The Uncaused Cause

[ungod]

What is nothing?  Do we have a sample of it to examine for how it behaves?

of course not. nothing does not behave at all, since it is the absence of any thing. Since nothing has no properties, and cannot do something, it is logical to deduce, there must have been always something, that existed. Absolutely nothing cannot give rise to something, so , unless, our universe existed without beginning ( and we have good reasons to believe that could not be so ), we can deduce logically, our unverse had a cause.

Of course. And, logically, we can deduce that that cause is a three headed saviour who sits on the right hand side of himself, in spite of being outside of time and space, who fathered himself, makes iron axe heads float in water, is very shy but likes to appear disguised as a burning bush, uses talking snakes to entrap the unknowing, can be defeated by iron chariots in spite of being omnipotent (stay in your car!) makes mistakes in spite of having total foreknowledge and being perfect, is such a great communicator that no one can agree on the interpretation of his "Word", created a trillion solar systems that we can see but never reach, and did all this by following his master plan.
Who could argue with such logic.

[riley2112]

Calling reality god isn't going to make any god real.

O.......K...........?????

you are correct, however it is not going to make him any less real either,  just saying

[Zankuu]

Calling reality god isn't going to make any god real.

O.......K...........?????

you are correct, however it is not going to make him any less real either,  just saying

Calling reality an invisible giant yeti on a unicycle isn't going to make it real. However, it is not going to make the yeti any less real either.

Does that make sense to you riley?

[Historicity]

Calling reality an invisible giant yeti on a unicycle isn't going to make it real. However, it is not going to make the yeti any less real either.

I know you didn't mean it...  But, "Reality is a yeti on a unicycle".   Like wow.  You just gave me a Flashback to the 60s.

I won't give you any Darwins tho, man, 'cause that would be a bad trip[1].

1.	Or whatever.  "Those who remember the Sixties were never there"

[riley2112]

Calling reality god isn't going to make any god real.

O.......K...........?????

you are correct, however it is not going to make him any less real either,  just saying

Calling reality an invisible giant yeti on a unicycle isn't going to make it real. However, it is not going to make the yeti any less real either.

Does that make sense to you riley?

hearing it that way does sound a little silly , that I will admit. I doubt that a yeti could ride a unicycle. However there is no proof ( no matter how unreliable it may be) that yetis could ride a unicycle. This argument has been going on for centuries and I am sure it will carry on in the future. (not about the yeti) But I find the thoughts and opinions very interesting. The reason I believe is sound to me. I understand that it may or may not sound strange or at the very least not able to be proven. but then again , that is why I am searching, I want to know the truth. So far I have found Christains that say they are right and anyone that does not believe what they believe is stupid and not smart enough to be given any credit of true thought. on the other hand I have come across non believers that pretty much say the same thing about believers. This in itself scares me . One group saying look at my proof , the other saying no, no look at our proof.. After thinking about it I have decided to do just that . Lucky for me, I have also ran into people that believe the way they believe without the out right show of hate for people that don't believe the way they do. These are the people that I will give my attention to for the very reason that these people seem to be after knowledge for the sake of knowledge and not for the reason of making someone else look and feel like a fool, which does nothing for either of them. So after writing this stuff that makes no difference to anyone other than myself , My search goes on.

[velkyn]

I think the problem might be that "proof" should be replaced by "evidence" and then that should be examined on its own merits.  For example, we have theists who claim that the bible is "evidence" for God's existence, that the gospels are "eyewitness" testimony, that the events in the bible happened, that their god created the universe and that should be "proof" enough.

Then we non-Christians, but still theists, who claim that it wasn’t the Christian god that did this, it was theirs and that their particular events happened.  We ask for evidence and they have the same that the Chrisitans have above.

Then the agnostics and atheists come in and say “well, you both claim the same quality of “evidence” for your gods.  We see no objective evidence of any.  Do you have anything else and can you answer the question why we can find no evidence of the important events in your respective stories?” 

Since no theists can bring objective evidence that their god exists or that their events happened, for example the Noachian Flood, and that atheists can point to objective evidence that the Big Bang is the best fit for the evidence, that evolutionary theory is the best fit for the evidence, it seems that they are not saying anything like the same thing, as you allude to in your post, Riley.   

Among other things, I became an atheist after looking at the evidence myself.  I read the bible when I was watching my church disintegrate, going to the “horse’s mouth” as it were.  I found out it’s not at all what was claimed in church.  I started questioning, investigating other religions on the chance that they were any more “right” ( I was even a Rosicrucian for a while ) and here I am, a “hard” atheist. 

[ungod]

hearing it that way does sound a little silly , that I will admit. I doubt that a yeti could ride a unicycle. However there is no proof ( no matter how unreliable it may be) that yetis could ride a unicycle.

[riley2112]

lmao,, you guys are great,, very funny,, lol,, I may not agree with you at this point in time but I do enjoy you humor..and I am looking for evidence to the truth , and I will follow it to where it leads, no matter the out come. Truth will remain truth. No matter how you look at it . Granted it may not be what I thought it was going to be. And that is why I am looking.

[Brakeman]

So after writing this stuff that makes no difference to anyone other than myself , My search goes on.

Riley what about the pure nonsense in christianity? How do you juggle that in your beliefs?
For instance, Having your soul pray prayers that your mind doesn't understand? 1 Corinthians 14:14
Talking in tongues, drinking poison, handling snakes, washing feet, anointing with oil. Treating Leprosy with the blood of two slaughtered pigeons and some chanting.  etc..?

[Alzael]

lmao,, you guys are great,, very funny,, lol,, I may not agree with you at this point in time but I do enjoy you humor..and I am looking for evidence to the truth , and I will follow it to where it leads, no matter the out come. Truth will remain truth. No matter how you look at it . Granted it may not be what I thought it was going to be. And that is why I am looking.

If you will follow it to where it leads, why do you start out making assumptions about the way that  the world must work?

This means that you will only come to the conclusion that you have presupposed based on the assumption. Never to the truth.

You have to actually do the things that you claim you are trying to do, Riley.

[Historicity]

lmao,, you guys are great,, very funny,, lol,, I may not agree with you at this point in time but I do enjoy you humor..

Yeah, Riley, I've noticed a pattern here of generals fighting the last war.  That is, sometimes the group is irritable with someone because of a previous participant.

As for me, I live in a country that is 80% Christian so 80% of my friends are Christians.

[Truth OT]

Been thinking............and um, the thought occured to me that the idea of a singularity whose density as "asymptotally" approaching infinity prior to the existense of space, time, and matter seems problematic. Is not density a quality of matter that generally based on gravitational factors and perhaps temporature? Without matter and energy being present, would not it be impossible for there to even be the potential for a thing, anything at all, to have the quality of density?

Is it illogical to presume that potentially evertime there is a black whole, the creation of another new universe will be the result? 

[RaymondKHessel]

Been thinking............and um, the thought occured to me that the idea of a singularity whose density as "asymptotally" appraoched infinity prior to the existense of space, time, and matter seems problematic. Is not density a quality of matter that generally based on gravitational factors and perhaps temporature? Without matter and energy being present, would not it be impossible for there to even be the potential for a thing, anything at all, to have the quality of density?

 

Watchoo talkin' about, Phyllis???

I'll say no (50-50 shot!), it would not be impossible. Especially if you flip the universe inside out. But all that big wordificiation just punched the teeth out of my brain box, so for a better answer you'll probably need to wait for somebody with a better understanding of theoretical astrophysics to come along.

I just make tones and noises come out of things with strings, man. <shrug>

I'll be very interested to read the opinion of somebody with a better grip on the subject matter. But maybe I can offer a very meager idea, born from the depths of my belly button: What if gravity is somehow multi-dimensional?  Eh? EH? Am I blowin' your mind or WHAT? Yeeeeah. Put THAT it in your atom smasher and smoke it!!!

And... And... What if D-O-G... Was actually spelled C-A-T???

I need to go lie down and put a cool washcloth over my eyes. All this heavy thunktification is, like, fuckin' INTENSE!!!

[Whateverman]

Been thinking............and um, the thought occured to me that the idea of a singularity whose density as "asymptotally" approaching infinity prior to the existense of space, time, and matter seems problematic. Is not density a quality of matter that generally based on gravitational factors and perhaps temporature? Without matter and energy being present, would not it be impossible for there to even be the potential for a thing, anything at all, to have the quality of density?

Seems to me your question would be answered if we knew how/why the universe came into existence.

I'm not trying to be flippant.  We simply do not understand what caused the universe to appear.  We have theories, some of which are backed up by empirical evidence (re. big bang) and some of which are backed up by math (re. string/M theory) - but none of which provide complete explanations or are devoid of problems.

As such, talking about things being "problematic" essentially says nothing we don't already know.  We don't understand what happens when quantum effects and gravity both take center stage.  We don't really understand what happens at the center of a black hole.  Physicists concede that infinities are mathematical aberrations that both help us resolve equations and represent clear flaws in our theories.

I guess I get frustrated in conversations like this when people start trying to reason logically through our current ideas.  We know there are problems.  Reasoning is just as useful as guessing at this point.

Is it illogical to presume that potentially evertime there is a black whole, the creation of another new universe will be the result?

Illogical?  Bad choice of adjectives, IMHO only.  It's useless to presume such things until such time as we have a better understanding of how black holes work.

[Cyberia]

Been thinking............and um, the thought occured to me that the idea of a singularity whose density as "asymptotally"

asymptotically?


 

approaching infinity prior to the existense of space, time, and matter seems problematic.

Using the phrase "prior to the existence of time" seems problematic to me.  I hope you understand why.

Is not density a quality of matter that generally based on gravitational factors and perhaps temporature?

Temperature?  Spell checking is your friend.

Density = Mass / Volume.  Period.  It's not a quality of matter.

Generally speaking, Gravity --> Density --> Temperature

Without matter and energy being present, would not it be impossible for there to even be the potential for a thing, anything at all, to have the quality of density?

You need matter to have density, yes.

Is it illogical to presume that potentially evertime there is a black whole, the creation of another new universe will be the result?

It is a distinct possibility, but it would be illogical to presume that is the case.  We just don't know yet.

[Truth OT]

Quote from: Truth OT on Today at 01:28:35 PM
approaching infinity prior to the existense of space, time, and matter seems problematic.

Using the phrase "prior to the existence of time" seems problematic to me.  I hope you understand why.

I see the problem, but hopefully the intended message was communicated. Speaking of time though, I have wondered if in fact it began with the expansion of the singularity OR if it is more reasonable to conclude that it began prior to that at say the initial point that began the formation of the singularity.

[Cyberia]

I see the problem, but hopefully the intended message was communicated.

I do understand what you were tying to communicate, and I hope you don't take this personally, but what you were trying to communicate is nonsense.  It CAN'T happen.  "Before Time" is a contradiction, it simply makes NO SENSE.  You are trapped in a line of thought, for understandable reasons, because ALL of your experiences in life are related to "time" and you are having difficulty escaping from this mode of thought.  Most people do too, don't feel bad.  BUT IT'S INCORRECT.

"Before Time" is an obvious contradiction, and so you MUST abandon that mode of thinking.  It goes nowhere.  Let me give you some examples:

a) What is North of the North Pole?

b) Can you imagine something that is both perfectly Black and perfectly White at the same time?

See? Just because you can ask the question does NOT mean the question has any significance or validity.  The questions themselves DON'T MAKE SENSE.

Speaking of time though, I have wondered if in fact it began with the expansion of the singularity OR if it is more reasonable to conclude that it began prior to that at say the initial point that began the formation of the singularity.

This is an extremely deep question about the nature of reality.  The answer is not fully known, but science is not completely ignorant in this regard.  We DO know some things about the answer, both from conceptual viewpoints AND from mathematical constructs.

Gravity and matter are obviously related.  Gravity only works on matter, and only matter emits gravity.  There is a linkage between them that CANNOT be bypassed.  A symmetry exists and although we can describe the symmetry, we cannot fully explain it with current theories.

Gravity and time are also related.  Time slows down as gravity increases.  We can observationally verify this, and General relativity predicts this.  Experimentally it can be verified to 14+ decimal places.

Currently, it is strongly suspected that all three quantities (matter, gravity and time) all came into existence at the Big Bang.  That is to say, at T=0, at the instant Time began, matter and gravity also began.  Another way to think about it is that the decoupling of gravity and matter caused time to come into existence.  They are linked and none of them can exist without both of the others.

At the moment we do not have a Theory of Quantum Gravity, but such a theory should describe the nature of the decoupling of those three quantities.  General Relativity (which is a gravitational theory) breaks down (starts spitting out infinities) at 10^-43s after the Big Bang.  At that point, quantum effect become dominate.  So we simply don't know what occurred before that point.  Quantum Mechanics includes everything BUT gravity, and GR simply cannot be quantized, so currently we are screwed trying to describe things before 10^-43s.  (We can still mathematically ad-hoc some parts of those events however, because certain things MUST be true, but it's sloppy and unsatisfying)

[riley2112]

So after writing this stuff that makes no difference to anyone other than myself , My search goes on.

Riley what about the pure nonsense in Christianity? How do you juggle that in your beliefs?
For instance, Having your soul pray prayers that your mind doesn't understand? 1 Corinthians 14:14
Talking in tongues, drinking poison, handling snakes, washing feet, anointing with oil. Treating Leprosy with the blood of two slaughtered pigeons and some chanting.  etc..?

I am not sure at this time I can say that Christianity is pure nonsense. However I will not be handling any snakes. As to how I am juggling that in my beliefs, well , let's just say that I may have dropped a few balls. There is alot to say about faith. I have seen it strong in people. But if you were to ask me to prove it , I couldn't. So how can I be sure it is real. As for talking in tongues, I have heard it. But even given the fact that I am a believer, well , let us just agree that I felt strange around people doing it .
 
Saying my mind at this time is a total mind melt would be mild. I did not believe in God in one day and now that I am giving thought to what I believe in. I am sure it will take me more than one day to filter through it all. There are a lot of facts that are being put in front of me that I never gave thought to before. So I am feeling a little overwhelmed at this time.

[JeffPT]

There is alot to say about faith. I have seen it strong in people. But if you were to ask me to prove it , I couldn't.

Have you seen the strong faith that the Muslims have?  Strong enough to ram a few perfectly good airplanes into a few perfectly good buildings. 

You're right about one thing though... There is a lot to be said about faith.  It's just that most of it is bad and the stuff that's not bad are lies.

So how can I be sure it is real.

You can't.  But you can come to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.  Whatever method you choose, you'd have to find a way that would take into consideration every single religion the world has ever known, and find some sort of statistically significant difference between a Christians 'faith' and all the rest.  If you can't, then you must admit the possibility that Christians suffer from the same delusions that every other devout religious (non-Christian) person suffers from.     

As for talking in tongues, I have heard it. But even given the fact that I am a believer, well , let us just agree that I felt strange around people doing it .

Strange?  I laugh so hard at those people.  It's so embarrassing. 

Saying my mind at this time is a total mind melt would be mild. I did not believe in God in one day and now that I am giving thought to what I believe in. I am sure it will take me more than one day to filter through it all. There are a lot of facts that are being put in front of me that I never gave thought to before. So I am feeling a little overwhelmed at this time.

Keep going.  It is honorable to look for the truth regardless of where it leads. 

[Brakeman]

As for talking in tongues, I have heard it. But even given the fact that I am a believer, well , let us just agree that I felt strange around people doing it .

You felt uncomfortable as I did because you knew in your self conscience that they were making it up. I have a cousin that likes to "add flavor" to some of our stories as kids. When he tells these stories with the added details, it makes me uncomfortable for the same reason.

The church-goes disconnect to lying is phenomenal.  If you've had the same experience as I have, then you can simple play back church conversations in your memory where the "christians" played one upmanship on their stories about their contact with god's miracles.

Why would a christian ever have a propensity to lie about his relationship with god if it was real and he really believed in his heart? He'd be scared shitless to say anything false if he really believed god was listening to him and watching him as god did Moses.

[Add Homonym]

Quote from: Truth OT on Today at 01:28:35 PM
approaching infinity prior to the existense of space, time, and matter seems problematic.

Using the phrase "prior to the existence of time" seems problematic to me.  I hope you understand why.

I see the problem, but hopefully the intended message was communicated. Speaking of time though, I have wondered if in fact it began with the expansion of the singularity OR if it is more reasonable to conclude that it began prior to that at say the initial point that began the formation of the singularity.

Joseph Silk: Maybe long before inflation there was a Universe that was collapsing near a singularity, which then inflated again, so there was already a history before the Big Bang. Some people think there was a 'pre-Big Bang'. One possibility is that this pre-Big Bang, if there was such a place, would have made lots of entropy (the amount of disorder in the Universe). And the Universe we live in does have huge amounts of entropy. That's one theory. But we have no understanding of how to change from collapsing to expanding. There's no physical way to explain that transition. Some people believe that they have explanations the pre-Big Bang, so it's a respectable theory.

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_people_0_iv.html

http://www.universetoday.com/13630/what-was-before-the-big-bang-an-identical-reversed-universe/