One piece, the Kalam

[DogmaHunter]

You sure have your debating vocabs eagerly ready, don't you?
Seriously though, when you deny a cause forthe universe, there's nothing left.
It's what we call "implication".

Actually, it's called false dichotomy.

In any case, YOU are going to talk about "implications"?
Perhaps you should ponder the implications of the phenomena of causality. More specifically, what it implies when you realise that causes happen BEFORE effects.

 

[quatona]

Seriously though, when you deny a cause forthe universe, there's nothing left.

Since you yourself postulate an "uncaused cause" it comes as a surprise that something being uncaused appears to be such an outlandish idea to you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When time began to exist, what was the cause for it?
What's your problem?

The problem is you insisting on having a temporal event happening before time.

 

[quatona]

In the absence of time, nothing can happen.

 

[The Cadet]

What would explain the complexity and fine tuning of the universe

I don't know. Do you have a well-evidenced explanation?

 

[durangodawood]

In the absence of time, nothing can happen.

Maybe there's another time dimension, from which our time dimension can be caused?

I think we can speculate our way out almost any conceptual problem that we propose for the 'divine realm'. Anything goes in this mode of thinking. Even non-sense. We are in no position to say whats impossible there.

But the same un-knowable-ness dooms arguments like Kalam, which try (and fail) to force conclusions based on utter speculations.

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe there's another time dimension, from which our time dimension can be caused?

I think we can speculate our way out almost any conceptual problem that we propose for the 'divine realm'. Anything goes in this mode of thinking. Even non-sense. We are in no position to say whats impossible there.

But the same un-knowable-ness dooms arguments like Kalam, which try (and fail) to force conclusions based on utter speculations.

The Twilight Zone!

 

[Hieronymus]

Maybe there's another time dimension, from which our time dimension can be caused?

Yes, something like that.
Who can tell?
But religions claim they have things revealed by God.
The Bible clearly assumes to be written history about God and man.
Is there reason to think it is made up nonsense?
Is there reason to think it is what it claims to be?

I think we can speculate our way out almost any conceptual problem that we propose for the 'divine realm'. Anything goes in this mode of thinking. Even non-sense.

Yes, well, but that's non-sense, nonsense holds no water, it will collapse...

We are in no position to say what's impossible there.

I agree.
Iḿ inclined to think mathematics would still apply, or some kind of greater logic..

But the same un-knowable-ness dooms arguments like Kalam, which try (and fail) to force conclusions based on utter speculations.

I think it's still a good argument.

 

[durangodawood]

...Yes, well, but that's non-sense, nonsense holds no water, it will collapse......

Non-sense is precisely what you propose with a cause-effect relationship that preceeds time itself.

I'll repeat this:
Cause preceeds effect. Right?
There can be no "preceeds" until time is already happening.

 

[Hieronymus]

How about "cause determines effect"?

And why do you propose a dimension of time beyond our time, and then still assume "our time can not be caused because there was no time to cause it", and thus limiting the possibilities of "that realm" yourself, of which you say "we are in no position to say what's impossible..."
Or is it the word "cause" that is the problem here?
Does not the dictionary leave enough room to apply it regardless of the time-boundness of the cause itself?

Do you have a better word?

 

[durangodawood]

How about "cause determines effect"?

And why do you propose a dimension of time beyond our time, and then still assume "our time can not be caused because there was no time to cause it", and thus limiting the possibilities of "that realm" yourself, of which you say "we are in no position to say what's impossible..."
Or is it the word "cause" that is the problem here?
Does not the dictionary leave enough room to apply it regardless of the time-boundness of the cause itself?

Do you have a better word?

If I can propose another time T2 orthagonal to our T1, as an attempt to resolve the problem... Then I can just as well propose an eternal chain of universes giving "birth" to more universes (such as ours), as an attempt to solve the problem.

Point is: if we can propose the solution "God" and say all its untestable attributes are possible, then why cant we propose any number of other non-God solutions.

Why does 'dreaming-without-limits' lead only to the God answer? It seems you are just settling on the preferred answer.

 

[bhsmte]

If I can propose another time T2 orthagonal to our T1, as an attempt to resolve the problem... Then I can just as well propose an eternal chain of universes giving "birth" to more universes (such as ours), as an attempt to solve the problem.

Point is: if we can propose the solution "God" and say all its untestable attributes are possible, then why cant we propose any number of other non-God solutions.

Why does 'dreaming-without-limits' lead only to the God answer? It seems you are just settling on the preferred answer.

Because the people proposing a God, believe in a God?

 

[quatona]

Maybe there's another time dimension, from which our time dimension can be caused?

That´s an entirely different hypothesis. Are you prepared to defend it?

I think we can speculate our way out almost any conceptual problem that we propose for the 'divine realm'. Anything goes in this mode of thinking. Even non-sense. We are in no position to say whats impossible there.

Exactly. And as far as I am concerned, everyone is free to speculate to their hearts´ desire until the cows come home.
What, however, I take issue with is:
a. when a persons discards speculative possibilities for reasons that apply to their own speculations, as well,
b. when wild speculations and appeals to "common sense" go hand in hand,
c. when someone erects a totally counterintuitive hypothesis and at the same time pretends he is using words in their common meaning ("it´s in the dictionary") which actually can´t be applied at all.

But the same un-knowable-ness dooms arguments like Kalam, which try (and fail) to force conclusions based on utter speculations.

Agreed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How about "cause determines effect"?

Still temporal.

 

[KCfromNC]

Did nothing cause time then?

We don't have any practical experience about the type of nothing you're talking about here, so who knows. Maybe nothing can cause all sorts of things. Point us to exactly what sort of nothing you're interested in and we can start testing things out.

 

[Hieronymus]

We don't have any practical experience about the type of nothing you're talking about here, so who knows. Maybe nothing can cause all sorts of things. Point us to exactly what sort of nothing you're interested in and we can start testing things out.

Nothing is nothing, not any thing.

 

[The Cadet]

Nothing is nothing, not any thing.

Great. Is that even a coherent concept? After all, once you are thinking about a concept, then you have at least one thing - a mind considering it. Can we even imagine "nothing"? Let alone explain it in any meaningful way? Is what you've described actually a meaningful thing? Even without getting into the issue of "did this ever exist in any form", the concept is just riddled with problems.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nothing is nothing, not any thing.

I don't know what that is.
In any case, if it is "not any thing", then why are you invoking it?

 

[KCfromNC]

Nothing is nothing, not any thing.

Where can we find an example of this nothingness so we can learn how it behaves?

 

[Hieronymus]

Where can we find an example of this nothingness so we can learn how it behaves?

The challenge appears to be understanding what 'nothing' means.