Atheism

[createdtoworship]

As I said, just because something had a beginning doesn't mean it had a cause. Even if you disagree with the science that demonstrates uncaused events, it's simply enough to point out that we don't know all events must have a cause. Causality is a 'common sense' idea, and the universe doesn't really pay much attention to those.

your saying to fight common sense because the universe is bigger? Thats not a wise decision. Common sense is common for a reason. We see cause and effect every day and it's very typical of physics. The only reason why you admit it was started is because you absolutely have to. But started and caused are synonymous, so no way out of that one.

Maybe the Big Bang had a cause. Maybe the Big Bang was the start of the universe. Or, maybe the universe is far older. Or, maybe the universe began without a rhyme or reason.

again your saying to fight common laws of physics for no reason. Yes a singularity violates many laws of physics. But the cause of the singularity often times may not. (like in the causation of a black hole).

 

[Eudaimonist]

only agents can cause their own expansion (without being caused). Not a normal cause.

I can think of no reason why that must be so.

Secondly, gravity is caused by tension or distortion of space-time by the presence of the earth in it. Even gravity has a cause.

The cause of the Earth's gravitational field is the Earth, but nothing causes the Earth to exert a gravitational field. It's entity-causation at work. IOWs, it is in the nature of the Earth to do so. There is nothing external to the Earth that makes this happen, and the Earth isn't a conscious agent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

your saying to fight common sense because the universe is bigger? Thats not a wise decision. Common sense is common for a reason.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean it's right. Common sense is wrong on all sorts of things. Common sense tells us that this wall is pure, solid, continuous matter - but science tells us it's mostly empty. Common sense tells us that you can effectively go as fast as you like - but science tells us that there's an upper limit. Common sense tells us that the Sun and the Moon are about the same size - but science tells us that they are not.

Common sense is a terrible thing to base your views on. Unless it can be verified, it's unreliable.

We see cause and effect every day and it's very typical of physics.

What we see every day is no limit on the possible phenomena of the universe. Just because we humans experience causlity on a daily basis, doesn't mean that everything obeys causality. Quantum mechanics routinely involve spontaneous, uncaused phenomena - despite what the common sense idea of 'causality' might say.

The only reason why you admit it was started is because you absolutely have to.

I state it freely, because that is what the evidence tells us.

But started and caused are synonymous, so no way out of that one.

No, they're not. 'Started' means that it began a finite time ago. 'Caused' means that that start was triggered by something else. As science has established, something can occur ('start') without being caused.

Again, some things have a cause (generally those things in our day-to-day lives), but some things don't (such as queer world of quantum mechanics). Since there's no evidence either way, it is illogical to say the Big Bang was, or was not, caused. Started? Yes. Caused? No one knows.

If you disagree, I invited you to prove that everything which has a beginning, has a cause.

again your saying to fight common laws of physics for no reason.

Nope. I'm saying that the laws of physics contradict common sense.

Yes a singularity violates many laws of physics. But the cause of the singularity often times may not. (like in the causation of a black hole).

A singularity violates no law of physics. The point, is that the 'law' of causality is wrong: only some things have a cause.

Again, the Big Bang may have had a cause, or maybe it didn't. We don't know.

 

[createdtoworship]

The cause of the Earth's gravitational field is the Earth, but nothing causes the Earth to exert a gravitational field. It's entity-causation at work. IOWs, it is in the nature of the Earth to do so. There is nothing external to the Earth that makes this happen, and the Earth isn't a conscious agent.

actually without space time, we would have no gravity. So indirectly, therefore space time is a cause. One of them, the other is the presence of the earth in it.

 

[createdtoworship]

Indeed, but that doesn't mean it's right. Common sense is wrong on all sorts of things. Common sense tells us that this wall is pure, solid, continuous matter - but science tells us it's mostly empty. Common sense tells us that you can effectively go as fast as you like - but science tells us that there's an upper limit. Common sense tells us that the Sun and the Moon are about the same size - but science tells us that they are not.

ah I see you stole my "every thing is empty space- speech" nice.

Common sense is a terrible thing to base your views on. Unless it can be verified, it's unreliable.

Just because quantum physics makes causality break down doesn't mean that before the singularity there was no cause in existence. We have to look at causality as it exists normally in the universe. Not some odd ball type of causality based on math you can't even calculate yourself (quantum mechanics). (that is what I mean by common sense).

What we see every day is no limit on the possible phenomena of the universe. Just because we humans experience causlity on a daily basis, doesn't mean that everything obeys causality. Quantum mechanics routinely involve spontaneous, uncaused phenomena - despite what the common sense idea of 'causality' might say.

answered that with the last paragraph

No, they're not. 'Started' means that it began a finite time ago. 'Caused' means that that start was triggered by something else. As science has established, something can occur ('start') without being caused.

but you have no evidence, of anything starting without a cause. Unless it is agent started causation. Which implies intelligence.

Again, some things have a cause (generally those things in our day-to-day lives), but some things don't (such as queer world of quantum mechanics). Since there's no evidence either way, it is illogical to say the Big Bang was, or was not, caused. Started? Yes. Caused? No one knows.

and again we don't need base ALL our theories of the universe biogenesis based on one quantum idea. There is much to the universe that we can see, feel, touch etc and this is where common sense science comes into play.
We know it was started, therefore we know it had a starter. You are saying it was started without a starter, and therefore dictate it to be an intelligent agent (or God). So you are wrong either way.

If you disagree, I invited you to prove that everything which has a beginning, has a cause.

simple, if you start it it has a starter.

Nope. I'm saying that the laws of physics contradict common sense.

This may be true but what I mean by common sense, is the standard laws of science based on our senses. Not some esoteric math that no one understands including you (by your own admission).

A singularity violates no law of physics. The point, is that the 'law' of causality is wrong: only some things have a cause.

if it was started it has a starter. Common sense.

Again, the Big Bang may have had a cause, or maybe it didn't. We don't know.

I know

 

[Wiccan_Child]

ah I see you stole my "every thing is empty space- speech" nice.

Err, the 'matter is mostly empty space' idea is a common tool in science education, one I use frequently to the kids I tutor. Any similarity to something you might have said is purely coincidental. In any case, my point stands: common sense is not reliable. EDIT: Though it seems we've been talking past each other about what 'common sense' means.

Just because quantum physics makes causality break down doesn't mean that before the singularity there was no cause in existence.

Agreed.

We have to look at causality as it exists normally in the universe.

Why? Why should causality (an empirical observation valid at human-sized scales) apply to the Big Bang?

Not some odd ball type of causality based on math you can't even calculate yourself (quantum mechanics). (that is what I mean by common sense).

Err, sorry, but I can do quantum mechanics. I'm a physicist, and a particle physicist at that, and I can assure you the mathematics is quite computable.

but you have no evidence, of anything starting without a cause.

Yes, we do. Quantum mechanics is replete with spontaneity: radioactive decay, the Casimir effect, quantum entanglement, quantum tunnelling, etc. These thing just don't work without spontaneity - for instance, the Casimir effect exists because of virtual particles spontaneously popping into and out of existence, creating a pressure differential between two charged plates.

and again we don't need base ALL our theories of the universe biogenesis based on one quantum idea. There is much to the universe that we can see, feel, touch etc and this is where common sense science comes into play.
We know it was started, therefore we know it had a starter. You are saying it was started without a starter, and therefore dictate it to be an intelligent agent (or God). So you are wrong either way.

What? Where did I "dictate it to be an intelligent agent"? Starting without a starter simply means there was no cause for the event - it was spontaneous, untriggered.

simple, if you start it it has a starter.

That's just a claim. What evidence do you have that this claim is true? If we agree that to have a 'start' means to be in existence only after some point in time, then how do you deduce that every 'start' must have an associated 'starter'?

This may be true but what I mean by common sense, is the standard laws of science based on our senses.

What you're describing has a name: Classical Mechanics. And I hate to break it to you, but CM was disproven 100 years ago.

Not some esoteric math that no one understands

If by "esoteric math" you mean quantum mechanics, you're wrong again: while QM isn't as nice and intuitive as CM, it's still well understood, and the weight of the evidence falls on QM, not CM. The mathematics is perfectly understandable, the derivation of the equations and mathematical conclusions from the fundamental premises is well understood - please, don't be mistaken in thinking we have no idea what quantum mechanics is. We do.

including you (by your own admission).

Where did I make such a statement?

 

[createdtoworship]

Why? Why should causality (an empirical observation valid at human-sized scales) apply to the Big Bang?

that would be because we observe it every day.

Err, sorry, but I can do quantum mechanics. I'm a physicist, and a particle physicist at that, and I can assure you the mathematics is quite computable.

sorry another conversation goin on. How about you show then how quantum mechanics breaks down cause and effect. Since you know about it.

Yes, we do. Quantum mechanics is replete with spontaneity: radioactive decay, the Casimir effect, quantum entanglement, quantum tunnelling, etc. These thing just don't work without spontaneity - for instance, the Casimir effect exists because of virtual particles spontaneously popping into and out of existence, creating a pressure differential between two charged plates.

and your saying that these things have no cause whatsoever, because I am pretty sure I could find one on google right quick.

What? Where did I "dictate it to be an intelligent agent"? Starting without a starter simply means there was no cause for the event - it was spontaneous, untriggered.

exactly, and again you are saying the above started with no starter?

how do you deduce that every 'start' must have an associated 'starter'?

laws of cause and affect

What you're describing has a name: Classical Mechanics. And I hate to break it to you, but CM was disproven 100 years ago.

err that would be a straw man.

If by "esoteric math" you mean quantum mechanics, you're wrong again: while QM isn't as nice and intuitive as CM, it's still well understood, and the weight of the evidence falls on QM, not CM. The mathematics is perfectly understandable, the derivation of the equations and mathematical conclusions from the fundamental premises is well understood - please, don't be mistaken in thinking we have no idea what quantum mechanics is. We do.

Just because science uses the five senses and cm uses the five senses doesn't mean that all science is CM, nor does it mean that everything I say is CM. Again thats a strawman fallacy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

actually without space time, we would have no gravity. So indirectly, therefore space time is a cause.

I'm talking about the Earth as a proximate cause, not as the ultimate explanation for gravity. I realize that spacetime is involved, and the Earth is a part of spacetime.

Even if we wish to say that spacetime is involved, then it is the Earth-spacetime system that causes gravity to exist as it does within a particular volume of space. This is still entity-causation. Now, apply that to the universe as a whole. In this sense the universe could be the cause of its own expansion, although some may say that it is uncaused using a different way of speaking about causality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

that would be because we observe it every day.

Undoubtedly, but that doesn't mean it's a real law. We experience a constant force of gravity pulling us down, but we're wrong to conclude that that force is everywhere: it changes in strength and direction, most notably as you go round the planet, or far away from the planet.

sorry another conversation goin on. How about you show then how quantum mechanics breaks down cause and effect. Since you know about it.

I already listed a number of quantum phenomena that violate causality (tunnelling, radioactive decay, etc). I appreciate that causality seems like one of the fundamental rules of the universe, but it's really not. It's just an intuitive thing the human brain does to connect one event with another, but at the most fundamental level, atoms don't operate in a way the human brain can easily conceive. Again, that doesn't mean we don't know or understand what or why they do what they do, just that it's not intuitive: you need to do science to find out what they do, since what they do goes against our first expectations.

It's like 4D hypercubes. We can't imagine them in our heads, but we still know everything there is to know about them.

and your saying that these things have no cause whatsoever, because I am pretty sure I could find one on google right quick.

By all means. I'll have your Nobel Prize ready

exactly, and again you are saying the above started with no starter?

I wouldn't say it like that, but yes, pretty much. A particle quantum tunnels out of a potential well without rhyme or reason: it is allowed in the mathematics of quantum mechanics, it is a physical phenomenon we can readily observe (I use STMs, great fun, and they only work if tunnelling works), but ultimately, the instance of tunnelling isn't caused by anything. The physics of the universe allows it to happen, but there's no event that says, "OK, now you tunnel".

laws of cause and affect

I reject that such a law actually exists. I maintain that this 'law' is nothing more than an observation of macroscopic phenomena that doesn't translate down to the microscopic world.

err that would be a straw man.

I apologise. If what you mean by 'common sense' isn't Classical Mechanics, then what is it? I'm truly at a loss here - it's not the standard definition, it's not CM, what is it?

Just because science uses the five senses and cm uses the five senses doesn't mean that all science is CM, nor does it mean that everything I say is CM. Again thats a strawman fallacy.

No science is CM: we disproved it. QM and GR replaced CM as our tools to explain and predict the behaviour of the real world. I don't know what you mean by 'common sense' - can you define it, please? Could you give examples?

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm talking about the Earth as a proximate cause, not as the ultimate explanation for gravity. I realize that spacetime is involved, and the Earth is a part of spacetime.

Even if we wish to say that spacetime is involved, then it is the Earth-spacetime system that causes gravity to exist as it does within a particular volume of space. This is still entity-causation. Now, apply that to the universe as a whole. In this sense the universe could be the cause of its own expansion, although some may say that it is uncaused using a different way of speaking about causality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

how can it be entity causation of it's the space around the spere causing it to displace and warp and cause gravity? It's not the entity doing the causing so can't be entity causation.

 

[Eudaimonist]

how can it be entity causation of it's the space around the spere causing it to displace and warp and cause gravity? It's not the entity doing the causing so can't be entity causation.

Entity simply means anything that exists. The boundaries of an entity are chosen mentally. An atom is an entity. So is a molecule. So is a wood fiber. So is a tree. So is a forest. Etc.

There is no need to stick to "solid" surfaces for those boundaries. Therefore, the Earth and some arbitrary amount of "empty" space around it can be an entity.

So, it's entity-causation. But the Earth still seems to be the proximate cause of its own gravitational field, and the bending of spacetime is what I would call the effect, not itself a cause (or not a proximate cause, at least).


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[createdtoworship]

Entity simply means anything that exists. The boundaries of an entity are chosen mentally. An atom is an entity. So is a molecule. So is a wood fiber. So is a tree. So is a forest. Etc.

There is no need to stick to "solid" surfaces for those boundaries. Therefore, the Earth and some arbitrary amount of "empty" space around it can be an entity.

So, it's entity-causation. But the Earth still seems to be the proximate cause of its own gravitational field, and the bending of spacetime is what I would call the effect, not itself a cause (or not a proximate cause, at least).


eudaimonia,

Mark

are you saying space doesn't exist?

 

[createdtoworship]

Undoubtedly, but that doesn't mean it's a real law. We experience a constant force of gravity pulling us down, but we're wrong to conclude that that force is everywhere: it changes in strength and direction, most notably as you go round the planet, or far away from the planet.

According to law and jurisprudence, legal cause must be demonstrated to hold a defendant liable for a crime or a tort (i.e. a civil wrong such as negligence or trespass). It must be proven that causality, or a "sufficient causal link" relates the defendant's actions to the criminal event or damage in question. Causation is also an essential legal element that must be proven to qualify for remedy measures under international trade law.[32]

from
Causality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I already listed a number of quantum phenomena that violate causality (tunnelling, radioactive decay, etc). I appreciate that causality seems like one of the fundamental rules of the universe, but it's really not. It's just an intuitive thing the human brain does to connect one event with another, but at the most fundamental level, atoms don't operate in a way the human brain can easily conceive. Again, that doesn't mean we don't know or understand what or why they do what they do, just that it's not intuitive: you need to do science to find out what they do, since what they do goes against our first expectations.

also our justice system with sufficient cause for criminals. Is that just a mental thing too? Did the crime really cause the punishment? Of course! ...this is just silly. Secondly you say "do science." I assume you mean typical science not quantum mechanics. And this is my point exactly. Typical common sense uses our senses and does science with them. Quantum mechanics are not practical for every day use and therefore not suitable for this discussion. It would be like me saying quantum mechanics and alternate dimensions caused this man to murder his neighbor. No, the man is guilty as charged. Cause and affect, it's everywhere. Including every thing you stated above. You just haven't opened up to it. Break down why each thing you state does not have cause and affect and I will show you opposite.

It's like 4D hypercubes. We can't imagine them in our heads, but we still know everything there is to know about them.

so, like purple elephants there is purple and there is an elephant. Did genetics CAUSE the elephant to become purple or did it do it all by itself and become a uncaused agent?[/QUOTE]

pictures of 4d hypercube.....that I can imagine quite nicely...

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

By all means. I'll have your Nobel Prize ready

okay well do radio active decay not being spontaneus....

from google like I said...

"There are several ways in which radioactive atoms can decay. Here's one example: suppose an atom has too many neutrons to be stable.That's the case with tritium, 3H1.

Does it just kick out one of the neutrons?


No, it can't do that; the neutrons are stuck too firmly where they are.

The neutron turns into a proton! 3H1 becomes 3He2.

Right. An unstable isotope of hydrogen has converted itself into a stable isotope of helium. You'll notice that 3H1 and 3He2 have the same mass number, which is good, because mass has to be conserved.

from

What causes radioactive decay?

I wouldn't say it like that, but yes, pretty much. A particle quantum tunnels out of a potential well without rhyme or reason: it is allowed in the mathematics of quantum mechanics, it is a physical phenomenon we can readily observe (I use STMs, great fun, and they only work if tunnelling works), but ultimately, the instance of tunnelling isn't caused by anything. The physics of the universe allows it to happen, but there's no event that says, "OK, now you tunnel".

again with magic google I found out the cause of quantum tunnels....

"Quantum tunneling is due to the fact that particles have a wave function."

I reject that such a law actually exists. I maintain that this 'law' is nothing more than an observation of macroscopic phenomena that doesn't translate down to the microscopic world.

And I reject your view. So there is cause and affect right there and you don't know it.

I apologise. If what you mean by 'common sense' isn't Classical Mechanics, then what is it? I'm truly at a loss here - it's not the standard definition, it's not CM, what is it?

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

from
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No science is CM: we disproved it. QM and GR replaced CM as our tools to explain and predict the behaviour of the real world. I don't know what you mean by 'common sense' - can you define it, please? Could you give examples?

common scientific method, please.

 

[Davian]

...
Quantum mechanics are not practical for every day use and therefore not suitable for this discussion.

Quantum mechanics is specifically what I was referring to in this discussion.

 

[createdtoworship]

Quantum mechanics is specifically what I was referring to in this discussion.

it's like using unreal numbers in math. It's not real.

 

[Davian]

...
Again, the Big Bang may have had a cause, or maybe it didn't. We don't know.

I know

You do? What was it?

And then explain what caused *it*.

 

[createdtoworship]

You do? What was it?

And then explain what caused *it*.

the big bang started, therefore it had a starter.

Thats what I said , I knew.

that the big bang was caused.

Because we see cause and effect every day, why not at the beginning of the universe?

 

[Davian]

the big bang started, therefore it had a starter.

Thats what I said , I knew.

that the big bang was caused.

No, he said it may or may not have had a cause.

Because we see cause and effect every day, why not at the beginning of the universe?

Which begs the question, what caused whatever caused the big bang?

 

[createdtoworship]

No, he said it may or may not have had a cause.

Which begs the question, what caused whatever caused the big bang?

okay, I never said I knew and I am fairly certain you don't either....right?

 

[Davian]

No, he said it may or may not have had a cause.

Which begs the question, what caused whatever caused the big bang?

okay, I never said I knew and I am fairly certain you don't either....right?

I hate to be presumptuous, but one might think that someone that has a cross as their faith symbol has already provided an answer for that question. Would you like to elucidate further?

I will say that the problem is not in the answer, but in the question.