|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Time and Beginning to Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
The purpose of this topic is to discuss the notion "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" and it's relationship to our Universe and the implications of a finite past.
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is an intuitive idea, notably lacking a rigorous definition of "beginning to exist". We must take it then, to refer to the beginnings of everyday experience. In everyday experience the thing does not exist, the cause operates and then the thing exists. And, intuitively the cause is responsible for the change from the state where the object in question does not exist to a state where it does. Now consider the case of the first moment of time. For everything that exists at that moment of time there is no prior state when it did not exist, and if a cause is needed it is not needed to bring the object into existence, for that simple reason that it already exists. Thus if we take these objects to have a beginning it is one different from the every day beginnings - and in a way that would seem to remove the need for a cause. To save the argument then, we need a rigorous definition of "beginning to exist", we need to show that it is in fact true that everything that meets this definition has a cause - taking care to deal with the extreme cases - and we need to accept this definition when building on the argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It seems to be covered by the same argument. If the universe didn't come into existence, then that isn't something that happened.
quote: No. I think that the argument I used is a little stronger, since it can't be attacked by arguing for simultaneous causation (which is the common response).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Of course, this fails to address the point. The point is that IF there is no time prior to our universe, we have good grounds to question whether it needs a cause - grounds that CANNOT be answered by our experience, since the situation is completely outside our experience.
quote: By my understanding time and space are related in such a way that it is not possible (in an absolute sense). I'm sure that Cavediver or Son Goku could give you a more authoritative answer. However, this is not relevant to the argument which only relies on there being a first moment in time, and the universe existing (in some form) at that point (i.e. we need to account for the energy, not just spacetime).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And I do. However, this is not what I am discussing, because placing the cause in an external time, still doesn't render the cause timeless. That is why designtheorist declined to take that tack. His argument requires that there is no time prior to our universe in an absolute sense, and this is what I have chosen to address here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I'm afraid that you seem to be under the impression that I am making the argument that the cause must precede the effect. I am not. I deliberately avoided making that argument so that we did not have to go into that. The argument in summary is: 1) "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is an intuitive argument and therefore if there is a situation outside our normal experience with a relevant difference we cannot rely on it. 2) The case of something which exists at the beginning of time is outside of our normal experience. 3) The obvious reason why a cause would be needed for a "beginning" is to bring the thing into existence. There seems to be no other reason. 4) We cannot say that something that exists at the start of time was brought into existence because there is no time prior to it's existence. 5) Therefore we cannot conclude that a thing which exists at the beginning of time requires a cause by that fact alone. Do you understand it now ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That's close. I'm not trying to rule out cause absolutely. What I am trying to do is to show that the inference of a beginning is not justified unless the "beginning" includes a prior state where the object in question does not exist. As I've stated elsewhere scenarios which propose an external time dimension do include a prior state where the object does not exist, so they don't fall under the argument. (They are also no good in arguing for a timeless cause since the cause may well be operating in that time dimension).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I would say that it is general, not ambiguous.
quote: That's wrong. In that case "prior" has no meaning IF WE ONLY CONSIDER OUR TIME DIMENSION. It may well be meaningful in another. And that is all that is required for the argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: If there was something prior in a different dimension of time it wouldn't be only an appearance, it would be a reality.
quote: Since I've already told you that I'm not arguing for that, it isn't a point that would seem to need repeating.
quote: I've got more to say. Anyone who wants to defend designtheorist's argument from his "Big Bang..." thread ought to have something to say, too - even if you agree that I've successfully rebutted it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So you understand that much. But obviously you don't understand how that point fits into my argument because you don't deal with it at all.
quote: i.e. the Kalam argument attempts to sweep the problem under the carpet by not considering the issue I have raised. Too bad for the Kalam argument, if that's the best you can do. You can't honestly deal with a problem by refusing to admit that it exists.
quote: No, now you are being silly.
quote: That can only be true if BY DEFINITION an effect has a cause. In which case you need to show that the universe has a cause before it can be considered an effect. Otherwise you beg the question.
quote: You still haven't produced a decent argument that there IS a cause of the Big Bang yet.
quote: I really wish you would stop pretending that my argument contain fallacies that obviously aren't there. If you don't understand fallacies well enough to tell a valid argument from an invalid one then just don't say anything. There's no special pleading in my argument. Given your assumption that time starts with the Big Bang it really is a very special case.
quote: Actually I would suggest that you need a sound argument that there is a cause first.
quote: The Bible also has instances of God apparently changing his mind. A timeless being can't change it's mind - so either God was lying (about his original intent) - which is supposed to be impossible according to the Bible, or God is a temporal entity. (e.g. Exodus 32:9-14). But aside from the fact that the theological issues are not so clear cut as you think, your beliefs about God are not evidence, or even a philosophical argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It's clearly less important to my argument than the problem of extending intuitive arguments into situations beyond human experience. And that is an issue that you completely ignore.
quote: In fact it is formulates such that your "primary consideration" is NOT important to it, as your failure to produce a valid criticism demonstrates.
quote: That's a gross misrepresentation. In fact I intentionally AVOIDED making an argument that assumed that. You don't even manage to get the conclusion of my argument right !
quote: Of course this is all completely false, and seems to be based on the assumption that I am using the common argument "cause must precede effect therefore the Big Bang could not have a cause". Which is obviously false to anyone who looks at my argument (Percy spotted that I wasn't using that before even promoting the topic ! Message 2)
quote: Like it or not, the Kalam argument does not deal with the question I am addressing, it simply sweeps it under the rug, treating an intuitive argument as an unquestionable truth that must hold in absolutely any conditions. I challenge that - and so far you have utterly failed to address it.
quote: Since I do not believe that or use it in my argument there is no reason why I should. Perhaps you would like to address my actual argument instead of the one you would like me to be using. We can start with these points:
1) "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is an intuitive argument and therefore if there is a situation outside our normal experience with a relevant difference we cannot rely on it. 2) The case of something which exists at the beginning of time is outside of our normal experience.
Do you disagree with either of these ? Can you present a reasoned argument against either of them ? (You might wish to consider the profoundly unintuitive results of Special Relativity before arguing against the first) Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Good.
quote: Quite frankly I find that to be absurd. But if you believe you can provide the logical proof that you claim to have, then please do so, since that seems to be the point of dispute.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And this example is one of the reasons why I chose to avoid the "cause must precede effect" argument. However, if we look at it we cannot say that that the bowling ball caused the depression to come into being. The depression must exist at the very start, without initial cause. All the bowling ball and gravity do is to prevent the cushion from springing back into shape. Even if we assume that the cushion could react instantaneously to the presence of the bowling ball (which a real cushion could not) and we are as generous to the proponents of the kalam argument as intellectual honesty allows, we are still left with no reason to say that the depression was actually created by the bowling ball. That requires distinguishing between the case where the ball did create the depression and the case where the depression existed all along (in the terminology kbertsche probably prefers, the case where the bowling ball is logically prior to the depression and the case where it is) Since the depression's existence at the start of time is logically compatible with either case, - even in the extremely generous hypothetical scenario I propose - the argument that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is inapplicable to anything existing at the start of time, just as I have said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No, I'm not. That time had a beginning is an assumption of the argument I am responding to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Yes, but that is a sustaining cause, maintaining the depression, rather than a creative cause bringing the depression into existence. And given a real cushion creating the depression would require time, which is not available. The argument I am dealing with clearly requires a creative cause (and it is an argument for a creative cause). Thus, a sustaining cause is not relevant (and would require a different argument). Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I think that the argument that if something did not occur, we do not need to propose a cause to explain why it did occur is obviously sound. (Arguing otherwise would appear to assume a contradiction). But since you clearly hold that the existence of "something or someone existing outside of time and matter" somehow gets around this issue please explain it. How can we need to invoke a cause to explain an event that did not happen?(To avoid confusion I do not mean to explain why the event did not happen, but to explain why it did - even though it did not. And if that doesn't make sense to you, it's probably because it doesn't ).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024