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
-
The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5746
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 77 times
- Been thanked: 218 times
Post #41
[Replying to post 40 by Willum]
How is this not a contradiction? You have said hydrogen is eternal, that is, that it never began to exist, yet here you say it began to exist 13.7 billion years ago.
And how is this not a contradiction? You have stated that some atoms have transformed from hydrogen (in post 31), that hydrogen doesn't change unless acted upon in post 33, and now that hydrogen has not changed for its whole existence of 13.7 billion years.
And why do you think I'm saying the matter and energy of the universe is not conserved? Caused and conserved are different concepts.
How is this not a contradiction? You have said hydrogen is eternal, that is, that it never began to exist, yet here you say it began to exist 13.7 billion years ago.
And how is this not a contradiction? You have stated that some atoms have transformed from hydrogen (in post 31), that hydrogen doesn't change unless acted upon in post 33, and now that hydrogen has not changed for its whole existence of 13.7 billion years.
And why do you think I'm saying the matter and energy of the universe is not conserved? Caused and conserved are different concepts.
-
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 #42
[Replying to post 41 by The Tanager]
OK, so in an attempt to sympathize with your understanding, I used 13.7 billion years.
A atom of hydrogen, all of them in fact, are unchanged for that long.
Objectively, how is that different from eternal?
It is certainly older than the literature of men that describes a being that is only allegedly both existing and eternal.
So is it a contradiction? Or a paradox resolved by understanding? but remember, I am trying to lead you through something you clearly don't understand.
So, let's look at eternal, if it is unchanged for a billion or more years, and will not be foresee-ably changed, or expire, is it not eternal?
OK, so in an attempt to sympathize with your understanding, I used 13.7 billion years.
A atom of hydrogen, all of them in fact, are unchanged for that long.
Objectively, how is that different from eternal?
It is certainly older than the literature of men that describes a being that is only allegedly both existing and eternal.
So is it a contradiction? Or a paradox resolved by understanding? but remember, I am trying to lead you through something you clearly don't understand.
So, let's look at eternal, if it is unchanged for a billion or more years, and will not be foresee-ably changed, or expire, is it not eternal?
But/because, 'caused' is an artificial concept used in a desperate attempt to justify a non-extent God, while conservation' contradicts and demonstrates the fallacy of the caused-uncaused propaganda. That is why - it is kinda a theme of our conversation, now that you mention it...And why do you think I'm saying the matter and energy of the universe is not conserved? Caused and conserved are different concepts.
-
The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5746
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 77 times
- Been thanked: 218 times
Post #43
Willum wrote:If you are going to object to every single lesson, wearen't going to get very far, indeed, I suspect my own efforts will result in nothing anyway, resulting in a contradiction in my motivations, of, 'why do I bother?'
I thought when someone clearly didn't understand anything, that it would be good to ask questions and note where the explanation doesn't seem to make sense. You don't think a learner should do that? You think a good teacher ignores those kinds of questions?
Because if something is 13.7 billion years old, then it began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. To be eternal means that something never began to exist. Something can't begin to exist 13.7 billion years ago and have never began to exist. That's a clear logical contradiction, not a paradox. Logical contradictions, if they lead anywhere, lead to a complete lack of understanding. There is no need to lead me back to where you picked me up at.Willum wrote:OK, so in an attempt to sympathize with your understanding, I used 13.7 billion years.
A atom of hydrogen, all of them in fact, are unchanged for that long.
Objectively, how is that different from eternal?
Being eternal has to do with whether it began to exist at some point or not and if it has ceased to exist at some point. How you are talking about hydrogen and matter is that it began to exist at some point and, therefore, is not eternal by definition.Willum wrote:So, let's look at eternal, if it is unchanged for a billion or more years, and will not be foresee-ably changed, or expire, is it not eternal?
But how does it demonstrate the fallacy of caused/uncaused, especially when it is an entirely different kind of concept? Cause/uncaused looks at origin (of the entire thing or of a change) and conservation only has to do with sustaining what is already there.Willum wrote:But/because, 'caused' is an artificial concept used in a desperate attempt to justify a non-extent God, while conservation' contradicts and demonstrates the fallacy of the caused-uncaused propaganda. That is why, it is kinda a theme of our conversation, now that you mention it...
-
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 #44
[Replying to post 43 by The Tanager]
Beginning at the end: Caused/uncaused is an artificial assumption. There is no reason to make it, a priori.
Continuing from the beginning:
Yes, but it cannot be shown that the eternal characteristic of God is anything other than the vainglorious brag of millenia-old goat-hearders with no understanding of thunder, much less cosmology.
Why would anyone of this day and age take a clearly self-serving account, that can't be shown to be over 2,300 years old itself, over something proven to be over billions?
As to 13.7 billion, we can't prove that there aren't atoms older than 13.7 billion years old, indeed, eternal, we only assume there are not, there is no reason to believe that there aren't older atoms, but, like I said, for simplicity, I used 13.7 billion.
Although it isn't really a valid objection, because you have nothing better to supplant it with, except the vainglorious posits of an ignorant culture, I will still take two branches of discussion, both lead to the same conclusion:
1. Hydrogen existed before 13.7 billions years ago. There is no physical or logical reason to conclude other-wise, as all cosmological theories do not preclude it.
2. Making the specious assumption that all matter as we know it came from the Big Bang, does not mean that it was created. Matter and energy conservation means "matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed, only transformed."
So hydrogen, as we know transforms under pressure into: Other elements, with more pressure, neutrons (stars), and finally the state of matter known as a black hole, which although has unlimited mass, can occupy no volume at all. (The Schwartzchild radius is the limit of light escaping, not its volume).
Understanding these constraints, we know that as before the Big Bang the universe ('s mass), was in a dense state, we now know that hydrogen would have been transformed to matter as we know it from that state of matter.
The bottom line being, it still requires no creation, only transformation, based only on what we have learned about matter in modern times, and not what goat-hearers knew about it.
Beginning at the end: Caused/uncaused is an artificial assumption. There is no reason to make it, a priori.
Continuing from the beginning:
Yes, but it cannot be shown that the eternal characteristic of God is anything other than the vainglorious brag of millenia-old goat-hearders with no understanding of thunder, much less cosmology.
Why would anyone of this day and age take a clearly self-serving account, that can't be shown to be over 2,300 years old itself, over something proven to be over billions?
As to 13.7 billion, we can't prove that there aren't atoms older than 13.7 billion years old, indeed, eternal, we only assume there are not, there is no reason to believe that there aren't older atoms, but, like I said, for simplicity, I used 13.7 billion.
Although it isn't really a valid objection, because you have nothing better to supplant it with, except the vainglorious posits of an ignorant culture, I will still take two branches of discussion, both lead to the same conclusion:
1. Hydrogen existed before 13.7 billions years ago. There is no physical or logical reason to conclude other-wise, as all cosmological theories do not preclude it.
2. Making the specious assumption that all matter as we know it came from the Big Bang, does not mean that it was created. Matter and energy conservation means "matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed, only transformed."
So hydrogen, as we know transforms under pressure into: Other elements, with more pressure, neutrons (stars), and finally the state of matter known as a black hole, which although has unlimited mass, can occupy no volume at all. (The Schwartzchild radius is the limit of light escaping, not its volume).
Understanding these constraints, we know that as before the Big Bang the universe ('s mass), was in a dense state, we now know that hydrogen would have been transformed to matter as we know it from that state of matter.
The bottom line being, it still requires no creation, only transformation, based only on what we have learned about matter in modern times, and not what goat-hearers knew about it.
-
The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5746
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 77 times
- Been thanked: 218 times
Post #45
[Replying to post 44 by Willum]
The Kalam, offered as an argument was not made by goat-herders 2300 years ago, but by philosophers closer to 1000 years ago. You actually overstated the case there. But the arguments you are making were first made even more recently than that. So, if you want to act like the older the better here, then you've got to change your conclusion. I don't think this line of reasoning a rational way to come to one's belief, but I obviously don't understand these things as well as you.
But you probably want to compare the latter category. Okay, your view says matter is over billions of years old. My view agrees with that and that God existed prior to that. Using your logic (the older the better), that might put a tick in my box, but you don't really seem to think that matter/energy is actually a ceratin age. You think it is eternal and see no reason to scientifically preclude that possibility. So, both of our views have this eternal thing. It's a stalemate, if we use the line of reasoning you think has some merit in this discussion. So, we've got to look at another feature.
But maybe what you really mean is the opposite of the words you have used, in that your view is better because it's origin is more recent and is therefore based upon newer and better information than my view. If so, why should it having a more recent origin be a criteria for truth? If someone made up a new theory today, would that mean they necessarily based it on the best information and thinking? Of course not. No, the real comparison that needs to take place is the merit of the arguments themselves.
So, instead of what you have been saying, what we really need to do is look at the reasons the proponents of the Kalam come to the conclusions they do. So, again, here is the Kalam.
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
At first you seem to doubt P1, because you say cause is an artificial assumption. But, again, you say:
Let's make a distinction between when the arguments were first made by humans and when the arguments say certain things existed, because that is the comparison you have just made. For the comparison to work, you've got to be comparing the same feature about both your view and mine.Willum wrote:Why would anyone of this day and age take a clearly self-serving account, that can't be shown to be over 2,300 years old itself, over something proven to be over billions?
The Kalam, offered as an argument was not made by goat-herders 2300 years ago, but by philosophers closer to 1000 years ago. You actually overstated the case there. But the arguments you are making were first made even more recently than that. So, if you want to act like the older the better here, then you've got to change your conclusion. I don't think this line of reasoning a rational way to come to one's belief, but I obviously don't understand these things as well as you.
But you probably want to compare the latter category. Okay, your view says matter is over billions of years old. My view agrees with that and that God existed prior to that. Using your logic (the older the better), that might put a tick in my box, but you don't really seem to think that matter/energy is actually a ceratin age. You think it is eternal and see no reason to scientifically preclude that possibility. So, both of our views have this eternal thing. It's a stalemate, if we use the line of reasoning you think has some merit in this discussion. So, we've got to look at another feature.
But maybe what you really mean is the opposite of the words you have used, in that your view is better because it's origin is more recent and is therefore based upon newer and better information than my view. If so, why should it having a more recent origin be a criteria for truth? If someone made up a new theory today, would that mean they necessarily based it on the best information and thinking? Of course not. No, the real comparison that needs to take place is the merit of the arguments themselves.
So, instead of what you have been saying, what we really need to do is look at the reasons the proponents of the Kalam come to the conclusions they do. So, again, here is the Kalam.
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
At first you seem to doubt P1, because you say cause is an artificial assumption. But, again, you say:
You seem to be saying that pressure is a cause of hydrogen's transformation into other elements. Why is that not about cause of the transformation of hydrogen into other elements?Willum wrote:So hydrogen, as we know transforms under pressure into: Other elements, with more pressure, neutrons (stars), and finally the state of matter known as a black hole, which although has unlimited mass, can occupy no volume at all. (The Schwartzchild radius is the limit of light escaping, not its volume).
Understanding these constraints, we know that as before the Big Bang the universe ('s mass), was in a dense state, we now know that hydrogen would have been transformed to matter as we know it from that state of matter.
The bottom line being, it still requires no creation, only transformation, based only on what we have learned about matter in modern times, and not what goat-hearers knew about it.
-
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 #46
[Replying to post 45 by The Tanager]
If you do think it is my opinion, you must also think I am God, and I find that comparison insulting.
The Kalam argument begins with a false premise conflating babies being born, and not things being composed of elements.
It is just religious propaganda meant to influence the ignorant. It has been destroyed many times on this very forum.
Pursue it without me.
I take it I have made my points in previous posts, and you are willing to accept them?
Let's not, and use observations. Your view cannot be demonstrated except from the literature of 2,300 year old goat herders, whom obviously plagiarized their stories from older wheat farmers, cattle herders and fisherman.Let's make a distinction between when the arguments were first made by humans and when the arguments say certain things existed, because that is the comparison you have just made. For the comparison to work, you've got to be comparing the same feature about both your view and mine.
Excellent observation, but it isn't mine... with the exception of radioactive elements, there is no test you can put on a single atom to tell how old it is, you can't measure how old hydrogen, atomic mass 1, is, for example. Why, because it is ageless. I am glad you are beginning to understand this, although you are trying so desperately to make it my opinion, rather than observable reality.you don't really seem to think that matter/energy is actually a certain age.
If you do think it is my opinion, you must also think I am God, and I find that comparison insulting.
Because that is not the context of 'cause.' You have fallen into the trap of conflating, 'cause,' 'create,' 'transform,' and so on.You seem to be saying that pressure is a cause of hydrogen's transformation into other elements. Why is that not about cause of the transformation of hydrogen into other elements?
The Kalam argument begins with a false premise conflating babies being born, and not things being composed of elements.
It is just religious propaganda meant to influence the ignorant. It has been destroyed many times on this very forum.
Pursue it without me.
False, hydrogen, the overwhelming majority of matter in the universe, did not begin to exist. It has existed as itself, though its state may have changed, (subject to our discussion above as qualification).P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe as we know it began to exist. Just as a baby begins to exist when it is born. A silly analogy, created to appeal to the ignorant. A universe alien to us transformed into this one.P2: The universe began to exist.
Conflation of two meanings of the same word, to add insult to injury of the ignorant.C: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
I take it I have made my points in previous posts, and you are willing to accept them?
-
The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5746
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 77 times
- Been thanked: 218 times
Post #47
How should we use those terms? Can you give your definitions for those terms so that I won't be conflating them? Why isn't there a difference between an 'originating' cause and a 'transforming' cause? Or what words should we use to distinguish between those concepts?Willum wrote:Because that is not the context of 'cause.' You have fallen into the trap of conflating, 'cause,' 'create,' 'transform,' and so on.
Of course, don't beg the question and say there are only transforming causes/"xxxx". Logically, you can see there is the possibility of an originating xxxx and a transforming xxxx. If you want to say there are actually only transforming xxxxes, you will need an actual argument for that. And pointing to the conservation of energy doesn't cut it, because that law only speaks to energy that is already in existence. It doesn't even try to answer the question I'm asking. If you think otherwise, then do more than make claims and posture and punt to how it's all been disproven so easily before. Let's keep this substantive.
Or say you don't want to have a rational discussion about this, even though you could and drop it. I won't claim any victory, because I don't see it that way at all (you seemed worried about that). I'll still be able to talk about it to anyone else, if they want. But if you want to make claims and be taken seriously by other people, then be prepared to back them up rationally.
-
Complexity
- Student
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:10 pm
- Location: Oklahoma
Post #48
Willum Wrote:
Modern philosophers, of all belief systems, need to face the complexities of relativity (very well proven to be real). We all are guessing, but I think it most reasonable that eternity is the sum of all time streams and maybe timeless streams and beings.
How do you know hydrogen is ageless; didn't begin to exist? The conservation of matter is man's observation that he has never seen matter created or destroyed, just transformed. But nobody knows if this human observation is an eternal law. Mainstream theory says there was no time stream as we know it "before" the big bang. There is no "before", no space or time for matter to exist within. Where was matter "before" the Big Bang? There is lots of arm waving, fancy quantum-level theories about how our hydrogen popped out of a quantum vacuum nothingness or the strings that make up hydrogen recycle in endless cycles, or the future wraps around into the past. Which theory do you prefer and why?False, hydrogen, the overwhelming majority of matter in the universe, did not begin to exist. It has existed as itself, though its state may have changed, (subject to our discussion above as qualification).
Modern philosophers, of all belief systems, need to face the complexities of relativity (very well proven to be real). We all are guessing, but I think it most reasonable that eternity is the sum of all time streams and maybe timeless streams and beings.
Last edited by Complexity on Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
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 #49
[Replying to post 47 by The Tanager]
Isn't it funny how all arguments about God seem to come down to word-definitions? Its as if God cannot be defended by anything approaching reality, and must be conjured into existence with homonyms, simile and word-games. POOF, the next thing you know there is a lord of the universe.
But we have already discussed this. Why the regression?
If you are having trouble, go back and look at what we are saying.
Matter is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed, therefore don't conflate any of the verbs.
Matter noun.
Create: Verb.
Destroy: Verb.
Transform: Verb.
Caused and uncaused are unnecessary concepts used to conjure up a creator, which can't exist without them.
Conflating reality with imaginary concepts, will of course lead you to the same conclusions as defining the world as something a ship can sail right off of...
[Replying to post 48 by Complexity]
I am not sure there is anyway to answer your question.
Hydrogen, will not decay into anything.
It can only be forced to transform into Helium and higher elements, even decomposed into hydrogen again in rarer circumstance.
RE: Eternal law... Do you know something I don't?
What then?
Propose a mechanism whereby hydrogen can be created/destroyed or is not ageless.
It can't be done.
Isn't it funny how all arguments about God seem to come down to word-definitions? Its as if God cannot be defended by anything approaching reality, and must be conjured into existence with homonyms, simile and word-games. POOF, the next thing you know there is a lord of the universe.
But we have already discussed this. Why the regression?
If you are having trouble, go back and look at what we are saying.
Matter is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed, therefore don't conflate any of the verbs.
Matter noun.
Create: Verb.
Destroy: Verb.
Transform: Verb.
Caused and uncaused are unnecessary concepts used to conjure up a creator, which can't exist without them.
Conflating reality with imaginary concepts, will of course lead you to the same conclusions as defining the world as something a ship can sail right off of...
[Replying to post 48 by Complexity]
How do I know? Because I have been educated(?).How do you know hydrogen is ageless; didn't begin to exist?
I am not sure there is anyway to answer your question.
Hydrogen, will not decay into anything.
It can only be forced to transform into Helium and higher elements, even decomposed into hydrogen again in rarer circumstance.
RE: Eternal law... Do you know something I don't?
What then?
Propose a mechanism whereby hydrogen can be created/destroyed or is not ageless.
It can't be done.
-
Complexity
- Student
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:10 pm
- Location: Oklahoma
Post #50
Willum wrote:
Forced by modern discoveries, scientist propose mechanisms for the creation or radical recycling of matter's components at the Big Bang. These theories are peer-reviewed and quantum mechanical consistent. I am a physicist, but Big Bang modeling is not my field. Can't help you much. But the theories are mutually exclusive so they can't all be right. I could create a computer model to prove anything, with a few assumptions, creative formulas, and fudge factors. When I've played dueling models with colleagues (on much easier stuff) it often ends in a Mexican stand-off; where the powerful win (such as NFPA 68 issues). Since scientists don't have a single solid natural mindless killer explanation for origins, an uncaused supernatural intelligent cause is a candidate.Propose a mechanism whereby hydrogen can be created/destroyed or is not ageless.
