In some argument for God, they say that everything in the universe that exists has a cause, and that this goes back and back until you get to the original "uncaused" entity that is God. They then go on to give their arguments as to why God is qualified to be "uncaused" unlike everything else.
What are the characteristics necessary to be uncaused? Are these characteristics exclusive to God only? Are they exclusive to the Christian God only? Are they exclusive to some living self-aware entity only?
How to Define Characteristics of "uncaused"
Moderator: Moderators
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #51
[Replying to post 50 by Complexity]
Sorry bub, there are some quantum (Feynman) models that allow for short-term creation of matter, but none of them defy conservation laws of matter and energy.
Sorry bub, there are some quantum (Feynman) models that allow for short-term creation of matter, but none of them defy conservation laws of matter and energy.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #52
[Replying to post 47 by The Tanager]
So to define terms consistently - use conservation of mass.
Created means total mass increases. As if from zero to 1 or 10^66 atomic masses.
Destroyed means total mass decreases. As if from 1 amu to 0.
Transformed means mass is conserved. E1 + m1 = E2 + m2
Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
If you choose to believe otherwise, you need to give your reason.
If that reason is to prove God, then you have engaged in a circular argument.
As I mentioned, caused and uncaused become meaningless concepts used only in creating God from nothing.
So to define terms consistently - use conservation of mass.
Created means total mass increases. As if from zero to 1 or 10^66 atomic masses.
Destroyed means total mass decreases. As if from 1 amu to 0.
Transformed means mass is conserved. E1 + m1 = E2 + m2
.And pointing to the conservation of energy doesn't cut it, because that law only speaks to energy that is already in existence
Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
If you choose to believe otherwise, you need to give your reason.
If that reason is to prove God, then you have engaged in a circular argument.
As I mentioned, caused and uncaused become meaningless concepts used only in creating God from nothing.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 15250
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 975 times
- Been thanked: 1801 times
- Contact:
Post #53
[Replying to post 52 by Willum]
Not according to theories related to the eventual demise of this universe. In those the outcome is an infinite expansion of space totally devoid of light and heat. No matter and no energy.Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
-
The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5746
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 77 times
- Been thanked: 218 times
Post #54
[Replying to post 52 by Willum]
Okay, so I've got to open this up to other people to see what others believe. Hopefully all reading this will answer. Your answer to this doesn't determine whether theism or atheism is true. We have two formulations of the law of the conservation of mass and we both think the other person simply doesn't understand what the law says.
(1) Willum says the law states that matter/energy/mass are eternal.
(2) I say the law states that in a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.
Okay, so I've got to open this up to other people to see what others believe. Hopefully all reading this will answer. Your answer to this doesn't determine whether theism or atheism is true. We have two formulations of the law of the conservation of mass and we both think the other person simply doesn't understand what the law says.
(1) Willum says the law states that matter/energy/mass are eternal.
(2) I say the law states that in a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.
Post #55
Matter gradually drifts apart. It's never extinguished. If you want to argue that it no longer exists, you have to divide a finite amount of matter by an ever-increasing amount of volume, and claim that it doesn't exist on average. It's a sophistic argument.William wrote: [Replying to post 52 by Willum]
Not according to theories related to the eventual demise of this universe. In those the outcome is an infinite expansion of space totally devoid of light and heat. No matter and no energy.Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
The point is that the universe will get really boring. That's different from matter and energy not existing.
-
Complexity
- Student
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:10 pm
- Location: Oklahoma
Post #56
Willum wrote:
1. Eternal matter, space, time, laws of nature. All exists by no means for no reason.
2. Circular Feed: The “later� effects feed back into “earlier� effects in the ultimate circle. So there is no starter causes and no creation. Everything is both a cause and an effect, in its turn. It would be like a circle of dominoes where Xn knocks down Xn+1 but also causes Xn+10000000 to stand up again ready to be knocked down in its turn.
3. Idealism: Where everything is an illusion of some sort. No order or reason, just the illusion of it.
4. Natural creation of matter, space, times, and laws of nature out of nothing for no pre-existing reason.
5. Uncaused First Cause: Our universe is a closed system or semi-closed, with outside inputs, especially a point of creation or multiple points.
A. Mindless creation without purpose, value, or plan.
B. Intelligent creation
Science, philosophy, and theology can help eachother sort out the plausibilities of the possibilities. Science tells us what raw observation and reason says about the natural world closed system. Philosophy tells us the foundations of how we know, rather there is order to be followed, and logic (following order). Theology explores beyond the material natural realm, into origns, values, and destiny.
Natural Creation:
I am not aware that Dr. Richard Feynman claimed to have found a particle created out of nothing before his death in 1988. Feynman was a leader in preventing error; junk pseudo science. He says that we can’t ever prove anything for sure, only disprove some wrong theories. He also said that the easiest person for a scientist to fool is himself. Maybe somebody could update us on the state of the art of the theories of natural creation (the ultimate free lunch, angle particles, etc). The everywhere-popular Dr. Lawrence Krauss talks about particles popping out of the nothing of bubbling quantum vacuum. But a bubbling quantum field is far from nothing.
Science Errors:
Be careful not to believe every press release from the hall of science. The history of science is loaded with error, by top scientists. Percival Lowell discovered Pluto by brilliant observations, math prediction, and search method; and then led many to believe in channels on Mars. Piltdown Man - 1913-1953, was a famous ape-man fossil showcasted in every museum. 500 PHD doctrinal thesis were written on this fossil; none of which found that it was a fraud. And it wasn’t even a well-done fraud (very amateur). But it fooled science for 40 years. Neanderthal was another gigantic error of science for 100 years. We must often wait a generation or so for science to shake out the truth.
How can there be short-term creation with no creation? The possibilities are:Sorry bub, there are some quantum (Feynman) models that allow for short-term creation of matter, but none of them defy conservation laws of matter and energy.
1. Eternal matter, space, time, laws of nature. All exists by no means for no reason.
2. Circular Feed: The “later� effects feed back into “earlier� effects in the ultimate circle. So there is no starter causes and no creation. Everything is both a cause and an effect, in its turn. It would be like a circle of dominoes where Xn knocks down Xn+1 but also causes Xn+10000000 to stand up again ready to be knocked down in its turn.
3. Idealism: Where everything is an illusion of some sort. No order or reason, just the illusion of it.
4. Natural creation of matter, space, times, and laws of nature out of nothing for no pre-existing reason.
5. Uncaused First Cause: Our universe is a closed system or semi-closed, with outside inputs, especially a point of creation or multiple points.
A. Mindless creation without purpose, value, or plan.
B. Intelligent creation
Science, philosophy, and theology can help eachother sort out the plausibilities of the possibilities. Science tells us what raw observation and reason says about the natural world closed system. Philosophy tells us the foundations of how we know, rather there is order to be followed, and logic (following order). Theology explores beyond the material natural realm, into origns, values, and destiny.
Natural Creation:
I am not aware that Dr. Richard Feynman claimed to have found a particle created out of nothing before his death in 1988. Feynman was a leader in preventing error; junk pseudo science. He says that we can’t ever prove anything for sure, only disprove some wrong theories. He also said that the easiest person for a scientist to fool is himself. Maybe somebody could update us on the state of the art of the theories of natural creation (the ultimate free lunch, angle particles, etc). The everywhere-popular Dr. Lawrence Krauss talks about particles popping out of the nothing of bubbling quantum vacuum. But a bubbling quantum field is far from nothing.
Science Errors:
Be careful not to believe every press release from the hall of science. The history of science is loaded with error, by top scientists. Percival Lowell discovered Pluto by brilliant observations, math prediction, and search method; and then led many to believe in channels on Mars. Piltdown Man - 1913-1953, was a famous ape-man fossil showcasted in every museum. 500 PHD doctrinal thesis were written on this fossil; none of which found that it was a fraud. And it wasn’t even a well-done fraud (very amateur). But it fooled science for 40 years. Neanderthal was another gigantic error of science for 100 years. We must often wait a generation or so for science to shake out the truth.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 15250
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 975 times
- Been thanked: 1801 times
- Contact:
Post #57
[Replying to post 55 by wiploc]
One can argue ones favorite theory from the many theories as to the ultimate fate of the universe, but none appear to give any indication as to what the circumstances were prior to the beginning of the existence of the universe.
I think rather the point is, something cannot come from nothing. It either has to have always been, or it was created.The point is that the universe will get really boring. That's different from matter and energy not existing.
One can argue ones favorite theory from the many theories as to the ultimate fate of the universe, but none appear to give any indication as to what the circumstances were prior to the beginning of the existence of the universe.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #58
[Replying to post 56 by Complexity]
Sorry, I thought I read you studied physics. So, none of those really weird alternatives you mention are germane.
When I refer to Feynman, I refer to things like a positron-electron pairs forming from available energy, temporarily, and annihilating each other again a short time later, and emitting photons. This effect can happen, so long as conservation isn't violated.
0 + delta = 0 - (- delta), over small time periods.
Sorry, I thought I read you studied physics. So, none of those really weird alternatives you mention are germane.
When I refer to Feynman, I refer to things like a positron-electron pairs forming from available energy, temporarily, and annihilating each other again a short time later, and emitting photons. This effect can happen, so long as conservation isn't violated.
0 + delta = 0 - (- delta), over small time periods.
-
The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5746
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 77 times
- Been thanked: 218 times
Post #59
[Replying to post 52 by Willum]
I'm willing to try another way at this, if you are. Of course, if you believe I'm being disingenuous, ignore me. I think you agree with:
(1) the current form of the universe has not always been this way
I'm not sure what you think on this next part:
(2) space and time came into existence with the current form of our universe
Please correct me if I'm wrong on (1) and let me know what you think on (2).
I'm willing to try another way at this, if you are. Of course, if you believe I'm being disingenuous, ignore me. I think you agree with:
(1) the current form of the universe has not always been this way
I'm not sure what you think on this next part:
(2) space and time came into existence with the current form of our universe
Please correct me if I'm wrong on (1) and let me know what you think on (2).
Post #60
That's hardly the point of what I responded to.William wrote: [Replying to post 55 by wiploc]
I think rather the point is, something cannot come from nothing.The point is that the universe will get really boring. That's different from matter and energy not existing.
So everything is either part of an infinite regress, or else it is created by something that is itself part of an infinite regress. Do I have that right?It either has to have always been, or it was created.
