Does the first cause theory depend on special pleading?

[achilles12604]

No less than 3 (cog,goat and duke) non -theists have accused me of using a logical fallacy of special pleading with regard to my idea of the first cause theory.

HISTORY:

From The God Hypothesis

Concerning this topic I put forth the following:

If the universe did begin, it must have had a cause. Nothing comes from nothing. If nothing happened or existed, then nothing would be the result. Obviously something happened because we are here. So something changed. Changes require causes.

This cause had to have certain requirements.

1) It must have been space less or at the very least outside of the confines of this universe.

2) It must have been timeless. Time it is shown by Einstein and others after him directly interacts with matter and space inside this universe. It is a factor which exists inside this universe. If there was no universe then there would be nothing to interact with. Hence the cause of the universe must be timeless.

I followed this with :

First you need to define a person. Then define the start of the person.

then you can identify the cause of that start. What you have done is list a series of results of different causes. But each of these steps had a cause which allowed it to be so. Likewise each of these steps would not have occurred except that something took place. Without that something, the step would not have occurred.

Lets say (because I am personally against abortion) that a person exists after conception. Before conception it is not a person but rather two sets of genes.

The genes come together and combine DNA which begins the growth process.

Strictly speaking the combining of the DNA is what caused the person to exist.

Quote:
Why must the existence of the universe have a cause? I'm not particularly well versed on universe theory, but I am aware that there is a line of thought whereby this universe is one in a long line of universes that expand, collapse, expand, collapse. Do they need a cause?


I am familiar with this theory. It is no longer accepted by scientists in every secular area of society (not to mention Christian).

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

Each step has a cause all the way back to the formation of the universe. So we are back at the "first cause".

I am making one assumption. That the universe did have a cause. However I am making this assumption based on 100% of the observable data ever collected or witnessed by mankind since our existence. There has never been an occurrence which did not have a cause.


If the universe was uncaused, and yet began, then you must explain how nothing changed, and yet the universe changed. It is a logical impossibility. Either the universe (or something which became the universe) changed, or nothing happened. But we know something happened, so something changed. Changes require causes. And around we go.

To this I received the following replies:

Cogitoergosum wrote:
What caused God to exist?
Or are you going to invent a special plea for GOD.

achilles12604 wrote:

Now if the universe began to exist and thus needed a cause, this cause had to meet certain criteria.

Criteria that you will invent to fit GOD.

Duke of Vandals wrote:

Cogitoergosum wrote:
What caused God to exist?
Or are you going to invent a special plea for GOD.

Cogi has asked an important question one which Christians do create special pleas for.

Goat Wrote:
You then declare God to be the one thing that 'always' existed, thereby giving
God an attribute that is not given to anything else. Because you say evertying was 'caused' to exist but god, you are using the logical fallacy of "Special Pleading".

From http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ading.html

Quote:
Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


You are giving the special attribute to God of 'not being caused', and evertying else to 'have a cause'. There is no reason to do that, except to try to 'define' god into place.

So lets investigate the possibility of me using a special pleading in my logic.


Using Goats link to special pleading fallacies we get the definition of special pleading.

Description of Special Pleading

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.

The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:

1. Barbara accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.
2. Although she murdered Bill, Barbara claims she is an exception because she really would not like going to prison.
3. Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.

This is obviously a blatant case of special pleading. Since no one likes going to prison, this cannot justify the claim that Barbara alone should be exempt from punishment.

Using their breakdown I will hence forth apply it in this manner:

G = God
U = Universe
CTC = criteria for cause


The claim made by these three non-theists is that I am using special pleading in reference to God.

The case I made about the universe is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause. Despite goat's demands that I prove this, it is a universally accepted scientific theory. If goat wants to debate this universally accepted fact then start a thread on it and I would like Goat to back up his demand for proof with at least ONE scientific source (author, magazine, anything at all) which agrees with him claim that something can in fact come from nothing and that things spontaneously occur without any reason what so ever.

Moving on with THIS topic, I made the following claims:

1) Anything which begins to exist, must have a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore the universe must have a cause.

So long as my one assumption (anything that begins to exist must have a cause) is correct, this logic follows along correctly. So there is no fallacy here.

Next I wrote that the cause for the universe must have several attributes.

(disclaimer: before beginning I would like to point out that I am aware of the multiverse theory and that this totally unproven theory allows for the cause of THIS universe to be within another space and time. But then the problem is simply moved out one more universe so for the sake of moving the topic at hand along, I am going to assume only this universe exists)

1) It must be space less. By this I mean it must be outside the confines of the universe it created. This is because the cause of the universe can not depend on the universe's existence. Since the universe (remember my disclaimer) encompasses all matter, anything without anything, (no matter, space,etc) can be defined as space less.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 0902a.html

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/as ... AST224.HTM
Author: janette l gubala
What is beyond space?

Response #: 1 of 1
Author: asmith
Nothing! Either space goes on forever (is infinite) or it comes back around
in some kind of closed loop, but the way we understand space right now, it
is impossible for it to have any edges, and so there is no direction you
could point and say "50 yards in that direction space ends". Since there
are not any ends, there is not really any way to understand what "beyond"
means. But there could be other things that "exist" that are somehow
outside our own universe - parallel universes!

2) It must be timeless since without reference to space, time is meaningless. Einsteins theories show us the direct correlation of time and matter.

Now the universe does not fit these two criteria for obvious reasons. Therefore going back to my original point, the universe (U) can not fit the criteria for the cause of the universe (CFC).


Christian theology presents a God which does fit these criteria however. We portray him as both outside space and timeless. Also the design of God came BEFORE the criteria for creation.

So the argument we are just designing God to fit the criteria isn't valid since God pre-dates the criteria.

We can not be molding the criteria to fit God because the criteria for the cause of the universe is fixed. For example I could not make the claim that being 5'5" was a criteria for the cause of the universe because it invalidates the logical order of things because for anything to be 5'5" it must have something to compare to and it must already exist, both of which are impossible without the universe's existence.

So we Christians present a God whose characterizes were in existence before the question about the criteria for cause of the universe was asked. It is just a happy coincidence that the criteria of God and the criteria for the cause of the universe are the same. (or is it?)



IS MY ARGUMENT SPECIAL PLEADING?

The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption.

This is the key sentence in deciding if I am guilty of special pleading or not. The standards I have set for the universe and deny for God fall into my first premise:

[center]Whatever begins to exist requires a cause[/center]

I say that this premise DOES apply to the universe and it DOES NOT apply to God.

Here is my reasoning for this.

Why it does apply to the universe:

Within this universe, every experience and experiment conducted by mankind shows that if nothing happens, then nothing happens. If you do not plant a seed, then a tree will not grow. However if a tree does grow, then a seed MUST have been planted. There is no alternative. Since this rule is consistent throughout the entire universe, it is logical to think that this same law applies to the universe itself. In addition to this we have evidence of such a beginning. We have discovered the once hypothetical background radiation which would have followed an explosive beginning to the universe. Red light shift indicates that all other galaxies are moving away from us. This would be very likely if the universe did have an explosive beginning but unlikely if the universe always was.

Why it does not apply to God:

Did God begin to exist? Scientifically there is no answer. The only answer can be found in theology and that answer is no.

It is important to remember here that I am not changing or reinventing God so he fits with the criteria of this argument. The idea that God was eternal dates back to at least the writing of genesis which is well before the BCE./CE switch. So I am not fitting the facts to God, not am I fitting God to the facts. They are both the same.

Once again the CFC of the universe is fixed. If the universe began (which is an accepted analysis of science), then its cause must fall within certain guidelines, which I established. The fact that the God described in the bible happens to fit these guidelines is not the product of theology but rather of coincidence.


CONCLUSION:

With my reasons for applying the criteria to the universe and not to God in mind I can safely say that I have not committed the logical fallacy of special pleading.

The only case in which I would have done this is if God was supposed to be held to the same standards as everything else within this universe. From Goat's source :

[center]2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.[/center]

But the God of Christianity does not fit into the circumstances applied to the universe. The laws of the universe don't apply to God simply due to his nature.

Looking at this from the other side, if the laws of this universe applied to God, then god could not have been the first cause because he would be dependent on the universe. But then we are still left with the problem of the cause of the universe.

In essence what I am trying to say in as lengthy manner as possible is that whatever caused the universe, IS NOT bound by the laws of this universe. Therefore, I can not be guilty of special pleading because person A (God) is not in the circumstances described for and applied to the universe itself.

[achilles12604]

Confused -

I am interested to know something.

If I did not believe in God and instead left my first cause argument without my own opinion as to the correct option, would you still have issues with the argument?

If yes then point out where and we can talk.

If no, then does the fact that I am simply pointing out the similarities between this and the biblical description, cause you to forget that I am not demanding this is solid evidence for the existence of God, but rather simply my own personal analysis based on what I presume to be true?

Remember that what a person percieves as "true" rests largely on their own prior experiences and therefore their assumptions.

Even the laws we all accept fall into this situation. Einstein's relativity is accepted today as genius. But once it was discarded as impossible. The reason was that it couldn't be tested and it was just to simple.

I don't have a luxury of testing God for you, but this doesn't demand my result is necessarily flawed and illogical. As FinalEnigma and I talked about earlier tonight, ANY cause for the universe is going to violate the laws of this universe simply due to its being outside, and therefore unrestricted by these same laws. So really, any explaination (God, infinate regress, et al.) is going to take some amount of faith since they are all equally in violation of logic and accepted physical laws.

I of course leave the door open for additional options if anyone has any to present. Perhaps someone has one with better evidence to support it, but I doubt it since we are discussing things which occured before science existed with its current laws.

If you were to leave out your opinion, you wouldn't have a debate. The problem is that you can't validate your opinion using the same standards you are using to validate the first cause of the universe. Faith need not apply to the laws of the universe, Einstein, etc.. Why? Because the scientific method starts with observations of "facts". These facts lead to hypotheses which leads to the testing for validity and reliability. You can't use scientific standards to logically conclude the universe had a first cause, then turn around and use your opinion that God had no first cause without using the same standards you apply for the universe. Here is where my major issue lies. When you change the standards used to measure/validate two theories, you create a special plea when you say that one standard must meet this criteria while the other doesn't. The only source we have for God is from the bible. I am not talking about validating the bible, but without the bible, we would have no criteria for God. Now, how can you apply the scientific method to determine God had no need for a first cause, that He has always existed?

I think you are combining the notions of a plausible argument and a provable argument.

Here is what I read. . .

The argument for first cause is valid so far as the scientific theories go.

But what would you propose about after this point? Should we simply shrug our shoulders since we are unable to test anything else? If this was how we approached life and science, we would still be in the stone age. We certainly would not have aircraft capable of flying 3 and 4 times the speed of sound.

I'm sorry. I guess I am still not understanding the WHY behind your statements. I think I understand that you are unable to accept my whole argument because of its untestability and its contradiction to laws of this universe. BUT, I don't know why this is even a problem since the laws of this universe would not apply beyond this universe.

Since the laws would not apply beyond this universe AND the first cause must be beyond our universe, I still don't see how Person A and Person B have the same criteria when they clearly MUST have different criteria based on their respective positions within and external to the universe. I'm trying really. Perhaps you could break down the argument yourself as you would view it. Maybe I'd understand better that way.

[Confused]

Achilles:

I think you are combining the notions of a plausible argument and a provable argument.

Here is what I read. . .

The argument for first cause is valid so far as the scientific theories go.

But what would you propose about after this point? Should we simply shrug our shoulders since we are unable to test anything else? If this was how we approached life and science, we would still be in the stone age. We certainly would not have aircraft capable of flying 3 and 4 times the speed of sound.

I'm sorry. I guess I am still not understanding the WHY behind your statements. I think I understand that you are unable to accept my whole argument because of its untestability and its contradiction to laws of this universe. BUT, I don't know why this is even a problem since the laws of this universe would not apply beyond this universe.

Since the laws would not apply beyond this universe AND the first cause must be beyond our universe, I still don't see how Person A and Person B have the same criteria when they clearly MUST have different criteria based on their respective positions within and external to the universe. I'm trying really. Perhaps you could break down the argument yourself as you would view it. Maybe I'd understand better that way.

Ok, let me try this a different way. You are asserting that the universe, by the laws of physics/science, had to have a first cause. You are then saying that God didn't have to have a first cause because he is outside the laws of the universe. By what criteria are you putting forth to back the assertion that God is outside the laws of the universe? Why does Got not require a first cause, but the universe does?

[achilles12604]

achilles12604 wrote:

I had an afterthought. Since all evidence collected by science holds that entropy of the universe is becoming increasingly disorganized and without an outside source this pattern does not change, wouldn't the claim of sudden re-organization of the energy be in itself a special pleading by the definition attached to my argument?

Finalenigma wrote:
Actually, probably yes. In that respect i suppose it would be relying on special pleading, However,(in my head at least) it is a not a fully-formed theory. I have yet to explain the problem of entropy(and even more so, friction).
My theory as it stands is thus;
Gravity never diminishes to zero, no matter how far away from the object you move, therefore eventually the effect of gravity has to overcome the initial velocity created by the big bang and cause matter to begin to converge on a single point. When this does it will create an enormous black hole, which will eventually destabalize and collapse, resulting in a very large explosion(I.E. big bang) causing the universe to effectively start over. The issue i run into is this; eventually amidst all this explosion/implosion of the universe you would run out of energy and mass to cause the explosions and they would become smaller and smaller every time untill eventually you run completely out of mass and have nothing left to cause the explosion.
I don't know how to solve this dilemma. I suppose i will have to admit that this points to some kind of beggining for our universe, else we would now be either non-existant, or inert blobs of mass gathered together at a single point.
I'm not ready to theorise on anything outside our universe, because i simply have no data. I don't however believe this neccesitates a God, or even an uncaused cause.

Entropy doesn't spontaneouls reorganize. So no, it isn't special plea.

I'm confused now. If entropy doesn't re-organize then it WOULD be a special plea.

Entropy is reversed via gravity or some form of energy application to reverse it.

Gravity? You'll have to explain this. Energy application is correct however. If energy is applied to the system, then other energy can be re-organized. However, the energy lost is always greater than the energy re-organized so the principle of entropy is still held within a closed system (such as the universe).

Such as you making you bed in the morning, this decreases entropy (reverses it) but energy is applied to make such a thing happen.

good example.

Quantum jitters is the fluctuations in motion, the kinetic energy associated with quantum jitters is called zero-point gravity and it cannot be eliminated. So there will always be residual energy for the reversal of entropy.

Quantum Jitters (in fact the entire string theory) is un-testable by the scientific method and contains aspects which directly contradict known factors within the universe. Example : Even things as small as protons and electrons have mass and are 3 dimensional (4 if your include time). Yet the string theory depends on things in 2D 1D and even 0 dimensions. They also exhibit characterizes which are deemed "impossible" by laws of physics (and quantum physics). Laws like conservation of energy, entropy and other accepted, tested and true laws are disregarded with this theory.

So with this in mind, within the laws of this universe, wouldn't the string theory amount to the same special pleading as you accuse my first cause theory of having?

A black hole represents a state of greatest entropy. However, there may still be particles present to make up matter. For matter there is antimatter. When an electron meets up with its opposite, positron, they cancel each other out, but the photon is released from the electron to meet up with another electron. So is it possible to completely remove matter if we know that matter consists of energy and we can never eliminate all kinetic energy?

Has this ever been tested? (yes I already know the answer)

Theory's are all great. But they are all about as true or provable until they are tested. Until they are tested, each one is as guilty of your interpretation of special pleading since each one is untested by the scientific method. Is this not correct? If not, why?

[Confused]

achilles12604 wrote:

I had an afterthought. Since all evidence collected by science holds that entropy of the universe is becoming increasingly disorganized and without an outside source this pattern does not change, wouldn't the claim of sudden re-organization of the energy be in itself a special pleading by the definition attached to my argument?

Finalenigma wrote:
Actually, probably yes. In that respect i suppose it would be relying on special pleading, However,(in my head at least) it is a not a fully-formed theory. I have yet to explain the problem of entropy(and even more so, friction).
My theory as it stands is thus;
Gravity never diminishes to zero, no matter how far away from the object you move, therefore eventually the effect of gravity has to overcome the initial velocity created by the big bang and cause matter to begin to converge on a single point. When this does it will create an enormous black hole, which will eventually destabalize and collapse, resulting in a very large explosion(I.E. big bang) causing the universe to effectively start over. The issue i run into is this; eventually amidst all this explosion/implosion of the universe you would run out of energy and mass to cause the explosions and they would become smaller and smaller every time untill eventually you run completely out of mass and have nothing left to cause the explosion.
I don't know how to solve this dilemma. I suppose i will have to admit that this points to some kind of beggining for our universe, else we would now be either non-existant, or inert blobs of mass gathered together at a single point.
I'm not ready to theorise on anything outside our universe, because i simply have no data. I don't however believe this neccesitates a God, or even an uncaused cause.

Entropy doesn't spontaneouls reorganize. So no, it isn't special plea.

I'm confused now. If entropy doesn't re-organize then it WOULD be a special plea.

Entropy is reversed via gravity or some form of energy application to reverse it.

Gravity? You'll have to explain this. Energy application is correct however. If energy is applied to the system, then other energy can be re-organized. However, the energy lost is always greater than the energy re-organized so the principle of entropy is still held within a closed system (such as the universe).

Such as you making you bed in the morning, this decreases entropy (reverses it) but energy is applied to make such a thing happen.

good example.

Quantum jitters is the fluctuations in motion, the kinetic energy associated with quantum jitters is called zero-point gravity and it cannot be eliminated. So there will always be residual energy for the reversal of entropy.

Quantum Jitters (in fact the entire string theory) is un-testable by the scientific method and contains aspects which directly contradict known factors within the universe. Example : Even things as small as protons and electrons have mass and are 3 dimensional (4 if your include time). Yet the string theory depends on things in 2D 1D and even 0 dimensions. They also exhibit characterizes which are deemed "impossible" by laws of physics (and quantum physics). Laws like conservation of energy, entropy and other accepted, tested and true laws are disregarded with this theory.

So with this in mind, within the laws of this universe, wouldn't the string theory amount to the same special pleading as you accuse my first cause theory of having?

A black hole represents a state of greatest entropy. However, there may still be particles present to make up matter. For matter there is antimatter. When an electron meets up with its opposite, positron, they cancel each other out, but the photon is released from the electron to meet up with another electron. So is it possible to completely remove matter if we know that matter consists of energy and we can never eliminate all kinetic energy?

Has this ever been tested? (yes I already know the answer)

Theory's are all great. But they are all about as true or provable until they are tested. Until they are tested, each one is as guilty of your interpretation of special pleading since each one is untested by the scientific method. Is this not correct? If not, why?

No, the mere fact that entropy doesn't SPONTANEOUSLY reorganize is what prevents it from being exempt from the laws of physics. It follows the laws precisely. This is why it isn't a special plea.

You answered your own question in regards to gravity. But you have to remember, although energy is being expended to decrease entropy, energy is also be constantly replenished by sources such as the sun.

In regards to the string theory, go one step higher now. The M theory is the more excepted version, but even it has its issues. It is still one that is being evolved, tesetd and revised. However, it is a fact that we can never remove all kinetic energy. The best example to understand this is if you think of a billiard table with a single ball on it. Becaue the ball is confined to the table by the cushions, we automatically know something about its position in space: the uncertainty of the position is no bigger than the dimensions of the table. The smaller the table, the more accurately we know the position. Here is when the uncertainty principle comes into play. THe more accurate we know the position, the less certain we can be of the momentum. Thus, if we were to measure the velocity of the ball confined to the table, it would be somewhat random and fluctuating. Even if we removed as much kinetic energy as possible, this residual fluctuation motion could not be eliminated. This is the quantum jitters. In classical physics, as a system is cooled, molecules eventually come to rest at absolute zero temperature. The result: all kinetic energy is removed. But each molecule in a solid has a fairly defined lociation. It is held in place by other molecules. The result is that molecules necessarily have a fluctuating velocity (uncertainty principle). So in real material subject to the laws of quantum mechanics, the molecular kinetic energy can never be totally removed, even at absolute zero. Their is no law broken in quantum mechanics. Hence, no special plea. In regards to testing, it meets the standards for both theoretical physics as well as cosmological physics and adheres to the laws of physics. I am not attempting to apply these to the scientific method per se, rather the laws of physics. These are expressed with math, and thus far, though there is still many question in regards to the megaverse theory, it has thus far met the criteria.

[achilles12604]

achilles12604 wrote:

I had an afterthought. Since all evidence collected by science holds that entropy of the universe is becoming increasingly disorganized and without an outside source this pattern does not change, wouldn't the claim of sudden re-organization of the energy be in itself a special pleading by the definition attached to my argument?

Finalenigma wrote:
Actually, probably yes. In that respect i suppose it would be relying on special pleading, However,(in my head at least) it is a not a fully-formed theory. I have yet to explain the problem of entropy(and even more so, friction).
My theory as it stands is thus;
Gravity never diminishes to zero, no matter how far away from the object you move, therefore eventually the effect of gravity has to overcome the initial velocity created by the big bang and cause matter to begin to converge on a single point. When this does it will create an enormous black hole, which will eventually destabalize and collapse, resulting in a very large explosion(I.E. big bang) causing the universe to effectively start over. The issue i run into is this; eventually amidst all this explosion/implosion of the universe you would run out of energy and mass to cause the explosions and they would become smaller and smaller every time untill eventually you run completely out of mass and have nothing left to cause the explosion.
I don't know how to solve this dilemma. I suppose i will have to admit that this points to some kind of beggining for our universe, else we would now be either non-existant, or inert blobs of mass gathered together at a single point.
I'm not ready to theorise on anything outside our universe, because i simply have no data. I don't however believe this neccesitates a God, or even an uncaused cause.

Entropy doesn't spontaneouls reorganize. So no, it isn't special plea.

I'm confused now. If entropy doesn't re-organize then it WOULD be a special plea.

Entropy is reversed via gravity or some form of energy application to reverse it.

Gravity? You'll have to explain this. Energy application is correct however. If energy is applied to the system, then other energy can be re-organized. However, the energy lost is always greater than the energy re-organized so the principle of entropy is still held within a closed system (such as the universe).

Such as you making you bed in the morning, this decreases entropy (reverses it) but energy is applied to make such a thing happen.

good example.

Quantum jitters is the fluctuations in motion, the kinetic energy associated with quantum jitters is called zero-point gravity and it cannot be eliminated. So there will always be residual energy for the reversal of entropy.

Quantum Jitters (in fact the entire string theory) is un-testable by the scientific method and contains aspects which directly contradict known factors within the universe. Example : Even things as small as protons and electrons have mass and are 3 dimensional (4 if your include time). Yet the string theory depends on things in 2D 1D and even 0 dimensions. They also exhibit characterizes which are deemed "impossible" by laws of physics (and quantum physics). Laws like conservation of energy, entropy and other accepted, tested and true laws are disregarded with this theory.

So with this in mind, within the laws of this universe, wouldn't the string theory amount to the same special pleading as you accuse my first cause theory of having?

A black hole represents a state of greatest entropy. However, there may still be particles present to make up matter. For matter there is antimatter. When an electron meets up with its opposite, positron, they cancel each other out, but the photon is released from the electron to meet up with another electron. So is it possible to completely remove matter if we know that matter consists of energy and we can never eliminate all kinetic energy?

Has this ever been tested? (yes I already know the answer)

Theory's are all great. But they are all about as true or provable until they are tested. Until they are tested, each one is as guilty of your interpretation of special pleading since each one is untested by the scientific method. Is this not correct? If not, why?

No, the mere fact that entropy doesn't SPONTANEOUSLY reorganize is what prevents it from being exempt from the laws of physics. It follows the laws precisely. This is why it isn't a special plea.

Ok I agree with this. However the argument put forth requires that energy be spontaneously re-organized with each expansion of the universe. THIS is in violation of the laws and therefore THIS argument would result in the same special pleading.

The argument depends on the very violation of the principle of entropy.

You answered your own question in regards to gravity. But you have to remember, although energy is being expended to decrease entropy, energy is also be constantly replenished by sources such as the sun.

Oh no. 100% disagreement. The sun is one of the most extreme examples of something causing an increase in entropy.

Heat is the ultimate form of disorganized energy. Heat is as decomposed and contains the highest entropy of any form of energy. Granted heat has uses, but within a closed system (like the universe) the ratio of the energy wasted by the burning sun to the energy productively used is huge. MUCH MUCH more energy is used and discarded as wasted heat (adding to the entropy of the universe as a whole) than is productively collected and used (like with plants).

The sun does not replenish energy. It burns highly organized forms of energy/mass (hydrogen) and radiates it as highly disorganized forms of energy (like radiation and heat). Stars are some of the highest entropy producing sources in the entire universe.

Remember the definition of entropy:

Entropy change has often been defined as a change to a more disordered state at a molecular level. In recent years, entropy has been interpreted in terms of the "dispersal" of energy. Entropy is an extensive state function that accounts for the effects of irreversibility in thermodynamic systems.

Heat and radiation are a much more disordered state of energy than hydrogen molecules.

In regards to the string theory, go one step higher now. The M theory is the more excepted version, but even it has its issues. It is still one that is being evolved, tested and revised. However, it is a fact that we can never remove all kinetic energy. The best example to understand this is if you think of a billiard table with a single ball on it. Becaue the ball is confined to the table by the cushions, we automatically know something about its position in space: the uncertainty of the position is no bigger than the dimensions of the table. The smaller the table, the more accurately we know the position. Here is when the uncertainty principle comes into play. THe more accurate we know the position, the less certain we can be of the momentum. Thus, if we were to measure the velocity of the ball confined to the table, it would be somewhat random and fluctuating. Even if we removed as much kinetic energy as possible, this residual fluctuation motion could not be eliminated. This is the quantum jitters. In classical physics, as a system is cooled, molecules eventually come to rest at absolute zero temperature. The result: all kinetic energy is removed. But each molecule in a solid has a fairly defined lociation. It is held in place by other molecules. The result is that molecules necessarily have a fluctuating velocity (uncertainty principle). So in real material subject to the laws of quantum mechanics, the molecular kinetic energy can never be totally removed, even at absolute zero. Their is no law broken in quantum mechanics. Hence, no special plea. In regards to testing, it meets the standards for both theoretical physics as well as cosmological physics and adheres to the laws of physics. I am not attempting to apply these to the scientific method per se, rather the laws of physics. These are expressed with math, and thus far, though there is still many question in regards to the megaverse theory, it has thus far met the criteria.

Ok I think I understand this concept of quantum jitters. Lets examine this with regards to subatomic particles.

Taking a molecule apart we have protons/neutrons and electrons. The protons and neutrons are bound by the strong nuclear force. The electrons have their orbits around this center point.

Now is it possible to break up an atom into its parts?

The answer is yes, we do it all the time. So if all the atoms were broken up into their respective parts, and the resulting energy from these breaks was spread in the form of heat, then you could actually reach a place where all the energy (converted from the mass above) was evenly spread. This would be the ultimate state of entropy. So in a sense, you are correct that on the molecular level, all potential energy couldn't be set to zero. However on the subatomic level, it could. Now if we went one step farther and converted all of the mass of the universe back into pure energy (like what happens everyday with the stars), then the molecules would no longer exist as molecules. Instead they would all be heat. This could result in the total and even distribution of energy leaving 100% of the energy in a kinetic state and 0% in a potential state. A state of 100% kenetic energy would be the highest level of entropy within a given system.

Back to the original premise - FinalEnigma's theory.

If this universe was part of a chain of infinite universes, then we have a few possibilities.

1) a mega or multi verse as described in goat's source.

My problems with this theory I mention above but the two biggies are the pockets which turn into universes MUST be devoid of ALL matter and energy or else the idea wont work. But if they are devoid of all matter and energy, then how do they expand back out again and if they can, what is inside of these new universes since energy can not be created to fill the voids?

2) One universe which subjects itself to infinite regression. Now ignoring the obvious cognitive problems of infinite regression, there is the additional problem which is discussed above. Each time the universe was re-made, the energy would have to spontaneously and without any known cause re-organize itself into a much less entropic state.

Now if a "first" or outside cause was involved, now either of the above possibilities could occur due to influence from outside of the known system. But within one single contained system, and without any outside cause or force, both of the above options are logically impossible.

As for option 3, the string theory, in addition to having the exact same problem as God in it is impossible to test, it contains contradictions within itself, and relies on multiple theoretical ideas, which themselves havent been tested. One of the sources I mentioned in the other thread went as far as to point out that as of now, the string theory isn't even classified as science but rather philosophy.

http://library.thinkquest.org/04apr/013 ... theory.htm

These problems were echoed in many other sites I found from many other acclaimed journals.

http://www.americanscientist.org/templa ... etid/18638
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/top.html
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/1 ... at_atlarge

Now one day could these problems all be worked out? Sure. Will I be excited when new discoveries are made? Absolutely, I love seeing God's handywork.

However, for the moment, my first cause argument is in no way less plausible, nor more of a special pleading, than any of the above arguments.


PS - After reading so many articles on the string theory I have decided I don't feel so bad about not understanding its concepts completely. The physicists purporting these ideas a) don't fully understand them either, and b) don't agree with each other on even the required premises much less the conclusions.

I was beginning to worry I was out of the loop when all this seemed a little out of reach for me, but I am less concerned now that I have read articles concerning this topic.

[Confused]

Ok, I am going to refer you to the multiverse thread in the science forum. But I will add this. You are looking at only one component. Look at energy, gravitational force, electromagnetic field, etc.... And break your elementary particles down further to the Photons released by electrons, the opposing particles of electrons: positrons, Neutrons, neutrinos etc..... Then look at the vertexes of the collisions created by colliding electrons and positrons etc... Feynman papers give good visual images rather than mathematical equations.

Back to your dilemma. Now I must review what was already written because I have forgotten what this threads origin was.

[achilles12604]

Ok, I am going to refer you to the multiverse thread in the science forum. But I will add this. You are looking at only one component. Look at energy, gravitational force, electromagnetic field, etc.... And break your elementary particles down further to the Photons released by electrons, the opposing particles of electrons: positrons, Neutrons, neutrinos etc..... Then look at the vertexes of the collisions created by colliding electrons and positrons etc... Feynman papers give good visual images rather than mathematical equations.

Back to your dilemma. Now I must review what was already written because I have forgotten what this threads origin was.

What am I looking for with regards to all these various things?

[achilles12604]

Back to your dilemma. Now I must review what was already written because I have forgotten what this threads origin was.

The original OP was whether or not the first cause argument itself was a special pleading.

You argued that it was because I crossed the line from scientific analysis to metaphysical theory because it was unable to be tested using the scientific method.

I have rebutted that any argument would fall under this problem because each of these theories is equally unfalsifyable. I also pointed out that the first two theories presented by goat and Finalenigma contained specifics which were either logically impossible, or else a special pleading of their own. I also pointed out that your string theory is absolutly as unprovable as "god" and in fact scientists do not believe they will EVER be able to test strings. So from that perspective total conformation of the string theory may never occur which leaves it in the same place as a multiverse theory, alien theory or "god" theory.

[Confused]

Ok, I am going to refer you to the multiverse thread in the science forum. But I will add this. You are looking at only one component. Look at energy, gravitational force, electromagnetic field, etc.... And break your elementary particles down further to the Photons released by electrons, the opposing particles of electrons: positrons, Neutrons, neutrinos etc..... Then look at the vertexes of the collisions created by colliding electrons and positrons etc... Feynman papers give good visual images rather than mathematical equations.

Back to your dilemma. Now I must review what was already written because I have forgotten what this threads origin was.

What am I looking for with regards to all these various things?

The multiverse theory. But once again, in the science thread.

[Confused]

Back to your dilemma. Now I must review what was already written because I have forgotten what this threads origin was.

The original OP was whether or not the first cause argument itself was a special pleading.

You argued that it was because I crossed the line from scientific analysis to metaphysical theory because it was unable to be tested using the scientific method.

I have rebutted that any argument would fall under this problem because each of these theories is equally unfalsifyable. I also pointed out that the first two theories presented by goat and Finalenigma contained specifics which were either logically impossible, or else a special pleading of their own. I also pointed out that your string theory is absolutly as unprovable as "god" and in fact scientists do not believe they will EVER be able to test strings. So from that perspective total conformation of the string theory may never occur which leaves it in the same place as a multiverse theory, alien theory or "god" theory.

Ok, first string theory irrelevant: ancient. megaverse theory more approp but still irrelevant to this thread. Dont' recall how it got in here, but regardless, it is theoretical physics. So irrelevant. But still not special plea. I am not comparing it to the scientific theory. Oh yeah, we got here because of entropy. But entropy and M theory aren't really interrelated so if I was claiming they were, my mistake. We aren't evaluating the cause or effect of the big bang theory so entropy belongs in a whole separate forum. My apologies for expanding on it here.

Now, you haven't addressed my presentation of your special plea. You are saying the universe must have had a first cause. Can you create a plan to prove it hasn't always been in existence? If you plan to use the big bang theory, then you must use the scientific standards to prove this. Correct? Ok. Now you are saying that God has always existed, correct. Can you prove he has always existed? If your plan is to provide proof by scripture, then you are using two completely different standards of proof to support one claim. Now you can say that scripture supports the universe coming into existence (likely not by big bang, but rather designed). But can you use science to prove God has always existed? Here is your special plea. The universe fits the criteria of both standards to prove it came into existence, but God is exempt from the scientific standard of proof that He has always existed. Why?