EvC Forum: Big Bang Found

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Big Bang Found

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 134 of 301 (723296)
03-28-2014 3:54 PM

Reply to: Message 133 by kbertsche
03-28-2014 3:32 PM

Re: You haven't said much here...

1) nature (including the process that you propose) had a beginning to its existence, in which case it needs a super-natural cause

As far as we know, beginnings requiring causes is something that happens within the universe. There's no reason to extrapolate that to the whole universe, itself.

With time also having an emergence, the universe may just be wrapping back up into itself in the past direction, which could be a "beginning" without a cause.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 133 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 3:32 PM		kbertsche has not replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

(5)

Message 169 of 301 (723411)
04-01-2014 11:10 AM

Reply to: Message 167 by kbertsche
04-01-2014 10:45 AM

Re: You haven't said much here...

Would you call "the law of causation" a "physical law"? I think it's more of a philosophical/logical necessity than it is a physical law. Are you trying to say that since the laws of physics break down at the Planck scale, that the laws of logic do, also? What about the laws of mathematics?

All of those things happen within the universe. We have no reason to expect them to have to happen to the universe as a whole.

I don't think there is any warrant for making the laws of metaphysics dependent on the laws of physics.

There's no such thing as "laws" of metaphysics.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 167 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 10:45 AM		kbertsche has not replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 280 of 301 (724908)
04-22-2014 10:07 AM

Reply to: Message 275 by kbertsche
04-19-2014 9:47 PM

Re: Causation and nuclear decay

NoNukes hit the nail on the head:

quote:
Kbersche's position is more of a semantic argument whose point is merely to establish that there are no exceptions to premise 1 of the Kalam cosmological argument.

He's right, isn't he?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 275 by kbertsche, posted 04-19-2014 9:47 PM		kbertsche has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

9 online now:	LamarkNewAge, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), popoi, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,469 Year: 3,726/9,624 Month: 597/974 Week: 210/276 Day: 50/34 Hour: 1/5