Infinite Tortoise Problem (Turtles all the way down)

[otseng]

"A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.
"At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."
"The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?"
"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

The first cause problem is often used as an argument against the existence of a god.

"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument."

"If God created/designed everything, then what created/designed God?"

For debate:
Is it infinite turtles all the way down?
Is it logical to use this argument against the existence of God?

[Goat]

What's the difference between answering "God did it", vs. "I don't know ?" The "God did it" hypothesis has zero explanatory or predictive power, and it cuts off further inquiry to boot.

Again, I'm not stating to give up on pursuing natural explanations.

Also, predictive powers are irrelevant to one-time events. If it can only occur once, there is no need to predict how it can happen in the future.

How does the nonphysical world influence physical matter, and vice versa ?

I do believe the two can influence each other. How? I don't know. But again, answering how is not necessary to prove that it exists.

As I'm sure many people have pointed out by now, why can't the Big Bang be uncauseable ? Or the series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, if you prefer.

Something must have caused it. It might be a deity or it might be a quantum fluctuation or whatever. But, since the universe is not eternal (infinite past) then it must've had a cause.

And, again, if "God did it" is your explanation, what does it explain ? What testable predictions does it make ?

Again, there is no need to make testable predictions for one-time events.

What does it explain? Well, it explains what caused the universe.

Since . according to several versions of QM, there are 'uncaused' events, why does the universe to have a cause?

[otseng]

Since . according to several versions of QM, there are 'uncaused' events, why does the universe to have a cause?

But those events also immediately "disappear". So, the analogy is different because our universe remains.

[Goat]

Since . according to several versions of QM, there are 'uncaused' events, why does the universe to have a cause?

But those events also immediately "disappear". So, the analogy is different because our universe remains.

Not all those 'uncaused' events disappear. (You are talking about the virtual particles, which are just one variety of 'uncaused' events.

In Hawking radation, a virtual pair would be formed right at the boundery of a black hole. One partical is emitted , the other one goes into the black hole.

[otseng]

In Hawking radation, a virtual pair would be formed right at the boundery of a black hole. One partical is emitted , the other one goes into the black hole.

Wouldn't the black hole be the cause of Hawking radiation? That is, without a black hole, can Hawking radiation be created?

[bernee51]

Since . according to several versions of QM, there are 'uncaused' events, why does the universe to have a cause?

But those events also immediately "disappear". So, the analogy is different because our universe remains.

it remains...so far.

In an infinte timescale, the appearance and disappearance of this universe would be instantaneous.

[Goat]

In Hawking radation, a virtual pair would be formed right at the boundery of a black hole. One partical is emitted , the other one goes into the black hole.

Wouldn't the black hole be the cause of Hawking radiation? That is, without a black hole, can Hawking radiation be created?

It allows for the virtual particals to come into existance without eliminating themselves instantly... yes...

as for the rest, I don' t know.

[QED]

Since . according to several versions of QM, there are 'uncaused' events, why does the universe to have a cause?

But those events also immediately "disappear". So, the analogy is different because our universe remains.

it remains...so far.

In an infinte timescale, the appearance and disappearance of this universe would be instantaneous.

Truly a great observation bernee51 We should always be on the lookout for predujices born out of our human experience of what seems like a long time, or a big thing etc. As I pointed out in the topic titled Why would God be interested in free lunches? the total mass-energy of the Universe does seem to have a net sum indistinguishable from zero.

[otseng]

Since . according to several versions of QM, there are 'uncaused' events, why does the universe to have a cause?

But those events also immediately "disappear". So, the analogy is different because our universe remains.

it remains...so far.

In an infinte timescale, the appearance and disappearance of this universe would be instantaneous.

I guess in an infinite timescale, anything could happen. But, then again, it might not happen even given infinite time.

Isn't it quite fortuitous that in the past 15 billion years or so that the universe popped out only once? Or even that it has not instantaneously disappeared in that time period?

[Galphanore]

Is it infinite turtles all the way down?

If it is, we will never be able to actually tell that because we will just advance our understanding one step at a time, never reaching the end doesn't mean there isn't one.

Is it logical to use this argument against the existence of God?

No, it is not logical to use this as an argument for or against the existence of God, because no matter how much we learn it is always possible that just a step further along the line is the end point, and it is possible that point is a god, or gods. At the same time it is equally invalid to say that because it is possible that there is a god-point that there must be one, so this argument does not actually provide any proof one way or the other, and only a confirmation bias shows it to do so.

I think it is far more reasonable to take each argument about a specific god on it's own merits then to try to prove or disprove the concept, because I don't think that it's actually possible to do. If we provide a philosophically air tight argument for the existence of an end-point then we are still left with trying to determine what it is, and whether or not it is sentient. Some people like to use the name "God" for that end point, whether the point has any will or not, but I am not one of them. So the only way to prove god one way or the other is to first agree on what, exactly, "God" is.

[bernee51]

Since . according to several versions of QM, there are 'uncaused' events, why does the universe to have a cause?

But those events also immediately "disappear". So, the analogy is different because our universe remains.

it remains...so far.

In an infinte timescale, the appearance and disappearance of this universe would be instantaneous.

I guess in an infinite timescale, anything could happen. But, then again, it might not happen even given infinite time.

It may or may not...if it did pop out of existence no one of us would be around to tell anyway...that does not discount that 'someone else' may observe it happening.

I used to do a thought experiment...strike a match...a whole universe flashes in and out of existence.

Isn't it quite fortuitous that in the past 15 billion years or so that the universe popped out only once? Or even that it has not instantaneously disappeared in that time period?

As far as we know and have observed only one universe has popped into existence. The only reason we are able to discuss it is the fact that it has not disappeared (yet).