throw away causality en mass with seeing the impossibility of using MP rules to explain QM movement.

Belinda and surreptitious57: are you both throwing away causality only in order to disprove or disallow the existence of an "original cause"?

That is foolish. The universe and everything can be explained to operate from infinite past without an original cause. There is no original cause clause needed, all you have to see is that things forever have existed and will forever exist.

This can't be proven, as it can be only proven empirically. But it is not a state of affairs (existing forever) that is impossible. In fact, it is probable. But there is no certainty, much like there is no certainty in the Original Cause (OC).

Therefore whether one believes in the OC or else one believes in the indestructibility and non-creationability of matter and energy, is an individual preference. It is foolish to try to convince someone else of which is true, purely on logical / philosophical / scientific basis. Or on any basis. Both hypotheses can potentially be true (but not at the same time, I have to admit.)

Where is it stated that God must obey man's rules of logic or causality.

thedoc wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:39 pm Where is it stated that God must obey man's rules of logic or causality.

Indeed! Bring God to science, say "everything that happens is God's will", and lo and behold, you have sold EVERY scientific problem, past, present and future.

This is your way to go, TheDoc. Not my way. You can go your own way. Your way is either Yahweh, or the highway.

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:59 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:39 pm Where is it stated that God must obey man's rules of logic or causality.

Indeed! Bring God to science, say "everything that happens is God's will", and lo and behold, you have sold EVERY scientific problem, past, present and future.

SOLD? How do you sell every scientific problem?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:14 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:59 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:39 pm Where is it stated that God must obey man's rules of logic or causality.

Indeed! Bring God to science, say "everything that happens is God's will", and lo and behold, you have sold EVERY scientific problem, past, present and future.

SOLD? How do you sell every scientific problem?

It's a hard sell, my friend. I tried to sell the problem of "if a train leaves Chicago toward New York at 40 mi/h at eight in the morning, and if a train leaves New York to Chicago at ten in the morning going at 50 mi/h, then how old is the machinist's grossmutter?" for as little as $20 on Kijiji, and not one buyer emailed me yet.

Next time I'll try eBay.

You're right, I ought to have written "solved". My bad.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:14 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:59 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:39 pm Where is it stated that God must obey man's rules of logic or causality.

Indeed! Bring God to science, say "everything that happens is God's will", and lo and behold, you have sold EVERY scientific problem, past, present and future.

SOLD? How do you sell every scientific problem?

I think you're the only one who reads my responses, Attofishpi. Since Walker gave up.

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:21 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:14 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:59 pm

Indeed! Bring God to science, say "everything that happens is God's will", and lo and behold, you have sold EVERY scientific problem, past, present and future.

SOLD? How do you sell every scientific problem?

I think you're the only one who reads my responses, Attofishpi. Since Walker gave up.

Mate, I don't either - just happened to stupor upon this one.

Re: Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?

Your above is very rhetorical and an attempt to deceive the unwary.

Note atheists do not insist that if there is a God that it created the Universe.
The first strategy of the atheists would to insist, if there is a God, prove such a God exists first. Because the atheists is so confident God does not exists, the question of God creating the Universe is moot.

And,
"Why do theists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe"
is an oxymoron.
The term "theists" implied they by definition believe there is a God and that created the universe. There is no question of 'if there is a God' for theists.

[A]theists are indifferent to the existence of a God.
The atheist stance is to to note the theists' claim,
God exists as real and God created the Universe.
From there [a]theists will attempt to prove the theists' claim is false or impossible.

You are merely bullsh1tting with the above rhetorics.