An honest answer for a newbie, please.

this is to john, for a clarification... hi there john ... you were talking 'bout the big bang not having a cause, and quoted (or mentioned) hawking as the authority (granted, you didn't appeal to authority, but i agree with you that it's foolish to ignore a mind such as his)...anyway, you appear to be saying "that which begins to exist has no cause" or "for *every* effect there isn't a necessary cause" or something like that... is this in fact the case? or does it only apply to that which begins to exist before anything exists? nah that couldn't be it, cause even if it's that it would *still* fit within the premise i quoted...did the universe begin to exist? i guess it depends on your view of cosmology... if you accept bb for the sake of argument, i assume you agree that the universe began to exist (and along with it space/time?)... anyway, a little clarification if you please... thanks[This message has been edited by forgiven, 11-12-2002][This message has been edited by forgiven, 11-12-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
anyway, you appear to be saying "that which begins to exist has no cause" or "for *every* effect there isn't a necessary cause" or something like that... is this in fact the case?

---

​

Its more like all of our notions about causality are tied to the world around us-- to spacetime. Things happen sequentially. Things move through space. Remove time and space and try to imagine causality. It is like trying to define Cartesian coordinates without the Cartesian or the coordinates.

​

---

i still don't quite understand how that ties in with what i asked... maybe i skipped a step... in your opinion, did the universe 1) begin to exist or has it 2) always existed?if 1), do you affirm or deny the premises "that which begins to exist has a cause"... if 2), well we'll deal with that later, if that's your position... note that i'm not asking you for any kind of explanation as to *when* the cause existed, if it existed, given the nature of space/time, i merely want to know if you affirm or deny the above premise

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
in your opinion, did the universe 1) begin to exist or has it 2) always existed?

---

​

There is a pretty good case for the former and a pretty good case against the latter. In both cases using the concept of beginning almost colloquially.

​

quote:

---

if 1), do you affirm or deny the premises "that which begins to exist has a cause"...

---

​

This is where what I said earlier has relevance. Cause and effect exist in the space-time we inhabit. However, at the extremes -- black holes and singularities-- all the rules change. In other words, in the case of the universe itself, the question simply doesn't make sense.

​

sigh... why is this so difficult? seems like you can say either "i afirm" or "i deny" the premise... since you can't logically do both, you must do one... what's the problem?

​

quote:

---

note that i'm not asking you for any kind of explanation as to *when* the cause existed, if it existed, given the nature of space/time, i merely want to know if you affirm or deny the above premise

---

​

But you are asking *when* Cause and effect requires an element of time. This, I think, is the part you are missing.

---

i'm not missing anything... i simply asked you a question and specifically said i'm *not* interested in when.. then you tell me i am... my question had nothing to do with anything other than, "do you deny or affirm the following premise: that which begins to exist has a cause"... that is all.. if you don't know, say so.. if you don't want to answer, say so

hi p.e.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primordial Egg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
anyway, you appear to be saying "that which begins to exist has no cause" or "for *every* effect there isn't a necessary cause" or something like that... is this in fact the case?

---

​

Its more like all of our notions about causality are tied to the world around us-- to spacetime. Things happen sequentially. Things move through space. Remove time and space and try to imagine causality. It is like trying to define Cartesian coordinates without the Cartesian or the coordinates.

​

---

​

i still don't quite understand how that ties in with what i asked... maybe i skipped a step... in your opinion, did the universe 1) begin to exist or has it 2) always existed?

​

if 1), do you affirm or deny the premises "that which begins to exist has a cause"... if 2), well we'll deal with that later, if that's your position... note that i'm not asking you for any kind of explanation as to *when* the cause existed, if it existed, given the nature of space/time, i merely want to know if you affirm or deny the above premise

---

​

Hi Forgiven,

​

My take on this is that everything on a scale greater than a Planck length has a cause which may or may not have existed prior in time (direction of entropy increasing).

​

Cheers
PE

​

---

ok, that's fine... in that case, the universe either is or isn't on a scale greater than a planck length.. all i kept asking john was whether or not he affirmed or denied a certain premise.. it seems very difficult to get an answer to that question, which makes me wonder why

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
ok, that's fine... in that case, the universe either is or isn't on a scale greater than a planck length.. all i kept asking john was whether or not he affirmed or denied a certain premise.. it seems very difficult to get an answer to that question, which makes me wonder why

---

​

Do you want the honest complicated answer, which is what I gave you, or do you want the simple dishonest one?

---

sigh... you gave me no answer at all, neither honest nor complicated nor simple nor dishonest... i have no idea from anything you wrote whether or not you believe that "that which begins to exist has a cause"... it's a simple question, and how in the world can an honest answer to a simple question be dishonest? but if you wish to categorize it as such, then i want the simple dishonest (sic) answer

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
sigh... you gave me no answer at all, neither honest nor complicated nor simple nor dishonest... i have no idea from anything you wrote whether or not you believe that "that which begins to exist has a cause"... it's a simple question, and how in the world can an honest answer to a simple question be dishonest? but if you wish to categorize it as such, then i want the simple dishonest (sic) answer

---

​

It isn't a simple question. It is a question about the fundamental structure of reality. You don't seem to realize that.

​

Within the boundaries of our experience things seem to most often have causes. Outside of that experience all bets are off. Space-time collapses at the extremes. What happens at those point is not known.

​

Ever heard of the Casimir effect? It is worth looking into. It appears to be a measure of the force exerted by particles spontaneously popping into and quickly back out off existence.

---

yet another non-reply, neither simple nor complicated nor honest nor dishonest... what i don't seem to realize is why you appear to fear answering the question, given the number of times it's been asked and the number of opportunities you've had to answer itwhy don't we do it this way? i'll frame the argument, you tell me whether or not you agree with each premise... if not, tell me (and other interested parties) why not... it goes without saying that if a premise is false so is the conclusion, but you shouldn't be allowed to to simply disagree without framing responses as to why(i) that which begins to exist has a cause(ii) john (he of the non-answers to whom i write) began to existtherefore, john had a cause

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

(i) that which begins to exist has a cause

​

(ii) john (he of the non-answers to whom i write) began to exist

​

therefore, john had a cause

---

​

I think what John is getting at is that in order for A to have a cause, that cause needs to exist BEFORE A in time. When we get to extremes, such as the beginning of the universe, time does not exist therefore there is no BEFORE for the cause to exist in. That is why when is important; it is tied into the cause/effect question no matter how it is phrazed. Cause/effect can't exists (or happen) without a when.

---

i'll touch on this more when i reply to john, but it doesn't matter... see, we're talking about the structure of a valid argument and whether or not the premises are true... all i asked was whether or not john believed the premises were true... that's all i want to know... see, it has nothing to do with the universe at the moment... my syllogism from the previous post purposely left out the syllogism, simply to get john on record as to the premises, but he seems timid..

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
yet another non-reply, neither simple nor complicated nor honest nor dishonest...

---

​

I am sorry that you do not understand but I cannot force you to think outside of your trick question.[/quote]

​

*** trick question? heheh.. the 1st premise is one that has been used time and time again by some of the best minds in philosophy... i formed a valid syllogism and asked you whether or not you agreed with either or both premises... why are you so afraid to answer it? here it is again

​

(i) that which begins to exist has a cause
(ii) john began to exist
therefore, john has a cause

​

now then, forget the universe for a moment, concentrate on that argument.. is it valid? yes, of course it is... do you agree with the premises? why not just say yay or nay, john?

quote:

---

quote:

---

it goes without saying that if a premise is false so is the conclusion

---

​

Actually you are a bit confused here as well. False premises do not make the conclusion false. The premises can be wrong and the conclusion still be true. Like this:

​

The earth is rubber
Rubber is sentient
Therefore, John lives on earth.

​

See. Bad premises. Invalid argument, but the conclusion is nonetheless true.

​

False premises mean that the conclusion is unsupported by the argument, not that the conclusion is false in any absolute sense.

---

​

*** sigh... i guess i should have added the words "in a valid argument," but i assumed that was understood

​

[quote]

quote:

---

(i) that which begins to exist has a cause

​

(ii) john (he of the non-answers to whom i write) began to exist

​

therefore, john had a cause

---

​

You, of course, forgot to mention the conditions of causality which I have been trying to explain to you.[/B]

---

[/quote]john, the conditions of causality have nothing whatsoever to do with the syllogism nor your refusal to answer... for some reason you seem to think there's a trick here when there isn't... but i can't make you answer...all i've done is use accepted standards of logic to ask a very basic question, and your refusal should give pause to most thinking people, should make them wonder why you're so intent on dodging the issue

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primordial Egg:

quote:

---

ok, that's fine... in that case, the universe either is or isn't on a scale greater than a planck length.. all i kept asking john was whether or not he affirmed or denied a certain premise.. it seems very difficult to get an answer to that question, which makes me wonder why

---

​

Hi Forgiven,

​

At present, the universe is many, many orders of magnitude greater than a Planck length (1.6 * 10^-35 m).

​

But it was not always thus.

​

I guess John's point is that some premises do not readily yield to vulgar oversimplifications as "yes" or "no". What if I were to ask you "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Yes or no?

​

Kind regards
PE

---

hi pe... ask me that question, but put it in the form of a valid syllogism and ask if i agree with the premises... you have my word i'll answer you and not dodge it... how can a syllogism be a "vulgar oversimplification?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Hi forgiven,

​

Just a note on what might be the problem here (I could be wrong). It appears you have constructed an unsound argument. Consider the following:

​

1. All dogs have fleas.
2. Rover has fleas.
3. Therefore Rover is a dog.

​

The above is quite obviously unsound because premise one is false - not all dogs have fleas. The same applies to your syllogism: P1: "That which begins to exist has a cause" is false - you are assuming the consequent. The premise has NOT been shown to be true in all cases. Therefore your question is invalid. Hope that clarifies things.

---

hi quetzal... my argument is both sound and valid... yours is neither, because your conclusion doesn't contain the predicate of the first premise, only the subject of the 2nd... the subject of your 2nd premise (rover) has the predicate of the 1st (fleas) instead of the middle term (dogs)... since your premises are both universal affirmatives, to be valid it would read:(i) all dogs have fleas
(ii) rover is a dog
therefore rover has fleasthe form of a valid syllogism must be (if, as in yours and mine, the premises are universal affirmatives):(i)M -> P
(ii) S -> M
conclusion: S -> Pother moods are of course possible, but not with arguments of the type you posed... as to mine affirming the consequent, no it doesn't... the premise itself might be true or it might be false, but it assumes nothing... which is the whole point

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
hi quetzal... my argument is both sound and valid...

---

​

Your argument is a deductive argument. You are subtracting out a subset of the whole. This is fine. The problem is with the definition of the whole, which is premise #1. In premise #1 you define the set of things-which-begin-to-exist. It is this premise that is the subject of criticism. Maybe that hasn't been clear to you?

---

what's clear is your reluctance to answer simple and straightforward questions... when you say the major premise is the subject of criticism, can i (at long last) take it to mean you do *not* agree with it?... or will you again refuse to go on record as to your thoughts?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by graedek:
Guide to the World's Philosophers - philosophers.co.uk

​

curious on your thoughts of this article

---

​

It strikes me as being pretty descriptive of how science actually works. I'd venture the statement that other arenas function the same way, not just science. Maybe you have a more specific question? Comment? I don't know if I'm on the right track.

---

i agree with john... sometimes an observation is made that flies in the face of accepted scientific thought (such as the bbt)... often (we see it in some areas of science more easily than others) an attempt is made to mold these observations into a preconceived box... when this fails, sometimes the new paradigm is criticized almost to a point from which it can't recover... if the evidence is so strong that the preconcieved box implodes, the new paradigm becomes the standard, and challenges to it are handled the same way (speaking of paradigms in individual disciplines)seldom is there a paradigm shift in the scientific community, at least not of the type where you see large groups of disciplines abandoning their presuppositions in order to embrace, or even reflect upon, the new paradigm... the mini-debate in another forum on red shift and humphreys is an example... if a new paradigm seems to conflict with a belief system held my most members of a community, adherents to the new paradigm find their numbers growing slowly, if at all... sometimes they shrink... peer pressure never stops working our entire livesof course just because there is a new paradigm doesn't mean the conceptions it challenges were wrong... but it's good that thinkers are free to think, it's good that objectors are free to object.. we (the lay person) can only hope that all parties are working in good faith so that the information we receive is honest and factual

[quote] [B]

quote:

---

seldom is there a paradigm shift in the scientific community, at least not of the type where you see large groups of disciplines abandoning their presuppositions in order to embrace, or even reflect upon, the new paradigm... the mini-debate in another forum on red shift and humphreys is an example... if a new paradigm seems to conflict with a belief system held my most members of a community, adherents to the new paradigm find their numbers growing slowly, if at all... sometimes they shrink... peer pressure never stops working our entire lives

---

Are you implying that scientists tend to resist new ideas because they feel pressure from their peers to continue to think the way the group thinks?[/quote]no, i know it's competitive, even within disciplines... i'm saying that scientists are human too, they bring their own presuppositions to the table... those who believe in macroevolution, for example, know it's not "scientific" (repeatable, falsifiable, etc) so they aren't going to be quick to adopt a new paradigm if it includes a disbelief in macroevolution.. that's just an example, by the way

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
You mean, it's not repeatable in that it cannot be done in a lab. But the sciences of geology, meteorology, astronomy, astrophysics, forensic pathology, and others have the same problems yet they are sciences.

---

hmmm... ok... but those sciences, is the problem of repeatability the only thing they have in common with macroevolution? iow, are they observeable? falsifiable? [quote] The most common argument that is levied in evolution is that not enough transitionals are being found. That's just a very blunt way of saying not all the data is in yet, hardly a serious challenge to the predominant paradigm in biology. [/B][/QUOTE]ok, let me ask you a serious question here... can i use the above paragraph for my worldview, and if i can will it be accepted the way you want yours accepted? for example, can i reword your paragraph to read:"The most common argument that is levied ~~my edit~~ against the creation of the universe by God ~~end edit~~ is that not enough ~~my edit~~ proofs of his existence ~~end edit~~ are being found. That's just a very blunt way of saying not all the data is in yet, hardly a serious challenge to the predominant ~~my edit~~ worldview held by most people ~~end edit~~."if your paragraph is acceptable, it seems to me mine is also... yet, i doubt it will be

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
Yes, macroevolution is falsifiable. Like astronomy, we have to wait for and look for the evidence to do so, rather than design and build an experiment in a sealed lab.I have to agree with compmage. If you had any evidence at all for a God, this might have some weight. As it is, one can fill in practically anything and have it stand on equal footing with your paragraph. In the case of evolution, we can step out of the word game and point ot some evidence.[/B][/QUOTE]to avoid possible future misunderstandings over semantics, what do you consider "evidence?"... also, are your standards for evidence the same regardless of the discussion, or do they vary depending on whether or not the subject fits within your worldview?concerning your first paragraph above, what if i said, "Yes, creation is falsifiable. Like astronomy, we have to wait for and look for the evidence to do so, rather than design and build an experiment in a sealed lab." it seems to me that believing something to be true, when the fact of its truth is yet to be established, goes equally across lines of presupposition... maybe you can tell me why astronomy, for example, is acceptable as an example (given the context of your statement) and creation isn't...