The Causation Argument

[Learner]

The 'science is atheist' rant again. A recurring FOX News theme.

'atheist science' like evolution and cosmology. Science out to destroy Christianity. Science as another imagined Christian enemy doing the work of Satan.

Says the CNN.

 

[Tigers!]

Not to mention the fact that if a being as complicated, ineffable and omnicapable as the one most cult members are referring to can simply pop into existence, then there is no logical reason why a far less complicated, knowable and largely inert universe couldn't do the same.

And if something popping into existence requires a god then that is one busy dude because things are continually popping into existence throughout the universe (demonstrated by quantum fluctuations and the casimir effect). Either the dude is damned busy or there are one hell of a lot of gods staying busy.

If you have a picture of something 'popping into existence' by quantum fluctuations and the casimir effect I would love to see it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm only treating them distinctively because for example, the Earth and stars as physically formed, have estimated dates/ ages to them.. not eternal.

So, you're missing the point. Or evading it.

I have a sheet of paper. It's been beside my printer for about two years. We don't go thru printer paper all that fast.
Anyway, i tale it, right now, 0838 on July 10, 2020, and fold it into a paper airplane. So, now a plane exists. But the component that the plane was made from existed well before the plane. I need to make a shopping list for dinner. So, i unfold the plane, press it flat, and start writing. Time now. So the plane existed for 3 minutes. When did the plane begin to exist, though?
0838? Two years ago? Three years ago, when they cut down the tree? Twenty three years ago, when they planted the tree?

After that, i have no idea what you're trying to say....

 

[Keith&Co.]

The 'science is atheist' rant again. A recurring FOX News theme.

'atheist science' like evolution and cosmology. Science out to destroy Christianity. Science as another imagined Christian enemy doing the work of Satan.

Says the CNN.

Citation needed.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm only treating them distinctively because for example, the Earth and stars as physically formed, have estimated dates/ ages to them.. not eternal.

So, you're missing the point. Or evading it.

I have a sheet of paper. It's been beside my printer for about two years. We don't go thru printer paper all that fast.
Anyway, i tale it, right now, 0838 on July 10, 2020, and fold it into a paper airplane. So, now a plane exists. But the component that the plane was made from existed well before the plane. I need to make a shopping list for dinner. So, i unfold the plane, press it flat, and start writing. Time now. So the plane existed for 3 minutes. When did the plane begin to exist, though?
0838? Two years ago? Three years ago, when they cut down the tree? Twenty three years ago, when they planted the tree?

After that, i have no idea what you're trying to say....

Is a person that cannot understand such a simple simple point being willfully ignorant, sincerely ignorant, brainwashed, or? Whatever the case it certainly speaks of scientific illiteracy. My feeble attempt to discuss how anything "ends" obviously failed. Feynman's take was that a person doesn't need to understand the labels so long as they understand the underlying principle and mechanism, that labels are just for communication. Religious creationists objectify labels without ever understanding the substance of a discussion.

 

[Wiploc]

Not to mention the fact that if a being as complicated, ineffable and omnicapable as the one most cult members are referring to can simply pop into existence, then there is no logical reason why a far less complicated, knowable and largely inert universe couldn't do the same.

And if something popping into existence requires a god then that is one busy dude because things are continually popping into existence throughout the universe (demonstrated by quantum fluctuations and the casimir effect). Either the dude is damned busy or there are one hell of a lot of gods staying busy.

If you have a picture of something 'popping into existence' by quantum fluctuations and the casimir effect I would love to see it.

If you have a picture of a god popping into causality at the beginning of time, I'd love to see it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Not to mention the fact that if a being as complicated, ineffable and omnicapable as the one most cult members are referring to can simply pop into existence, then there is no logical reason why a far less complicated, knowable and largely inert universe couldn't do the same.

And if something popping into existence requires a god then that is one busy dude because things are continually popping into existence throughout the universe (demonstrated by quantum fluctuations and the casimir effect). Either the dude is damned busy or there are one hell of a lot of gods staying busy.

If you have a picture of something 'popping into existence' by quantum fluctuations and the casimir effect I would love to see it.

Indeed, I wish we had the technical ability to photograph electrons and other subatomic particles too. An accurate photograph would probably tell us some new things about atoms.

Surely that is what you meant rather than you believing that the only proof of something existing is an 8"x10" glossy photograph of it.

 

[atrib]

I'm only treating them distinctively because for example, the Earth and stars as physically formed, have estimated dates/ ages to them.. not eternal.

The matter/energy that stars and planets are made of predates the formation of the stars and planets. Did you really not know that?

I would ponder on the idea (outside theism)...If energy has always exited why wouldn't it evolve (for lack of better contextual word) with endless time advantage, into a conscious-thinking creative entity like humans have evolved as conscious-thinking creative entities in the natural physical world?

because energy needs something physical to hold data. Forget the completely non-corporeal energy-beings in Star Trek, you need matter to store a pattern for memory, thoughts, locker combinations, and math calculations.
What evolves is matters ability to hold and use energy.

If matter is uniform throughout the universe then there should be pattern-for-memory as you put it, in the energy itself, e.g. matter (being energy) to be able to hold its particular shape and form - and with all the varieties of elements that have their own individual properties consistent and uniform throughout the cosmos. I'd say logically there'd be pattern-storage of sorts on many different levels within the multitudes of energy (fields if you will) to the physical level where humans are able to do math calculations and locker combinations etc..

You are confused as usual, and not making any sense. The pattern that Steve is talking about relates to the emergent behavior of very complex neural networks, like human brains, that gives rise to things like memory. Human brains are made of matter/energy, and things like memories exist as patterns of arrangements of neurons within these brains.

 

[atrib]

Not to mention the fact that if a being as complicated, ineffable and omnicapable as the one most cult members are referring to can simply pop into existence, then there is no logical reason why a far less complicated, knowable and largely inert universe couldn't do the same.

And if something popping into existence requires a god then that is one busy dude because things are continually popping into existence throughout the universe (demonstrated by quantum fluctuations and the casimir effect). Either the dude is damned busy or there are one hell of a lot of gods staying busy.

If you have a picture of something 'popping into existence' by quantum fluctuations and the casimir effect I would love to see it.

Why a photograph? We can detect many phenomena without having to take photographs of them, like for example gravity waves from the merging of neutron stars. Wouldn't a trace on an oscilloscope showing the passage of a gravity wave also count as an observation?

 

[steve_bank]

The 'science is atheist' rant again. A recurring FOX News theme.

'atheist science' like evolution and cosmology. Science out to destroy Christianity. Science as another imagined Christian enemy doing the work of Satan.

Says the CNN.

CNN is the most trusted source in the world. I know because they say so. Kind of like what Chrustians say about god, bible is truth.

Yet again you sidestep the question.

 

[Learner]

In no particular Order.

I'm only treating them distinctively because for example, the Earth and stars as physically formed, have estimated dates/ ages to them.. not eternal.

So, you're missing the point. Or evading it.

I have a sheet of paper. It's been beside my printer for about two years. We don't go thru printer paper all that fast.
Anyway, i tale it, right now, 0838 on July 10, 2020, and fold it into a paper airplane. So, now a plane exists. But the component that the plane was made from existed well before the plane. I need to make a shopping list for dinner. So, i unfold the plane, press it flat, and start writing. Time now. So the plane existed for 3 minutes. When did the plane begin to exist, though?
0838? Two years ago? Three years ago, when they cut down the tree? Twenty three years ago, when they planted the tree?

After that, i have no idea what you're trying to say....

Is a person that cannot understand such a simple simple point being willfully ignorant, sincerely ignorant, brainwashed, or? Whatever the case it certainly speaks of scientific illiteracy. My feeble attempt to discuss how anything "ends" obviously failed. Feynman's take was that a person doesn't need to understand the labels so long as they understand the underlying principle and mechanism, that labels are just for communication. Religious creationists objectify labels without ever understanding the substance of a discussion.

It looks like everyones missing the point here...deliberately? It's agreed and understood that there is no scientific study that tells you either way. We are discussing propositions (last few posts) which seems sensible enough to me, whether you like/agree with it or not. Best put away your "don't understand" joker cards, (I know enough to discuss with)so we can advance a little as I really can't be bothered to play that game.

Back in a bit

 

[atrib]

Is a person that cannot understand such a simple simple point being willfully ignorant, sincerely ignorant, brainwashed, or? Whatever the case it certainly speaks of scientific illiteracy. My feeble attempt to discuss how anything "ends" obviously failed. Feynman's take was that a person doesn't need to understand the labels so long as they understand the underlying principle and mechanism, that labels are just for communication. Religious creationists objectify labels without ever understanding the substance of a discussion.

It looks like everyones missing the point here...deliberately? It's agreed and understood that there is no scientific study that tells you either way. We are discussing propositions (last few posts) which seems sensible enough to me, whether you like/agree with it or not. Best put away your "don't understand" joker cards, (I know enough to discuss with)so we can advance a little as I really can't be bothered to play that game.

Why don't you state the full argument - first cause, KCA or whatever you want to call - along with the supporting premises, and we can explain why the argument is flawed. Assuming you are still talking about the first cause argument, because with your garbled posts it is hard to tell.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It looks like everyones missing the point here...deliberately?

you SAY that matter and energy are tge same thing, then explain why you treat them as different things, ducking the question posed to you, and making a hash of the others' claims.

What the fuck IS your 'point,' then?

It's agreed and understood that there is no scientific study that tells you either way.

except your side seems to consistently take 'uncertainty' as a failure.

Best put away your "don't understand" joker cards, (I know enough to discuss with)so we can advance a little as I really can't be bothered to play that game.

how about any sign that you actually do understand, then? Care to play that game? SHOW your level of understanding, rather than assert it?

 

[skepticalbip]

Is a person that cannot understand such a simple simple point being willfully ignorant, sincerely ignorant, brainwashed, or? Whatever the case it certainly speaks of scientific illiteracy. My feeble attempt to discuss how anything "ends" obviously failed. Feynman's take was that a person doesn't need to understand the labels so long as they understand the underlying principle and mechanism, that labels are just for communication. Religious creationists objectify labels without ever understanding the substance of a discussion.

It looks like everyones missing the point here...

If there is a point then I am certainly missing it. And, since it appears that everyone is, maybe you should consider that the problem is that you are not offering your point (if there is one) understandably. In effect, what exactly are you trying to say?

 

[atrib]

Is a person that cannot understand such a simple simple point being willfully ignorant, sincerely ignorant, brainwashed, or? Whatever the case it certainly speaks of scientific illiteracy. My feeble attempt to discuss how anything "ends" obviously failed. Feynman's take was that a person doesn't need to understand the labels so long as they understand the underlying principle and mechanism, that labels are just for communication. Religious creationists objectify labels without ever understanding the substance of a discussion.

It looks like everyones missing the point here...

If there is a point then I am certainly missing it. And, since it appears that everyone is, maybe you should consider that the problem is that you are not offering your point (if there is one) understandably. In effect, what exactly are you trying to say?

Its hard to have a meaningful discussion when the other party doesn't even understand the topic of discussion. I keep asking Learner to state his argument so we can get on the same page, but he won't do that either, probably because he doesn't understand how the first cause argument works.

 

[atrib]

... snip ...
And while these models should be considered speculative until we can develop experiments to test all aspects of these models, many or even most cosmologists tentatively agree that our visible universe is not all that is.

All the many cosmological models are speculative. All have serious problems. None are known to be true. Some fit our currently known physics better than others.

This is not true. Our model of the universe starting from Planck Time, the Big Bang Theory and General Relativity, is robust, well understood and well tested, since we have empirical observations from this period and the laws of nature have remained consistent during this period. But prior to Planck time, the universe had very different properties, and our models of this very early state, like Guth's inflation theory is still considered somewhat speculative. We have a lot more observations in the 50 years since Guth first proposed his inflation model (like the WMAP and Planck observational data), and we know a lot more today than we did 50 years ago, but we cannot cannot conclusively verify these models using empirical observations.

 

[steve_bank]

Is a person that cannot understand such a simple simple point being willfully ignorant, sincerely ignorant, brainwashed, or? Whatever the case it certainly speaks of scientific illiteracy. My feeble attempt to discuss how anything "ends" obviously failed. Feynman's take was that a person doesn't need to understand the labels so long as they understand the underlying principle and mechanism, that labels are just for communication. Religious creationists objectify labels without ever understanding the substance of a discussion.

It looks like everyones missing the point here...deliberately? It's agreed and understood that there is no scientific study that tells you either way. We are discussing propositions (last few posts) which seems sensible enough to me, whether you like/agree with it or not. Best put away your "don't understand" joker cards, (I know enough to discuss with)so we can advance a little as I really can't be bothered to play that game.

Back in a bit

Yes propositins.

Science bases propositions on a set of unambiguous units of measure based on the kilogram, second, and meter. Systems International.

One can my expiation of the universe is....

But then it has to be modeled using SI units. set of equations. First the math is peer reviewed. Then attempts ae made to compare model to observation. Anything else is philosophical speculate and religion. Christian creationism does not require any validation, only speculation based on Genesis.

There has always been competing theories of cosmology in science. The fact that there is not universal agreement is not a failure of science. It is a matter of cosmology not being experimentally validated.

I expect that you understand the difference between science and religion, but are unwilling to admit it.

Somewhere around the 15th century a Jewish rabbi and philosopher Moses Memonimedes wrote in A Guide For The Perplexed that when science and scripture conflict interpretation of scriptura must change.

The issue is old, the most well known case being Galileo.

In the 18th century when Ben Franklin demented lightning was a natural electrical phenomena it caused a theological crisis. Lighting coming from above was thought to be from god. If it hit your barn it was a sign from god.

The use of lightning rods to protect your house was considered by some Christians an abomination, an offense to god.


When Galileo shoed people there were mountains on he moon through his telescope some said hey saw nothing.

Today it is evolution and still cosmology.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...
And while these models should be considered speculative until we can develop experiments to test all aspects of these models, many or even most cosmologists tentatively agree that our visible universe is not all that is.

All the many cosmological models are speculative. All have serious problems. None are known to be true. Some fit our currently known physics better than others.

This is not true. Our model of the universe starting from Planck Time, the Big Bang Theory and General Relativity, is robust, well understood and well tested, since we have empirical observations from this period and the laws of nature have remained consistent during this period. But prior to Planck time, the universe had very different properties, and our models of this very early state, like Guth's inflation theory is still considered somewhat speculative. We have a lot more observations in the 50 years since Guth first proposed his inflation model (like the WMAP and Planck observational data), and we know a lot more today than we did 50 years ago, but we cannot cannot conclusively verify these models using empirical observations.

To get to Planck time, Guth's inflation is needed (inflation is very speculative). And, as you say, inflation has problems. Inflation was offered as a fix of the Big Bang model. The problem it was to 'fix' was that the universe should not be as uniform as it was observed to be (inflation solved that). The Big Bang model (without inflation) also would mean that the universe was much older which is belied by the dearth of old stars... inflation solved the age problem too.

However, inflation creates more problems than it solves. The uniformity problem was solved by having expansion begin, then pause until everything reached density, energy, and thermal equilibrium (to solve the communication problem) then superluminal inflation to almost the current volume of the Universe... then inflation everywhere stops and normal expansion continues. Question; how did that first pause happen, how did inflation occur after that pause, how did inflation stop uniformly across the universe (the communication problem writ huge.) Then, there is the superluminal inflation to deal with.

I agree that the Big Bang (minus inflation, but minus inflation leaves the problems inflation solved) is the most robust we have of cosmology models because it is written to fit observation. But other cosmological models are trying to push well beyond current observations.

ETA:
The major problem I have with inflation is that it is an ad hoc assertion... sorta a "then a miracle happens". Modeling should be supported with physics.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm only treating them distinctively because for example, the Earth and stars as physically formed, have estimated dates/ ages to them.. not eternal.

So, you're missing the point. Or evading it.

I have a sheet of paper. It's been beside my printer for about two years. We don't go thru printer paper all that fast.
Anyway, i tale it, right now, 0838 on July 10, 2020, and fold it into a paper airplane. So, now a plane exists. But the component that the plane was made from existed well before the plane. I need to make a shopping list for dinner. So, i unfold the plane, press it flat, and start writing. Time now. So the plane existed for 3 minutes. When did the plane begin to exist, though?
0838? Two years ago? Three years ago, when they cut down the tree? Twenty three years ago, when they planted the tree?...

That's a very long-winded way of saying you think the universe has always existed. sheesh!

The folded piece of paper used to be unfolded and flat...before that it was a tree...before that it was carbon/chlorophyll/sunlight...before the sun there was a singularity and before that...blah blah blah


Lion IRC's impression of a past eternal, perpetual motion universe.



Lion IRC's impression of two past-eternal inanimate objects struggling with each other.



Beethoven NOT causing his 5th symphony to come into existence.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Does anyone know what point Lion is trying to make?