They should call this the "Emotion" forum

[Morat]

  For someone who fled that thread after demonstrating a rather nauseating mixture of arrogance and ignorance, you've not got a lot of room to talk, do you?

   Or do you care to actually learn this time, instead of demonstrating your ignorance with each post on the subject?

   Not that it matters, Souljah boy, because it's still a description of an event. Science describes, Souljah. And quantum fluctuations and virtual particles, much as they may upset your personal wishes about the universe, are still a description of existant phenomenon.

   I'm quite willing to claim the Big Bang, at least the first few minutes of it, are still fuzzy. And anything predating it is mere hypothesizing at the moment. But then, arrogant certainity isn't science's game. It proceeds by a continuus process of reevaluation and testing.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I'm quite willing to claim the Big Bang, at least the first few minutes of it, are still fuzzy. And anything predating it is mere hypothesizing at the moment

So virtual particles didn't appear from nothing to cause it? What caused the original particles that made up the Big Bang?

 

[Morat]

So virtual particles didn't appear from nothing to cause it?

 Who claimed they did? Quantum fluctuation (VPP production) is a fact of this universe.

  I believe I stated that some Big Bang cosmologies were looking at notions akin to VPP production.

 What caused the original particles that made up the Big Bang?

   What causes VPP's to appear? Cause isn't exactly necessary for things, you know. Cause and effect are macroscopic things, and require time's arrow as well.

   No time, no "cause and effect".

 

 

[LouisBooth]

"Probably beacause being an "evolutionist" has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life."

*sigh* I know that. It just seems really funny that they are so concerned with how and never want to address the beginning or the why.

 

[David Gould]

I have addressed the how: I do not know how. Is this lack of knowledge supposed to weaken evolutionary theory in some way?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
It just seems really funny that they are so concerned with how and never want to address the beginning or the why.

Louis, if you want to discuss it, start a new thread dealing with the origin of life. Maybe someone might bite. The only time I know of people not wanting to deal with it, is when it is superflous to the issues at hand. Kind of like in this thread.

 

[Cantuar]

It just seems really funny that they are so concerned with how and never want to address the beginning or the why.

They don't want to address the beginning because that involves some very heavy maths and physics, which most of us can't begin to understand, and they don't want to address the why because that isn't science. Science is concerned with addressing the how - if you want the why, you need philosophy and theology.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

No time, no "cause and effect".

And you are satisfied to stop there Morat? While I agree it isn't possible to ask a logical question about time before there was time as we know it, I would think that a truth seeker such as yourself would want to know more.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

They don't want to address the beginning because that involves some very heavy maths and physics, which most of us can't begin to understand, and they don't want to address the why because that isn't science. Science is concerned with addressing the how - if you want the why, you need philosophy and theology.

Yes, but this isn't what many atheist actually do. They use the explanation of the "how" of things they observe, to try and disprove the existence of the "why." If they are going to use science to do that, and be that bold, it should be backed up.

 

[Morat]

  I'd call that a strawman. The closest I've seen is for atheists to point out that the "how" means your "why" isn't needed. And that's only to refute claims that your "why" was "how" and thus "is".

  So, to be more specific: If you claim that God was needed to start the universe, some atheists at least will point out that he wasn't, and that out of all the other times people said God was the cause, God hasn't been.

  As for truthseeking, I was pointing out the truth. If there is no time, there is no "Cause and effect" because causes must preceed effects. Without time, you cannot do that.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

There is cause and effect, just not in any way that we are used to thinking about it, and the fact is that our language is not flexible enough to even describe it.

I just dont think it makes sense to say that all causes have to exist in space/time, even though cause implies time.  Errr...this is hard to talk about.

 

[Morat]

  There are two definitions of "cause" that are applicable. There is cause in the sense of "reason why" and cause in the sense of "thing that made this thing happen".

   Sometimes they're the same thing. Sometimes related things. Sometimes not. 

   In quantum mechanics, things happen causelessly all the time.  

   Take radioactive decay. Take two identical molecules of N13. Wait a length of time. One will decay. The other will not. Why? What caused one element to decay, and not the other?

   We can talk about how decay works. That's one definition of "cause" (that is, the quantum mechanical nature that is such that decay of elements will occur). But there is no "cause" in the sense of "what made that element decay then and not later".

   Ours is not a deterministic universe. On the macroscopic element, it looks much like one. But deep down, you have a causeless one. So what caused the Big Bang? Well, science might give you something like "what caused that one atom of N13 to decay".

  But in a deterministic sense? It's quite possible, even likely, that no deterministic cause exists, because none was needed.

 

[seebs]

To clarify, we don't *know* of any cause, and whatever causes there are are so unpredictable that we might as well assume there isn't one, for now. Maybe one will be discovered some day.

 

[Morat]

  I had been told, but have no current way of verifying if this is true (much less how you can tell), that in some circumstances it is entirely possible to differentiate between "caused" and "uncaused".  Okay, here it is (in regards to radioactive decay,  ironically):

"The classic example (because everyone is familiar with
it, it being the basis for the atom bomb and nuclear power)
is radioactive decay.  As far as science can determine,
radioactive decay is causeless - it occurs spontaneously,
with no trigger.  Let me explain, as best I can without going
into QM theory in (mindwarping) detail.  The following explanation
is, alas, simplified  ..."

"Some properties of nature are determined by something
called 'degrees of freedom'.  Degrees of freedom have
measurable consequences in how things behave.  It
turns out that if something has an additional variable,
it has more degrees of freedom.  If there is a (hidden)
cause, even if we cannot determine that cause, it
acts as a variable, causing more degrees of freedom,
with measurable consequences."

"Thus, for many systems, we can determine how many
variables there are for that system from the degrees
of freedom it demonstrates.  If all of the variables are
accounted for, and none of them is the cause, then
the event is apparently causeless."

"This theory is of vast predictive power, and no violation
of it is known - we have *never* found something with
more (or less) variables than would be consistent with the
degrees of freedom.  So, basically, we have good reason
to think those events are actually causeless, and no
good reason to think they have a cause."

"Now, it is indeed possible that all of this is wrong, and
there is somehow a way for something to have a cause
without that cause acting as a variable ... but modern
science hasn't found such a way, and such a thing
has never been observed.  To assert that it has a
hidden cause (a hidden variable) is basically to assert
that a scientific theory with good predictive power and
good supporting evidence is wrong for philosophical
or religious reasons rather than reasons of evidence ..."

"Did that help at all?  I'm afraid it was quite over-simplified,
so if anyone thinks they can explain it better, you're
welcome to take a swing at it."

   You got me on whether this is accurate. Any physicists on board?

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Morat-

I agree with you that this is not a deterministic world at the quantum level. (Which is proof of free-will by the way)

However, I don't think we can make the leap from observing things with no cause to saying that the Universe can have no cause, simpy because we see things in this Universe that don't seem to have a cause.

 

[Jerry Smith]

With great trepidation, I post to a reply to this discussion...

However, I don't think we can make the leap from observing things with no cause to saying that the Universe can have no cause, simpy because we see things in this Universe that don't seem to have a cause.

Why not? Didn't we previously make the leap from observing things with a cause to saying that the universe must have a cause?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Jerry-

Feel free.

I think it boils down to whether you honestly believe that something can come from nothing. Period.

If there was nothing...as in The Void of all energy/matter...do you honestly believe that something could "pop" into existence?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Jerry-

Feel free.

I think it boils down to whether you honestly believe that something can come from nothing. Period.

If there was nothing...as in The Void of all energy/matter...do you honestly believe that something could "pop" into existence?

s0uljah, I honestly don't know. I reject the leap that says the universe MUST have a cause. If everything that exists MUST have a cause, we are led to infinite regress. If there is a stopping point - a something which did not have to have a cause - then we do not find infinite regress. The ultimate answer most likely lies with infinite regress or an uncaused thing.

I haven't figured out yet whether anything within the human realm of experience is actually uncaused or can actually "pop" into existence without energy. I don't come close to understanding VP's and their origin - my take is that they "borrow" energy from themselves, not an outside source, and that they are more a property of space/time geometry than "things". At the same time real particles could also be described as being a property of space/time geometry rather than "things", too...

It is an interesting subject, but too advanced for me. I'd like to know more. At this point, I think the Kalam cosmological argument has failed - i.e. we cannot adduce a Creator from existence by strict scientific rationale. In other words, we cannot make the leap from observing causation to assuming that the universe must be caused. If I should choose to believe in a Creator, I would have to concede to do it without rational proof. Isn't that what most Christians believe God wants anyway?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Great post Jerry, and good points. Yes, ultimately, God wants us to abandon our own knowledge and trust Him. That is the tricky part. There is nothing wrong with seeing evidence for God (not proof) and letting that help you get towards opening your heart to God, but at some point, we all need to surrender ourselves and our pride of knowledge, and then we can KNOW God exists, because He promises that will happen through a relationship with us, and He ain't a liar.

Peace

 

[Ben Reid]

Originally posted by David Gould
I will freely discuss my views on the origin of life. Here it is:

I do not know how life originated.

Anyone want to discuss this?

OK, sure! What do you mean by the words "I", "know", "life" and "originated"?

Tell me about your mother and father? Is the fact that you "don't know" a sub-conscious result of something you experienced as a child?

Does the fact that you "don't know" lead to the logical conclusion that humans really DO grow on trees, and swing with reckless abandon by day, and prowl for wild zebra by night? Or does it mean that little green men are indeed turning the light on and off when I open and close the fridge door?

I'm just here to help.

Yours truly, 

Benjamin "freud-meets-bozo-the-clown" Reid