whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Evolution & Creationism => Topic started by: Truth OT on September 19, 2011, 10:03:17 AM

Title: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Truth OT on September 19, 2011, 10:03:17 AM
Many, of which I am included, have made the declaration that because there is existence, then that means that there must be or have been a cause that was uncaused. This idea of an uncaused cause has directed people's attention to theology and endless debate about the existence and nature of God. The idea of a god being this uncause cause requires a leap of faith that assumes that that uncaused cause acted with purpose, was sentient, was in many ways, with the exception of the physical, existing in the image and likeness of man.

What I have slowly come to realize is that there is no hard evidence reason to come to such a conclusion other than wishful thinking. What makes more sense as it relates to the idea of there being an uncaused cause, is that that cause is in fact simply, ENERGY. 

Energy seems to be the one think that may in fact possess the "godlike" quality of being from everlasting to everlasting in that as far as we know, it is neither created or destroyed; It simply exists in various forms.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: BaalServant on September 19, 2011, 10:33:33 AM
Calling reality god isn't going to make any god real.

Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Truth OT on September 19, 2011, 10:47:50 AM
Calling reality god isn't going to make any god real.

O.......K...........?????
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: plethora on September 19, 2011, 10:58:12 AM
No.

First of all, you are basically expressing a [wiki]Pantheist[/wiki] position which is ridiculous. The universe has a name, it's called the universe. No need to give it a loaded label like "god" in a lame attempt to endow it with some sort of 'godlike' personality.

Second, you are assuming that absolutely everything in the universe has a cause and effect and that it must have had a single uncaused cause as a starting point. This is completely untrue. There are an unimaginable amount of uncaused events happening in the universe all the time. Events that are completely random.

[wiki]Atom Decay[/wiki] is a prime example. Another one is the random popping in and out of existence of [wiki]virtual particles[/wiki] in the empty space between the quarks inside regular particles. The [wiki]uncertainty principle[/wiki] points out the random and unpredictable behavior of individual particles, such as photons, given certain scenarios.

So uncaused events are rampant across the universe and they are all independent of each other. You're not telling me that each of of these is a god now are you?

Besides, the known universe began with a [wiki]spacetime singularity[/wiki] which is not just "energy" but a point where various measurements are infinite and do not require coordinates. Infinite temperature, infinite density, infinite gravity, etc ... all in one 'place', so to speak.

So to claim the universe began with an uncaused cause made of nothing but "energy" is incorrect.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Aaron123 on September 19, 2011, 11:10:25 AM
What I have slowly come to realize is that there is no hard evidence reason to come to such a conclusion other than wishful thinking. What makes more sense as it relates to the idea of there being an uncaused cause, is that that cause is in fact simply, ENERGY. 

Energy seems to be the one think that may in fact possess the "godlike" quality of being from everlasting to everlasting in that as far as we know, it is neither created or destroyed; It simply exists in various forms.

I want to be sure I understand this right.

Are you trying to say that energy=god?

If so, would that mean, for example, that a rocket uses god-power to get into space?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: One Above All on September 19, 2011, 11:14:30 AM
I want to be sure I understand this right.

Are you trying to say that energy=god?

If so, would that mean, for example, that a rocket uses god-power to get into space?

Just another question regarding Aaron123's point: So stars create "more" god? Since, you know, they convert their own mass into energy
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Truth OT on September 19, 2011, 11:16:40 AM
I want to be sure I understand this right.

Are you trying to say that energy=god?

If so, would that mean, for example, that a rocket uses god-power to get into space?

No, I am not trying to say that energy is in fact God, no pantheism here. All I am saying is that if the idea of an uncaused cause is in fact a good one, then what makes the most sense is that energy is in fact the uncaused cause and trying to define or deify energy as being a sentient entity is in fact NOT backed by anything we have observed and been able to understand.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: plethora on September 19, 2011, 11:27:17 AM
^^^ Okay. Referring back to my earlier post, 'energy' is not the uncaused cause that the universe began with. The singularity was more complex than that and there are uncaused causes all the time. So the OP is still wrong.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Nick on September 19, 2011, 11:49:28 AM
So when I say my prayers tonight I should address them to ENERGY?  Is God that rabbit that beats that drum?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Omen on September 19, 2011, 11:52:52 AM
If I define a tea cup as god, its still a tea cup.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Truth OT on September 19, 2011, 12:04:48 PM
^^^ Okay. Referring back to my earlier post, 'energy' is not the uncaused cause that the universe began with. The singularity was more complex than that and there are uncaused causes all the time. So the OP is still wrong.

What is the singularity that you are referring to?

Is it not the accepted idea amongst scientists that there was an infinately dense collection of energy that exploded in what was the birth of our cosmos? If that is the case then wouldn't energy be the "parent" that caused and pre-existed our universe?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: plethora on September 20, 2011, 03:40:07 AM
What is the singularity that you are referring to?

Is it not the accepted idea amongst scientists that there was an infinately dense collection of energy that exploded in what was the birth of our cosmos?

Truth OT ... I did add several wiki hyperlinks to my post for you to actually click on if you were not familiar with a particular piece of science I was referring to. See reply #3.

Notice how the words 'spacetime singularity' are actually a wiki-link?

Besides, the known universe began with a [wiki]spacetime singularity[/wiki] which is not just "energy" but a point where various measurements are infinite and do not require coordinates. Infinite temperature, infinite density, infinite gravity, etc ... all in one 'place', so to speak.

So to claim the universe began with an uncaused cause made of nothing but "energy" is incorrect.

All you have to do it drag your pointer to the link, left click and then read. You'll find that the singularity is not described merely as 'energy' by scientists.

The universe did not literally 'explode' into existence ... it wasn't an actual 'bang'. It went from being a stable singularity to suddenly expanding very rapidly.  It was during this expansion that spacetime began and matter was created, among other things.

The singularity was an infinitely dense, infinitely hot thing that occupied no space and no time. Science only takes us as far back as the [wiki]planck epoch[/wiki] (notice my wiki-link) which is 10-43 seconds after the big bang began. Relativity literally breaks down trying to go backwards beyond that point.

To describe the singularity as 'energy' is at most a simplistic analogy. Energy actually has measurable properties that do not apply in the singularity that was present before prior to the rapid expansion of the universe.

Quote
If that is the case then wouldn't energy be the "parent" that caused and pre-existed our universe?

No. The singularity was the universe. It went from that state, to a state of expansion and will continue to go on to other states in the far future. So the singularity and the current universe are one and the same thing... only in different states.

Sure, the singularity was the initial state... the beginning, if you will. But to refer to it as a "parent" is not only a bad analogy but another shameless attempt at personifying something that does not warrant being personified.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Anfauglir on September 20, 2011, 06:01:53 AM
Guys.....we may be perhaps jumping at shadows here?

Truth is saying....."there seems as if there is an uncaused cause - but there is no reason to assume it was in any way sentient, deliberate, or anything other than mindless operation of physical laws".  He goes on to say that any step from "uncaused cause" to "anthropomorphised god" is nothing more than wishful thinking.

And, he is right.

We are, perhaps, too used to believers trying to "sneak in" their god by getting us to agree little inconsequential points that allow them the dramatic reveal of "their" god as the net result.  OF course, it never has the effect they want because the little points that we may agree are never fully fleshed out and always turn out to be slightly differently in the "reveal" than what we agreed.

Where was I?

Oh yes.....maybe Truth IS trying to build up to such a reveal.  But it is equally likely that he has in fact taken the first step towards ditching his god, with the realisation that perhaps - just perhaps - there really IS no evidence for it?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: screwtape on September 20, 2011, 07:55:42 AM
Good post, Anfauglir.  I was wondering what happened to our collective reading skillz around here.

Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: plethora on September 20, 2011, 08:34:48 AM
Truth OT has built a reputation. It took time to build and it'll take time to reverse.
... but at least I think I addressed the OP thoroughly.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: jaimehlers on September 20, 2011, 08:52:03 AM
Sure, he has a reputation.  So do I, so does everyone else here.

But let's not forget that someone's 'reputation' shouldn't be an excuse not to carefully consider what they actually say, instead of reading additional subtext into it that they didn't say.

As far as "uncaused causes" go, I think the reason they bother people is because people are used to the causal universe, where everything that happens has a reason it happened, even if it's one we don't actually understand at the time.  And there's no telling if there is an actual cause or not for things like virtual particles, since we don't understand them particularly well.  We're still in the very early stages of the science that explains such things in a way that lets us use them, so the most I think anyone can say is that we don't see any actual cause of such things.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Truth OT on September 20, 2011, 09:45:42 AM
The universe did not literally 'explode' into existence ... it wasn't an actual 'bang'. It went from being a stable singularity to suddenly expanding very rapidly.  It was during this expansion that spacetime began and matter was created, among other things.

The singularity was an infinitely dense, infinitely hot thing that occupied no space and no time. Science only takes us as far back as the planck epochWiki (notice my wiki-link) which is 10-43 seconds after the big bang began. Relativity literally breaks down trying to go backwards beyond that point.

To describe the singularity as 'energy' is at most a simplistic analogy. Energy actually has measurable properties that do not apply in the singularity that was present before prior to the rapid expansion of the universe.

Your attempt to address the OP sounded like more of a point of the finger at someone you deem as a stupid, God-believing, mouth breather, that has to have a foolish and hidden agenda which involves trying to convert someone to Jesus.
Don't know how I was able to do it, but I somehow managed to do some pointing and clicking and here's part of the page you recommended:

Quote
the physics of the Planck epoch are unclear, and the exact manner in which the fundamental forces were unified, and how they came to be separate entities, is still poorly understood. Three of the four forces have been successfully integrated in a common framework, but gravity remains problematic. If quantum effects are ignored, the universe starts from a singularity with an infinite density. This conclusion could change when quantum gravity is taken into account.

and also this, from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

Quote
According to a naive interpretation of general relativity that ignores quantum mechanics, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity. Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang, but in general QM does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point (the Schwarzschild radius) would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point (or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating). This is again according to General Relativity without Quantum Mechanics, which forbids wavelike particles entering a space smaller than their wavelength. These hypothetical singularities are also known as curvature singularities.

   To describe the singularity at all (especially in a definative manner) seems to be problematic because as far as we know, it only existed theoretically and if science is able to combine quantum mechanics with relativistic gravity, we may have to abandon the idea of the universe starting from a singularity with an infinite density (hello string theory).

You are correct that describing that which preexisted the expansion of the universe as being energy as being a simplistic description. However, to get any more technical at this point may in fact be pointless because we aren't equiped with the knowledge to do so with any reasonable degree of certainty. Based on what can be theorized we are left with the assumption that energy did in fact exist BEFORE TIME and was present in the form of a theoretically immeasurably dense THING.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: plethora on September 20, 2011, 10:09:20 AM
Sure, he has a reputation.  So do I, so does everyone else here.

But let's not forget that someone's 'reputation' shouldn't be an excuse not to carefully consider what they actually say, instead of reading additional subtext into it that they didn't say.

Alright, I'll tone it down... but I don't think I have unjust cause to be wary about a hidden agenda when I see statements personifying that which existed 'before' the universe's rapid expansion as "godlike" and as a "parent".
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: plethora on September 20, 2011, 10:20:23 AM
Your attempt to address the OP sounded like more of a point of the finger at someone you deem as a stupid, God-believing, mouth breather, that has to have a foolish and hidden agenda which involves trying to convert someone to Jesus.

Okay. Maybe I overreacted. But describing the initial state of the universe as "godlike" and as a "parent" ... and knowing you are a theist ... you can see why I had a knee-jerk reaction.

I'll tone it down.

Quote
You are correct that describing that which preexisted the expansion of the universe as being energy as being a simplistic description. However, to get any more technical at this point may in fact be pointless because we aren't equiped with the knowledge to do so with any reasonable degree of certainty.

I fully agree with the above statement. So it's probably best not to call it anything but the theorized initial state of the universe.

We do not know if it is uncaused, we do not know what it was exactly. So to call it "energy" and describe it as "godlike" or a "parent cause" just loads it with descriptive baggage it doesn't need.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Omen on September 20, 2011, 10:21:21 AM
But let's not forget that someone's 'reputation' shouldn't be an excuse not to carefully consider what they actually say, instead of reading additional subtext into it that they didn't say.

I completely disagree, if your behavior is such that you consistently exhibit dishonesty then you are insuring that you are socially isolated and do not deserve nuanced consideration in the future.  This condition only changes when someone takes responsibility for their actions and you are only enabling further bad behavior by not holding them accountable at all times, regardless if it happened in the past or not.  In fact this is one thing that fundamentalist use to their advantage by listing an endless stream of nonsensical talking points or assertions without support.  They may sound 'good', but rarely survive beyond a cursory examination of the topic.  However, by the time that occurs they have already moved on to another list of nonsensical talking points.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Babdah on September 20, 2011, 10:22:34 AM
Many, of which I am included, have made the declaration that because there is existence, then that means that there must be or have been a cause that was uncaused. This idea of an uncaused cause has directed people's attention to theology and endless debate about the existence and nature of God. The idea of a god being this uncause cause requires a leap of faith that assumes that that uncaused cause acted with purpose, was sentient, was in many ways, with the exception of the physical, existing in the image and likeness of man.

What I have slowly come to realize is that there is no hard evidence reason to come to such a conclusion other than wishful thinking. What makes more sense as it relates to the idea of there being an uncaused cause, is that that cause is in fact simply, ENERGY. 

Energy seems to be the one think that may in fact possess the "godlike" quality of being from everlasting to everlasting in that as far as we know, it is neither created or destroyed; It simply exists in various forms.

Sounds like a failed attempt to hold onto something that does not exist and just can not let go. Kind of like when an animal dies and no one wants to replace it with a new one yet. Just let go and be free it is so much better on this side...
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: jaimehlers on September 20, 2011, 11:45:57 AM
Alright, I'll tone it down... but I don't think I have unjust cause to be wary about a hidden agenda when I see statements personifying that which existed 'before' the universe's rapid expansion as "godlike" and as a "parent".
That's fair.  All I was trying to suggest is that it's worth taking a step back sometimes and making sure that you've got the right of it.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: velkyn on September 20, 2011, 12:19:04 PM
Alright, I'll tone it down... but I don't think I have unjust cause to be wary about a hidden agenda when I see statements personifying that which existed 'before' the universe's rapid expansion as "godlike" and as a "parent".

I'd add to this, isn't TOT the one who is claiming that God has a plan?  Can "energy" have a plan?  I can understand the caution and the reasons why the OP may be harmless but it seems rather strange with what we've seen in the past.   
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: screwtape on September 20, 2011, 01:34:17 PM
I completely disagree, if your behavior is such that you consistently exhibit dishonesty then you are insuring that you are socially isolated and do not deserve nuanced consideration in the future.  This condition only changes when someone takes responsibility for their actions and you are only enabling further bad behavior by not holding them accountable at all times, regardless if it happened in the past or not.  In fact this is one thing that fundamentalist use to their advantage by listing an endless stream of nonsensical talking points or assertions without support.  They may sound 'good', but rarely survive beyond a cursory examination of the topic.  However, by the time that occurs they have already moved on to another list of nonsensical talking points.

You and several others were lazy in your reading of TOT's post.   That is easy to do if you do not read his post carefully.  His post has all the stereotype words you would expect to see from someone trying to relabel nature "god".  The first read through I made the same mistake.  But I read it again and saw what he was saying.

Your response was not to what he actually said, but to what you assumed he would say. The only person responsible for that is you.  Instead of saying, "oh shit, I totally missed that, sorry," like you should, you are trying to blame him for it.  If honesty - especially intellectually honesty - is as important to you as you always say it is, then take responsibility for your actions.  It is not his fault you and others skimmed his post and wrote responses to your own imaginations.

Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Truth OT on September 20, 2011, 01:45:17 PM
Alright, I'll tone it down... but I don't think I have unjust cause to be wary about a hidden agenda when I see statements personifying that which existed 'before' the universe's rapid expansion as "godlike" and as a "parent".

I'd add to this, isn't TOT the one who is claiming that God has a plan?  Can "energy" have a plan?  I can understand the caution and the reasons why the OP may be harmless but it seems rather strange with what we've seen in the past.

To be clear, ToT does not know A) if there is a God or B) whether God, if there is one has a plan or not. Tot's contention is that if there is a God that created man and placed him in an environment where "falling" was the likely outcome, then obviously God would have had to have man's fall as a part of His plan.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Omen on September 20, 2011, 01:52:24 PM
. Tot's contention is that if there is a God that created man and placed him in an environment where "falling" was the likely outcome, then obviously God would have had to have man's fall as a part of His plan.

Then your God created suffering for no other purpose than to create suffering.

Logic would render the suggestion that any plan 'requires' suffering to be not only inescapably unnecessary, but contradictory because of your God's ability to do anything.  Leaving only the possibility that your god created us to suffer for the purpose of suffering.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Truth OT on September 20, 2011, 02:03:16 PM
. Tot's contention is that if there is a God that created man and placed him in an environment where "falling" was the likely outcome, then obviously God would have had to have man's fall as a part of His plan.

Then your God created suffering for no other purpose than to create suffering.

Logic would render the suggestion that any plan 'requires' suffering to be not only inescapably unnecessary, but contradictory because of your God's ability to do anything.  Leaving only the possibility that your god created us to suffer for the purpose of suffering.

Mr. Provacator, why not refrain from going at it in this thread especially if you wish to structure your contention on something that admittedly is a what/if - if/then scenario?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: jaimehlers on September 20, 2011, 02:03:48 PM
I completely disagree, if your behavior is such that you consistently exhibit dishonesty then you are insuring that you are socially isolated and do not deserve nuanced consideration in the future.  This condition only changes when someone takes responsibility for their actions and you are only enabling further bad behavior by not holding them accountable at all times, regardless if it happened in the past or not.  In fact this is one thing that fundamentalist use to their advantage by listing an endless stream of nonsensical talking points or assertions without support.  They may sound 'good', but rarely survive beyond a cursory examination of the topic.  However, by the time that occurs they have already moved on to another list of nonsensical talking points.
I certainly wasn't suggesting that someone shouldn't be held accountable for their behavior.  But it works both ways; if I want to hold someone accountable for their behavior, I have the responsibility to make sure I'm understanding their behavior properly, and not making unwarranted assumptions about it.  Because the easiest way for me to destroy my own credibility is to make those assumptions and then refuse to correct them if/when it turns out I was wrong.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Omen on September 20, 2011, 02:10:40 PM
. Tot's contention is that if there is a God that created man and placed him in an environment where "falling" was the likely outcome, then obviously God would have had to have man's fall as a part of His plan.

Then your God created suffering for no other purpose than to create suffering.

Logic would render the suggestion that any plan 'requires' suffering to be not only inescapably unnecessary, but contradictory because of your God's ability to do anything.  Leaving only the possibility that your god created us to suffer for the purpose of suffering.

especially if you wish to structure your contention on something that admittedly is a what/if - if/then scenario?

Actually, the burden would be on you to demonstrate other possibilities, but thanks for the non-response. Here, have a smite for obfuscating.

I described the only possible logical outcome.  You can't insert a new plan, because no plan has requirements that predicate a god's ability to have the same goal with or without them.  However, you HAVE to rationalize suffering, because you have no choice having accepted something as true without any reason to do so and purely at the whim of your own presuppositions.  What I've done is taken your rationalization and presented it to you in terms you probably emotionally disagree with.  You don't want to admit that that in the scenario you described the god you claim only creates suffering for the purpose of suffering.

You can redefine god, but that renders god moot.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: rickymooston on September 20, 2011, 09:01:09 PM
Then your God created suffering for no other purpose than to create suffering.

Not necessarily. The suffering may be a path to something else; e.g., a greater end such as "spiritual" growth. It is a fact that, people often grow by some measure of suffering. If you add the postulate that an eternal life, whatever that means, exists and that one retains lessons from this life in the next, other alternatives make sense.

In fact, this is what many theists belief. They believe this world is a transition to a world to come and in the course of that transition, we grow.

I'm not sure if you caught the obvious. The user in question seems to be agnostic here. He isn't stating that God exists but taking the conditional, "if God exists".

That was why he responded in the way that seems to have angered you.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Omen on September 20, 2011, 09:04:36 PM
Then your God created suffering for no other purpose than to create suffering.

Not necessarily. The suffering may be a path to something else

Nope.

God, possessing of attributes of omniscience and omnipotence, doesn't have to predicate any goal on a lesser requirement.  That is logically such a being can have that 'something else' without suffering, hence the meaningless nature of suffering.  Therefore, suffering in and of itself, can serve no purpose other than the suffering itself.  You mimic'd a typical religious apologetic red herring, it doesn't actually answer the problem and only begs the very same conditional problem.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Anfauglir on September 21, 2011, 02:01:19 AM
.....suffering may be a path to something else; e.g., a greater end such as "spiritual" growth. It is a fact that, people often grow by some measure of suffering. If you add the postulate that an eternal life, whatever that means, exists and that one retains lessons from this life in the next, other alternatives make sense.

Aye, what Omen said.  See, here's the thing: the rationalisation behind suffering is that it means that a particular person can be in/at a particular state of existence at a particular point in their life - in this case, that they can be "admissable" to heaven at the point of death.

But once you've said "this state of being is the requirement for eternal life"....then you need to explain exactly why a loving and merciful god does not simply create people in that state with their hand on the doorbell of heaven.  He's GOD, after all - creating a being in adult form with certain traits and knowledge is no problem for him - he did it with Adam and Eve after all.  And lets face it, us mere humans are perfectly capable of creating false memories; manipulating people's emotions and feelings; of repressing things we don't want to think about.  If we can make ourselves "heaven-ready", there is no issue at all for us not to all have been created that way.....unless it is the desire of god that some people shall fail and be damned forever.

Which is, of course, eminently possible.  A world where suffering happens is entirely in line with a god that doesn't give a stuff - just NOT with a god whose primary characteristics are love and mercy.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: velkyn on September 21, 2011, 08:53:40 AM
Alright, I'll tone it down... but I don't think I have unjust cause to be wary about a hidden agenda when I see statements personifying that which existed 'before' the universe's rapid expansion as "godlike" and as a "parent".

I'd add to this, isn't TOT the one who is claiming that God has a plan?  Can "energy" have a plan?  I can understand the caution and the reasons why the OP may be harmless but it seems rather strange with what we've seen in the past.

To be clear, ToT does not know A) if there is a God or B) whether God, if there is one has a plan or not. Tot's contention is that if there is a God that created man and placed him in an environment where "falling" was the likely outcome, then obviously God would have had to have man's fall as a part of His plan.

so can you explain the point of your new thought that energy is god?  And again how energy has a plan?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Truth OT on September 21, 2011, 10:49:33 AM
so can you explain the point of your new thought that energy is god?  And again how energy has a plan?

Clearly you either totally misunderstand what I have been discussing in this thread or you have an agenda that involves picking a fight unnecessarily.
I am not saying that energy is God, nor am I saying that energy is in any way sentient that it could even have a plan. I only made a comparison of a quality I ASSUMED energy has as being "godlike" since God has been said to be from everlasting to everlasting. Seriously, did you read the OP? If you did, I doubt that you would ask such questions.


Quote
Many, of which I am included, have made the declaration that because there is existence, then that means that there must be or have been a cause that was uncaused. This idea of an uncaused cause has directed people's attention to theology and endless debate about the existence and nature of God. The idea of a god being this uncause cause requires a leap of faith that assumes that that uncaused cause acted with purpose, was sentient, was in many ways, with the exception of the physical, existing in the image and likeness of man.

What I have slowly come to realize is that there is no hard evidence or reason to come to such a conclusion other than wishful thinking.
What makes more sense as it relates to the idea of there being an uncaused cause, is that that cause is in fact simply, ENERGY. 

Energy seems to be the one think that may in fact possess the "godlike" quality of being from everlasting to everlasting in that as far as we know, it is neither created or destroyed; It simply exists in various forms.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: velkyn on September 21, 2011, 11:30:17 AM
so can you explain the point of your new thought that energy is god?  And again how energy has a plan?

Clearly you either totally misunderstand what I have been discussing in this thread or you have an agenda that involves picking a fight unnecessarily.
I am not saying that energy is God, nor am I saying that energy is in any way sentient that it could even have a plan. I only made a comparison of a quality I ASSUMED energy has as being "godlike" since God has been said to be from everlasting to everlasting. Seriously, did you read the OP? If you did, I doubt that you would ask such questions.
Then you'd be wrong.  In other posts you have said that god must have some plan, if there is a god.  You seem to want to have a god in this example but you want to equate this god to "energy".    If God equates to energy, then if "god" as defined exists, then this god which equals "energy" must have a plan. 

However, if energy is energy, and not god and not defined as god, then it doesnt' have to have a plan.   As I see it, your attempt to redefine god as "energy" confuses the issue.  Are you abandoning the idea that there is any god that sentiently directs anything?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Truth OT on September 21, 2011, 12:01:33 PM
so can you explain the point of your new thought that energy is god?  And again how energy has a plan?

Clearly you either totally misunderstand what I have been discussing in this thread or you have an agenda that involves picking a fight unnecessarily.
I am not saying that energy is God, nor am I saying that energy is in any way sentient that it could even have a plan. I only made a comparison of a quality I ASSUMED energy has as being "godlike" since God has been said to be from everlasting to everlasting. Seriously, did you read the OP? If you did, I doubt that you would ask such questions.
Then you'd be wrong.  In other posts you have said that god must have some plan, if there is a god.  You seem to want to have a god in this example but you want to equate this god to "energy".    If God equates to energy, then if "god" as defined exists, then this god which equals "energy" must have a plan. 

However, if energy is energy, and not god and not defined as god, then it doesnt' have to have a plan.   As I see it, your attempt to redefine god as "energy" confuses the issue.  Are you abandoning the idea that there is any god that sentiently directs anything?

You're still missing it, so allow me to clarify once again by first repeating what I wrote and then flatly stating that I do not intend for energy to be one and the same with God.

The idea of a god being this uncaused cause requires a leap of faith that assumes that that uncaused cause acted with purpose, was sentient, was in many ways, with the exception of the physical, existing in the image and likeness of man. What I have slowly come to realize is that there is no hard evidence or reason to come to such a conclusion other than wishful thinking.

Need I say more?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Aaron123 on September 21, 2011, 01:49:08 PM
There is something I don't think is being addressed here.

Why do you think there was an "uncaused cause"?  I get that you're trying to say that 'energy' is what caused the big bang, but why assume that it was "uncaused", or that there needs to be something that was uncaused?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Truth OT on September 21, 2011, 01:55:11 PM
There is something I don't think is being addressed here.

Why do you think there was an "uncaused cause"?  I get that you're trying to say that 'energy' is what caused the big bang, but why assume that it was "uncaused", or that there needs to be something that was uncaused?

What other logical options are there? It would seem that there had to have been either an uncaused something or various uncaused somethings in order for something to ever come about. It makes no sense to me believe that there was nothing that was uncaused for if that were the case then wouldn't that mean that there at some point would have been a void of initial and total nothingness? And if so, then wouldn't it always be that way?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: screwtape on September 22, 2011, 09:00:02 AM
velkyn,

unless I have misunderstood TOT, he is not saying energy = god.  He has gone out of his way to say that is not what he means.  He is saying that he does not have any reason to think that the uncaused "thing" that caused the big bang (or whatever) was a god, but he does have reason, in his opinion, that it was energy. He is saying energy and a hypothetical god share only the quality of either being uncaused or being eternal. 

TOT, correct me if I am mistaken.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Whateverman on September 22, 2011, 09:35:01 AM
Your response was not to what he actually said, but to what you assumed he would say.
This happens so frequently in online discussions that it's a wonder people ever conclude anything.  I was going to comment on the OP, saw that it was drifting into suspicion, and decided to keep reading.  I'm glad y'all tried to bring it back to the topic.  Correction like this happens rarely, and it's one of the reasons I continue reading & posting here.

ToT, I've read some of the threads where you and others talked about the origins of the universe.  "Energy = uncaused cause" seems to be a logical conclusion, but I don't think it can be held with confidence.  Singularities represent a fundamental flaw in our understanding of cosmology, the point at which all of our theories break down.  It's a placeholder for our ignorance.

It doesn't matter that our laws state energy can neither be created or destroyed: at some level, we're wrong about what happens when light-years of matter get compacted into the size of a teaspoon.  This means we simply don't know what caused the universe to be created - and we're not even sure there WAS a cause.

We're trying to understand things from within a framework that we know is flawed.  Use that to keep your "uncaused cause" idea in perspective.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: velkyn on September 22, 2011, 11:15:57 AM
velkyn,

unless I have misunderstood TOT, he is not saying energy = god.  He has gone out of his way to say that is not what he means.  He is saying that he does not have any reason to think that the uncaused "thing" that caused the big bang (or whatever) was a god, but he does have reason, in his opinion, that it was energy. He is saying energy and a hypothetical god share only the quality of either being uncaused or being eternal. 

TOT, correct me if I am mistaken.

I still see this as equating energy to God or a "god" aka the "uncaused thing".      I had mentioned that I was confused by TOT's claims that if god exists, then god has a plan.    And then he is claiming that energy "caused" the BBT as the uncaused cause.  Now, it may be that cause is what is the problem here since to cause something would indicate that there was an intent from an uncaused cause, and thus no process to simply make things happen like, say a bowling ball striking pins.  The ball did not cause the pins to fall, the cause was the bowler. 

Does this make more sense on what I'm thinking here?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Whateverman on September 22, 2011, 12:46:54 PM
to cause something would indicate that there was an intent from an uncaused cause, and thus no process to simply make things happen like, say a bowling ball striking pins.  The ball did not cause the pins to fall, the cause was the bowler.
The ball was the proximate cause, though the bowler would be the "ultimate" cause.

Part of the problem is that we have to label the thing/entity/event that was the ultimate cause.  If ToT suggests it was energy, nothing would have created it, for otherwise we would have labeled that other thing the ultimate cause.

I don't believe intent is suggested when pointing to energy as the first cause. 

I hope I've added to the discussion rather than muddying it up.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: screwtape on September 22, 2011, 03:57:36 PM
I still see this as equating energy to God or a "god" aka the "uncaused thing".   

Why?   

If we are talking about the universe and the question is what caused the universe, and the answer I give is "a natural process that is not a conscious agent", do you still take that to be god?   

He's said explicitly more than once "not god". He may be leading up to, "and that energy is god!" or, "and that energy comes from god!", but he hasn't yet.  So far, near as I can tell, he's saying "In the beginning there was energy, and the energy was all there was, and the energy was not god, because that is an unjustifiable leap by my reckoning."  He may get there.  But so far, he's not made that leap.

I had mentioned that I was confused by TOT's claims that if god exists, then god has a plan.

I see that as an entirely separate question.  And didn't he say that in a different thread? 

And then he is claiming that energy "caused" the BBT as the uncaused cause.  Now, it may be that cause is what is the problem here since to cause something would indicate that there was an intent from an uncaused cause, and thus no process to simply make things happen like, say a bowling ball striking pins.  The ball did not cause the pins to fall, the cause was the bowler. 

Does this make more sense on what I'm thinking here?

I think its a stretch.  If the two are analagous, then there would be no bowler.  The ball would be "uncaused".  Or the pins.   

If you analyze it enough, it may be that what he is saying is balloney.  But that might be a function of the topic.  The problem may be the whole idea of uncaused causes.  It may be that "uncaused cause" as irrelevant as "invisible blue" or "round square".   It might just be a pair of self contradictory words we can say but cannot really conceptualize and so is meaningless. 

Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Cyberia on September 22, 2011, 06:50:50 PM
What other logical options are there?
An excellent, excellent question!


It would seem that there had to have been either an uncaused something or various uncaused somethings in order for something to ever come about.
This is an assumption.  That's not criticism, because every single thing that happens around us has a cause, then that cause had a cause, and so on.  So, logically there MUST have been an "Original Cause" that was itself Uncaused, by logical necessity, right?  This basically the Cosmological/Kalam/First Cause argument.

Here is why that assumption (and the Cosmological/Kalam argument) fails:  The "BB Singularity" wasn't just a compression of all the matter and energy in the universe into a single point, it was the compression of Space-time too!   Space-time.....  and I don't mean Past and Future, I mean the progression of time, tick-tock-tiiiick-tooooock-tiiiiiiiii..........

The Cosmological/Kalam/First Cause argument ASSUMES time exists externally from everything else.  It FAILS to acknowledge that TIME itself began (or stopped, depending on which way you look at it) at the BB.  TIME was the EVENT.  A cause logically CAN'T occur here because "before time" is a contradiction. 

So either:

1) There was an "Uncaused Event", meaning no God(s) or ANY OTHER causes exist AT ALL, BY DEFINITION, or

2) The compression of spacetime reduced the distance between Cause and Effect to ZERO, or at least less than one unit of Plank-Time.  In other words, Cause and Effect MUST have been simultaneous, which makes sense, given that Time was stopped/started at T=0.  Not only simultaneous, but indistinguishable!  Neither one can be identified as the "cause" or "effect", also by definition, right?  Welcome to 100% All-natural spontaneous self-creation.

Option #2 is actually at the cutting edge of theoretical physics today, because, well, the math works.  As far as we can tell, it seems possible (only) at T=0, under known physical conditions applicable to the BB, to have cause and effect mutually self-trigger

No one studies Option #1 because, if true, there isn't a cause and thus nothing to study.


It makes no sense to me believe that there was nothing that was uncaused for if that were the case then wouldn't that mean that there at some point would have been a void of initial and total nothingness? And if so, then wouldn't it always be that way?

This is the easy part.  Where did the energy come from?

Do you mean the Void that existed "before time"?  Even if I grant that, The Uncertainty Principle produces a counter-intuitive, but logical, solution.  There are many values that exist in "uncertain" relationships in physics.  The most common one discussed is the uncertainty of position and momentum.  The more accurately you know one, the less accurately you know the other.  But other values exist with uncertainty too.  An important one is Time-Energy uncertainty.

At the BB, Time is PRECISELY known.  T=0.  Period.  So the energy content of the Void has infinite UNcertainty.  That's not necessarily to say the universe actually has infinite energy, but that the total amount of energy of the universe could take on ANY discrete value up to infinity.  Any "True Void" is unstable and MUST break-down instantaneously.  An eternal, True Void is not physically possible.  An instantaneous one is possible, but those create universes.  :)

Furthermore, if the void is infinitely large, this will happen in infinitely many places. Hello multiverse.

But, perhaps you mean that since 0=0, how can anything come from that?  Well, because "zero" isn't unitary.  In fact, it's infinitely the opposite of unitary.  LOTS of things equal 0, like obviously 0, but also 3 - 3, or 5 - 5, or X - X.  As long as you have a "negative something" to balance out the "something", it's possible.  In other words, while you CAN'T get "something" for nothing, you CAN get "something plus negative something" for nothing.

That "negative something" is Gravity.  It's the reason why matter emits gravity and gravity works on matter.  The price of matter, is gravity.  They are linked, by necessity, "X" and "-X".  Therefore, overall, the universe has ZERO net energy, and no rules are broken.  Furthermore, if this occurred, the geometry of the produced universe would HAVE to be FLAT.  Want to guess what geometry our universe has?

So now were up to 100% All-natural spontaneous self-creation, ex-nihilo, as an actual physical possibility.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: velkyn on September 23, 2011, 08:57:06 AM
I still see this as equating energy to God or a "god" aka the "uncaused thing".   

Why?   
see the rest of my post.  As for what you think is stretching, that's your opinion.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: screwtape on September 23, 2011, 11:41:40 AM
As for what you think is stretching, that's your opinion.

When you say "that's your opinion", how exactly do you mean that?  It is not always easy to tell on the intertubes the tone of a post.  It sounds to me like you read something you did not expect or did not like and so now you are being dismissive.  "That's just your opinion".  I'd like to think you wouldn't do that though.   But that is how it sounds when I read it.  Please clarify.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: velkyn on September 23, 2011, 12:21:59 PM
As for what you think is stretching, that's your opinion.

When you say "that's your opinion", how exactly do you mean that?  It is not always easy to tell on the intertubes the tone of a post.  It sounds to me like you read something you did not expect or did not like and so now you are being dismissive.  "That's just your opinion".  I'd like to think you wouldn't do that though.   But that is how it sounds when I read it.  Please clarify.
nope, I am neutrally saying it's just your opinion.  I disagree and that's my opinion. 
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: screwtape on September 26, 2011, 06:59:16 AM
Okay, I'll take you at your word.  For your benefit though, in the future it would serve you better to use a different phrase.   

"That's just your opinion" has other baggage. It is a conversation stopping sentence because it sounds very dismissive.  It says, "what you have to say is irrelevant."  Oddly, I find that offensive.  Sometimes it is said innocently and correctly as a matter of differentiating fact from conjecture, which is fine.  But that is hardly ever the case because people harldy ever do not realize what they are voicing is opinion.  I am well aware that what I posted was my opinion.  So pointing that out is unnecessary and comes off as dismissive. 
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Graybeard on September 26, 2011, 09:32:48 AM
Then your God created suffering for no other purpose than to create suffering.

Not necessarily. The suffering may be a path to something else; e.g., a greater end such as "spiritual" growth. It is a fact that, people often grow by some measure of suffering. If you add the postulate that an eternal life, whatever that means, exists and that one retains lessons from this life in the next, other alternatives make sense.

In fact, this is what many theists belief. They believe this world is a transition to a world to come and in the course of that transition, we grow.

I'm not sure if you caught the obvious. The user in question seems to be agnostic here. He isn't stating that God exists but taking the conditional, "if God exists".

That was why he responded in the way that seems to have angered you.
Were there any grain of truth in "The suffering may be a path to something else; e.g., a greater end such as "spiritual" growth. " then there would be some use for this in the afterlife. However, in the afterlife there is no suffering.

So what was the point?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: velkyn on September 26, 2011, 10:42:09 AM
Okay, I'll take you at your word.  For your benefit though, in the future it would serve you better to use a different phrase.   

"That's just your opinion" has other baggage. It is a conversation stopping sentence because it sounds very dismissive.  It says, "what you have to say is irrelevant."  Oddly, I find that offensive.  Sometimes it is said innocently and correctly as a matter of differentiating fact from conjecture, which is fine.  But that is hardly ever the case because people harldy ever do not realize what they are voicing is opinion.  I am well aware that what I posted was my opinion.  So pointing that out is unnecessary and comes off as dismissive.

gee, my word is taken.  Sorry, but I don't care that you have deigned to be so magnanimous.  And yes, here I am indeed rolling my eyes. 
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: screwtape on September 26, 2011, 11:46:34 AM
gee, my word is taken.  Sorry, but I don't care that you have deigned to be so magnanimous.  And yes, here I am indeed rolling my eyes.

I appreciate you letting me know you do not value civility between us.  I will not waste it on you in the future.

By all means, do get back to that shitty, dishonest argument you were trying to make.  The one where you were trying to say TOT said the exact opposite of what he actually said.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: jaimehlers on September 26, 2011, 11:58:45 AM
Isn't part of the premise of Hawking radiation that particle-pairs can poof into existence and then obliterate themselves without something causing it to happen?  And aren't those particle pairs essentially energy, albeit in an infinitesimal amount?  While it takes something like a black hole to prevent them from mutually obliteration, isn't that something like an "uncaused cause"?  You have something happen that doesn't require a precursor cause, but everything that happens afterward follows causal reasoning.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Azdgari on September 26, 2011, 12:22:32 PM
Bookmark.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Truth OT on September 26, 2011, 12:25:01 PM
Isn't part of the premise of Hawking radiation that particle-pairs can poof into existence and then obliterate themselves without something causing it to happen?  And aren't those particle pairs essentially energy, albeit in an infinitesimal amount?  While it takes something like a black hole to prevent them from mutually obliteration, isn't that something like an "uncaused cause"?  You have something happen that doesn't require a precursor cause, but everything that happens afterward follows causal reasoning.

These subatomic particles still seem to be a mystery in quantum mechanics. To my knowledge we have yet to have been able measure or even analyze these particles to even know with any degree of certainty what they or what the nature of their appearance and disappearance is.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Alendar on October 04, 2011, 03:33:00 PM
But what caused the energy?  If we treat it as being infinite in terms of time, then we avoid the question of what precedes it.  The law of conservation of  energy says it cannot be created or destroyed in any closed system.  It does not describe the origins of energy.  If the universe is the closed system, then energy within that system is conserved.  If energy existed before the universe (along with time), then it could have been added when the universe formed, like gas in a balloon.

The constancy of energy and matter is intriguing, but if they existed outside the known universe, they would be a property of that super-verse as well.  Would they follow the same law?  If they could be injected into a new universe, then I would think that the law would be different.  Perhaps universes are like the chambers in cow's stomach: An umen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum.  At each chamber an ingredient is injected.  First time, then energy, then stir vigorously for several minutes.

Even if energy is the first ingredient, it doesn't seem like much a cause.  Where does the information come from?  Why did the energy decide to convert to matter?  If it was cooling, why was it hot?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: screwtape on October 04, 2011, 03:41:57 PM
Where does the information come from?

? What the heck does that even mean? 

Why did the energy decide to convert to matter?

? Energy does not make decisions.

If it was cooling, why was it hot?

Because it was energy.  If it were cold it would not be called "energy".  It would be called something else, like "ice".

Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Whateverman on October 04, 2011, 03:58:26 PM
If it was cooling, why was it hot?

Because it was energy.
Not necessarily, no.  Take a lit blow torch and point it at the sky.  Why isn't the universe the same temperature as the flame?

Because the chemical energy turned into heat energy, which was allowed to expand.

I understand why Alendar is asking some of the preceding questions.  When people say things like "energy was the first cause", I suspect they're most often making that statement in the context of theological cosmology argument: "If God wasn't the first cause, what else could be?"

It's clear that we do not know what caused the universe to exist.  We understand a little of the process once that first spark appeared; enough to know that butt-loads of energy was involved.  However, to surmise that energy itself was the cause is only slightly less faith-based than the assertion that it was a deity who cares about what I do with my naughty bits in my spare time.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Truth OT on October 04, 2011, 04:08:13 PM
It seems that we can, with a great degree of certainty postulate that energy is prevailent all throughout our universe and we have every reason to believe that such has always been the case.
When I raise the question of whether energy was the first cause, I was thinking along the lines of energy being the mechanism that made it possible for all other things to come into existence and develop. My thinking was that energy, or it's properties may have always existed and that was eventually manifested and it is that manifestation that led to all we know of today.

--------
Whether one is a theist or not, how does one answer certain questions with any degree of certainty? As a person that once fully believed the scriptures I will admit that I could not come up with any good answers from religion for a number of reasons. If the "God did it" scenario was accepted, there was no way to verify the identity or identities of that/those entities. In addition, I am also unconvinced that the answers the scientific community has been able to supply SO FAR are much better. The advantage that the scientific community have in my opinion is the ability to hypothesize and then test. Eventually that MAY lead to a definitive conclusion to the mystery. Questions I still have are:

Was there ever a point or period where all there was was emptiness or a void?
If so, then why is it that the void did not continue eternally?
If not, then something(s) must be infinite. What are those things?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: 12 Monkeys on October 04, 2011, 06:09:39 PM
If this "God" was creater of the universe and all this uncaused cause bullshit,he never would have chosen one particular group of people. The Jewish writers created their God to suit their needs,they used theier God as they saw fit. If God was the "creator" knowledge of the world would have been far greater to the writers.


 Face it with the very limited knowledge they had,they did what they could to create a character,that nowadays is a PUSSY.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Alendar on October 04, 2011, 06:34:11 PM
? What the heck does that even mean? 
Current theories suggest that there is information in the universe that describes the flow between cause and effect, around typical outcomes.  I apologize if that was confusing.  Hopefully this link will help you.  I apologize beforehand that it is not a proper journal article.
http://ask.metafilter.com/57039/Is-the-Universe-made-of-information
Quote
? Energy does not make decisions.
But the OP suggested that energy is what spawned the universe.  I was asking the OP what caused the energy to convert to matter.  Since there is no other being to act upon the energy, the energy is itself the only actor on the formation of the rest of the universe.  Energy turned to matter - why?  Simple question.  Sorry it was confusing.
Quote
Because it was energy.  If it were cold it would not be called "energy".  It would be called something else, like "ice".
But what made it hot?  It simply was?  That sounds similar to Theistic arguments.  That it cooled indicates it was a heightened state that it sought to descend from.  The collapse of a universe could have generated heat, or the inverse of a black hole from another dimension, some process.  The OP's suggestion that energy is god suggests that it is the First Actor or Prime Mover.  Again, sorry to confuse.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: plethora on October 05, 2011, 04:23:04 AM
Current theories suggest that there is information in the universe that describes the flow between cause and effect, around typical outcomes.  I apologize if that was confusing.  Hopefully this link will help you.  I apologize beforehand that it is not a proper journal article.
http://ask.metafilter.com/57039/Is-the-Universe-made-of-information

This isn't a proper scientific journal article ... it's a discussion between anonymous people.

Information Theory has nothing to do with the universe. It falls under the vast umbrella of mathematics.

Mathematics is a collection of models and methods of interpreting reality. When we say 1+1=2 ... this is an accurate representation of an abstract idea. However, the number 2 is conceptual. It doesn't actually exist outside of a conceptual idea in our brains.

We it comes to 'information', we interpret reality and form conceptual models in our brains. Then we use coding methods (language, writing, etc) that are further representations of those concepts and can be re-interpreted by others (i.e. books).

However, the information is a human creation. Without minds to interpret reality ... reality simply is what it is (if you'll pardon the tautology).

Just like the word 'rock' is just a label for a concept but is not an actual rock. A rock is a rock ... the word rock is just the label. Information is purely conceptual.

So to say there was 'information' in the universe at the beginning of time is inaccurate.

Quote
But the OP suggested that energy is what spawned the universe.  I was asking the OP what caused the energy to convert to matter.  Since there is no other being to act upon the energy, the energy is itself the only actor on the formation of the rest of the universe.  Energy turned to matter - why?  Simple question.  Sorry it was confusing.

We don't know.

We don't know whether there was something else that triggered it, or whether it happened spontaneously.

Not everything necessarily has a cause. See my previous posts for examples of uncaused events that happen randomly in our universe all the time.

Quote
But what made it hot?  It simply was? 

We don't know.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: screwtape on October 05, 2011, 07:30:22 AM
If it was cooling, why was it hot?

Because it was energy.
Not necessarily, no.  Take a lit blow torch and point it at the sky.  Why isn't the universe the same temperature as the flame?

I don't think that's really the same question.  Is the blow torch hot?  Yep.  Why?  Energy.

I don't disagree with you when you say we don't really know what the first cause was, though.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: screwtape on October 05, 2011, 08:06:28 AM
Current theories suggest that there is information in the universe that describes the flow between cause and effect, around typical outcomes.  I apologize if that was confusing.  Hopefully this link will help you.  I apologize beforehand that it is not a proper journal article.
http://ask.metafilter.com/57039/Is-the-Universe-made-of-information

When you say "current theories" are you talking about a scientific context or are you talking about some dude's hypothesis on some internet forum?  I'm not trying to ridicule you.  I'm just trying to make sure we're all on the same page here. 

I am inclined to think it is the latter, particularly since in the link you gave one of the posters did not even get the second law of thermodynamics right, let alone decide on a coherent definition of "information".  If that is the case - that it is just conversation amongst amateurs - then who cares?  There are current theories out there too that say water molecules have "memory" and the more you dilute the additives, the more potent their effects become.  Suffice it to say that is not a theory that has any considertion amonst the scientific community, and not one to which I should give any credence.

Anyway, I get leery when people ask questions like "where did the information come from?"  They usually follow up with "of course, it came from god!"  What information?  How are you defining "information"? What are you talking about? 

I was asking the OP what caused the energy to convert to matter.

That is a different question.  Asking about the decisions energy makes is personifying it.

Quote
Because it was energy.  If it were cold it would not be called "energy".  It would be called something else, like "ice".
But what made it hot?  It simply was?  That sounds similar to Theistic arguments.

Energy is not a tangible substance.  It is motion.  It is heat.  It is stored in gravity, springs, molecular bonds, etc.  I think the energy TOT may have had in mind in the OP was a potential energy, stored energy.  When it is released, as a spring or a falling object, heat is created as a byproduct.  Why was the universe in the first zillionths of a second hot?  Heck if I know. It's not my hypothesis to explain.

 
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Anfauglir on October 05, 2011, 08:38:23 AM
There are current theories out there too that say water molecules have "memory" and the more you dilute the additives, the more potent their effects become. 

At the risk of digressing, I've never even seen how this COULD work (even if I thought it had merit).  If a particular additive can have an effect when diluted over and over and over and over and over.....to the level where it is hardly detectable but yet still has an effect.....where on earth do they find the diluting water that is so pure it does not itself have faint residues of other substances, albeit also highly diluted - but also (by their argument) still efficatious?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: screwtape on October 05, 2011, 08:50:38 AM
it's retardery.  most people don't realize water naturally has all sorts of stuff disolved in it.  removing that stuff is not too good for you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purified_water#Health_effects_of_drinking_purified_water), though not terrible.  But the point, in context of homeopathy is, why does the water not have memory of that stuff?  All water has been exposed to other elements at some point.  When does it forget?

end digression
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Azdgari on October 05, 2011, 08:51:28 AM
Gotta watch out for that water with 0.01ppb of Hg.  That stuff will kill you.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: ungod on October 05, 2011, 12:02:10 PM
^^^ Okay. Referring back to my earlier post, 'energy' is not the uncaused cause that the universe began with. The singularity was more complex than that

Could you provide some more details on that complexity!
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: ungod on October 05, 2011, 12:06:44 PM
Not everything necessarily has a cause. See my previous posts for examples of uncaused events that happen randomly in our universe all the time.

Are they uncaused, or is it just that we don't yet KNOW the cause?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Azdgari on October 05, 2011, 12:08:58 PM
^^ Perhaps we just don't know the cause.  Like with the universe.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Whateverman on October 05, 2011, 12:18:44 PM
If it was cooling, why was it hot?

Because it was energy.
Not necessarily, no.  Take a lit blow torch and point it at the sky.  Why isn't the universe the same temperature as the flame?

I don't think that's really the same question.  Is the blow torch hot?  Yep.  Why?  Energy.
Yes, but the question was "why was it hot".  The answer isn't "because it's energy", right?  1.21 gigawatts (http://www.geekologie.com/2009/11/05/flux-capacitor.jpg) can easily BE cool if spread out over a sufficient area.  If that energy was hot, it's because it was contained in a small enough area to raise the ambient temperature.

I don't mean to beat this horse to death.  I'm mostly just practicing my Physics 101 course to make sure I don't forget!
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: screwtape on October 05, 2011, 12:21:53 PM
Yes, but the question was "why was it hot".  The answer isn't "because it's energy", right?  1.21 gigawatts (http://www.geekologie.com/2009/11/05/flux-capacitor.jpg) can easily BE cool if spread out over a sufficient area.  If that energy was hot, it's because it was contained in a small enough area to raise the ambient temperature.

I don't mean to beat this horse to death.  I'm mostly just practicing my Physics 101 course to make sure I don't forget!

Alright, I see what you are saying.  I appreciate the dedication to accuracy in science. 

Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: ungod on October 05, 2011, 02:23:34 PM
Is it not the accepted idea amongst scientists that there was an infinately dense collection of energy that exploded in what was the birth of our cosmos?

The proponents of the BB theory seem to frown on the "explosion" word, and usually insist on "expansion."
OK, so dynamite "expands", but really, really fast. The first few microseconds of the "expansion" (before time exists!) seem to violate mathematics, so we invoke a special exemption during that period of time, so that our theory still works. Sort of like how the God story needs Him to have supernatural powers, otherwise it just doesn't sound believable.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: ungod on October 05, 2011, 02:29:19 PM
The universe did not literally 'explode' into existence ... it wasn't an actual 'bang'. It went from being a stable singularity to suddenly expanding very rapidly.  It was during this expansion that spacetime began and matter was created, among other things.

Hmmm...how does "expansion" occur without time and space?

Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: ungod on October 05, 2011, 02:34:13 PM
The singularity was an infinitely dense, infinitely hot thing that occupied no space and no time.

Evidence?

Sounds like the claim that God exists "outside of space and time!"
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: ungod on October 05, 2011, 02:38:31 PM
As far as "uncaused causes" go, I think the reason they bother people is because people are used to the causal universe, where everything that happens has a reason it happened, even if it's one we don't actually understand at the time.  And there's no telling if there is an actual cause or not for things like virtual particles, since we don't understand them particularly well.  We're still in the very early stages of the science that explains such things in a way that lets us use them, so the most I think anyone can say is that we don't see any actual cause of such things.

YES!!!!
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Whateverman on October 05, 2011, 02:43:51 PM
Evidence?
Your point is valid.  There's no physical evidence that singularities exist.  They are predicted by our current theories, but most physicists understand that they're also placeholders for our ignorance: we simply do not know what happens when matter is compressed to the size where both gravity and quantum mechanics play a role

Sounds like the claim that God exists "outside of space and time!"
Except that no one is claiming the singularity existed outside time and space.

If you wish to be technical, claiming that the first cause is God existing outside of time and space is just as plausible as a giant purple seven legged bunny existing outside of time and space.  Both are equally valid claims.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: ungod on October 05, 2011, 02:50:46 PM
Then your God created suffering for no other purpose than to create suffering.
Not necessarily. The suffering may be a path to something else; e.g., a greater end such as "spiritual" growth.

What the Theocrats proclaim is hardly supported by their acts. If indeed suffering is inflicted with an ultimate purpose of the greater good, then clearly, those who inflict suffering, i.e. terrorists, rapists, serial killers, criminals in general, are all doing God's work, according to God's plan, and, rather than prosecuting them, we should be thanking them and encouraging them. Yet, the Theologues are at the cusp of those demanding "justice", hardly in keeping with the simultaneous claim that suffering is for the victims own good!
Theologic 101!
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: ungod on October 05, 2011, 03:12:38 PM

However, in the afterlife there is no suffering.


Which afterlife you be talkin about - the one with the harp music, or the basement orgy next to the furnace?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: ungod on October 06, 2011, 12:53:28 AM
Energy seems to be the one think that may in fact possess the "godlike" quality of being from everlasting to everlasting in that as far as we know, it is neither created or destroyed; It simply exists in various forms.

In that case, we'll have to discard E=m X c squared.......
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: ungod on October 06, 2011, 01:04:10 AM
Quote from: plethora link=topic=20146.msg444366#msg444366 date=131650
The singularity was an infinitely dense, infinitely hot [i
thing[/i] that occupied no space and no time.

Given how heat manifests itself, how could heat exist without time?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: ungod on October 06, 2011, 01:13:48 AM

Sounds like the claim that God exists "outside of space and time!"
Except that no one is claiming the singularity existed outside time and space.

Oh really?

Quote from: plethora on September 20, 2011, 03:40:07 AM

 
Quote
  The singularity was an infinitely dense, infinitely hot thing that occupied no space and no time.

Quote
If you wish to be technical, claiming that the first cause is God existing outside of time and space is just as plausible as a giant purple seven legged bunny existing outside of time and space.  Both are equally valid claims.

But I never claimed such a thing. I merely pointed out the similarity between the claimed absence of space and time for the singularity and God. And both originate from a priest.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: plethora on October 06, 2011, 06:03:41 AM
Ungod... next time could you compound all your quotes and responses to me in a single post?

^^^ Okay. Referring back to my earlier post, 'energy' is not the uncaused cause that the universe began with. The singularity was more complex than that

Could you provide some more details on that complexity!

Yes. A spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become inifnite.

This is a bit more complex than just 'singularity=energy'.

Not everything necessarily has a cause. See my previous posts for examples of uncaused events that happen randomly in our universe all the time.

Are they uncaused, or is it just that we don't yet KNOW the cause?

The scientific consensus at this time is that these events are completely uncaused and random.

The universe did not literally 'explode' into existence ... it wasn't an actual 'bang'. It went from being a stable singularity to suddenly expanding very rapidly.  It was during this expansion that spacetime began and matter was created, among other things.

Hmmm...how does "expansion" occur without time and space?

It doesn't. Spacetime came into the existence the moment the expasion began.

The singularity was an infinitely dense, infinitely hot thing that occupied no space and no time.

Evidence?

Sounds like the claim that God exists "outside of space and time!"

Given how heat manifests itself, how could heat exist without time?

Science goes as far back as the [wiki]Planck epoch[/wiki], the earliest period of time. I admit that any description of anything "before" can only be inferred.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: jaimehlers on October 06, 2011, 10:53:45 AM
Energy seems to be the one think that may in fact possess the "godlike" quality of being from everlasting to everlasting in that as far as we know, it is neither created or destroyed; It simply exists in various forms.

In that case, we'll have to discard E=m X c squared.......
Why?  E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the creation of energy.  It merely shows the amount of energy that is "bound up" in a given amount of matter; i.e., the amount of energy that would be released if that matter were completely converted to pure energy.  Energy that is bound up in matter is not 'destroyed', and matter that is annihilated does not 'create' energy.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: ungod on October 08, 2011, 05:14:56 AM
Energy seems to be the one think that may in fact possess the "godlike" quality of being from everlasting to everlasting in that as far as we know, it is neither created or destroyed; It simply exists in various forms.

In that case, we'll have to discard E=m X c squared.......
Why?  E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the creation of energy.  It merely shows the amount of energy that is "bound up" in a given amount of matter; i.e., the amount of energy that would be released if that matter were completely converted to pure energy.  Energy that is bound up in matter is not 'destroyed', and matter that is annihilated does not 'create' energy.

Ah yes, it's just a simple conversion. Letsee, this handful of plutonium converts to a mushroom cloud of energy. Right, now let's convert it back - oops, seems the wonderful world of mathemetics is sometimes in conflict with reality.
And those quantum virtual particles that keep popping up - hmmmm, how do they get "created"?
And then there's the claim that most energy is "dark energy" about which we know nothing, and can't seem to find or explain, which kinda throws a monkey wrench into the works.....
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: ungod on October 08, 2011, 06:02:45 AM
Yes. A spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become inifnite.
Aren't we told that the singularity predates spacetime? How can it then have a location? Logical absurdity.


Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: One Above All on October 08, 2011, 06:12:21 AM
Yes. A spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become inifnite.
Aren't we told that the singularity predates spacetime? How can it then have a location? Logical absurdity.

Bold mine. See the difference there?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Azdgari on October 08, 2011, 07:51:53 AM
Ah yes, it's just a simple conversion. Letsee, this handful of plutonium converts to a mushroom cloud of energy. Right, now let's convert it back - oops, seems the wonderful world of mathemetics is sometimes in conflict with reality.

No, the energy has simply changed form.  Some forms have more entropy than others.  See the 2nd law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics#Second_law).

And those quantum virtual particles that keep popping up - hmmmm, how do they get "created"?

Without being caused, apparently.  Funny how the only instance of actual creation we have ever observed in the universe...doesn't need a cause.

And then there's the claim that most energy is "dark energy" about which we know nothing, and can't seem to find or explain, which kinda throws a monkey wrench into the works.....

"Dark energy" is something that's not understood yet.  Lots of things started out that way.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: relativetruth on October 08, 2011, 10:39:50 AM

Science goes as far back as the [wiki]Planck epoch[/wiki], the earliest period of time. I admit that any description of anything "before" can only be inferred.

If there is a "before" the Planck epoch then time did not start at the BB.
As you and other posters have stated the BB is a singularity where our current science breaks down. 
It is not just that what happens before the Planck epoch is undefined it may actually be unknowable in a logical sense.

Human logical thinking relies fundamentally on cause and effect with the whole 'if x then y' structure and of course 'time' is the key ingredient.

How can you reverse the clock back past a singularity to 'infer' anything?

Godel showed that
paradoxes always exist
 so we have to live with seemingly logically inconsistent occurances like 'uncaused causes', 'cold fusion', Glen Beck, ....

 
 
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Godexists on October 17, 2011, 12:21:10 AM
Without being caused, apparently.  Funny how the only instance of actual creation we have ever observed in the universe...doesn't need a cause.

But they need a vacuum. And that vacuum does not come from nothing.... it is not nothing....

Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Azdgari on October 17, 2011, 12:27:23 AM
What is nothing?  Do we have a sample of it to examine for how it behaves?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Godexists on October 17, 2011, 12:53:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Azdgari on October 17, 2011, 01:11:36 AM
What causes specific virtual particles to come into being?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Godexists on October 17, 2011, 01:40:15 AM
What causes specific virtual particles to come into being?

Vacuum fluctuations. Which are not nothing. A Vacuum is something real, and existing. And it needs space to exist.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Azdgari on October 17, 2011, 02:11:03 AM
Vacuum fluctuations, eh?  Odd, I thought they were vacuum fluctuations.

Regardless, what causes the fluctuations?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Godexists on October 17, 2011, 02:51:36 AM
Vacuum fluctuations, eh?  Odd, I thought they were vacuum fluctuations.

no , they are virtual particles, caused by vacuum fluctuations.

Quote
Regardless, what causes the fluctuations?

the vacuum. :)
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: plethora on October 17, 2011, 04:48:03 AM
Godexists .... I agree that a vacuum is not 'absolute nothing'. It still exists within the framework of spacetime and is subject to fluctuations happening at a quantum level.

However, I disagree with your assessment about virtual particles being caused by the vacuum.

We know that in between elementary particles (i.e. quarks) there is empty space (vaccuum). We know the vacuum fluctuates. This does not mean that the vacuum itself causes the fluctuations. That's circular. It just fluctuates with no apparent cause.

These fluctuations are fields of basic force interactions. They can be electric or magnetic force fields. These fields are called 'virtual particles'.

So the vacuum fluctuates and these fluctuations manifest as various types of force fields (virtual particles). They come into existence and, as they encounter each other in opposing forces, they annihilate each other out of existence.

This happens... but without any apparent cause and also completely randomly.

Although this happens within the framework of spacetime, it is not spacetime itself that is causing the fluctuations either.

[wiki]Radioactive decay[/wiki] is a better, more clear example of how something can happen without a cause, completely spontaneously.

About the universe coming from nothing, we don't know. It may very well be that the framework required for the universe's beginning to happen has always existed. But science has yet to define or even detect what, if anything, that framework may be.

Given your username, I suppose you are going to posit that a 'god' exists and it created the universe?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Godexists on October 17, 2011, 11:59:54 AM

About the universe coming from nothing, we don't know.

We don't need to know, to understand how irrational this option actually is. From absolutely nothing, nothing can arise. Period.



Quote
It may very well be that the framework required for the universe's beginning to happen has always existed.

" always " requires time. Time, that acording to the big bang theory, was created at the Big Bang.

Quote
Given your username, I suppose you are going to posit that a 'god' exists and it created the universe?

I have no doubt about that.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Whateverman on October 17, 2011, 12:25:01 PM
From absolutely nothing, nothing can arise. Period.

How do you know this?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: screwtape on October 17, 2011, 12:54:18 PM
I have no doubt about that.

Not having doubt - having certainty - is a dangerous and stupid position to take.  Particularly since the universe does not change according to your convictions.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Cyberia on October 17, 2011, 01:31:42 PM
From absolutely nothing, nothing can arise. Period.

The Uncertainty Principle disagrees with you. 
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Whateverman on October 17, 2011, 04:12:44 PM
While I tend to think Godexists is full of it, keep in mind that the uncertainty principle applies to space-time aka. stuff that already exists.  As far as I understand it, the "nothing" that fundamentalists speak of doesn't actually exist in this universe.

It was this thought (ie. no such thing as "nothing") that kept me from mentioning beta radiation and other phenomenon in which uncaused events take place.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Truth OT on October 17, 2011, 04:20:59 PM
..........So, it seems like people are saying that there could never have been a point where there was truly a void or total "nothingness" else that state would have persisted endlessly. Therefore, SOMETHING(s) has always been in existence. Perhaps 14.6 billions years is a gross undercalculation of the age of matter and energy. Who really knows? The multiverse theories are starting to sound more and more reasonable the more I think about all this..................
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: jaimehlers on October 17, 2011, 04:35:53 PM
We don't need to know, to understand how irrational this option actually is. From absolutely nothing, nothing can arise. Period.
Who says the universe arose from nothing?  Who says there was nothing before the universe as we came to know it came to be?  I think the idea that the Big Bang singularity came from nothing is a misunderstanding of what the actual science says.

" always " requires time. Time, that acording to the big bang theory, was created at the Big Bang.
I think you might find that the actual Big Bang theory states that we can extrapolate the expansion of the universe back to an arbitrary point (based on time, T) when all the stuff of our universe was concentrated in an infinitely small point of infinite density, at T = 0.  That does not necessarily mean that time did not exist before T = 0.  It also does not mean that the Big Bang singularity was truly of infinite smallness or density, because infinity is not possible based on universal laws as we understand them.  It does not even mean that the singularity contained everything there was in the universe, just everything we have observed in the universe, because anything that was not inside the singularity will have been pushed away by the expansion of space at an inherent value greater than c.  So either universal laws were drastically different before T = 0, or else our extrapolation cannot be followed to its logical beginning[1].

I have no doubt about that.
Then I pity you.  When discussing something fundamentally unknowable, doubt is unavoidable.  To claim that one has no doubt about something for which they have no proof[2] of is to build their belief on a foundation of sand.  One of the greatest strengths of science is that we cannot ever be sure that we have it perfectly correct, so we generally avoid the trap of claiming that our current scientific understanding is all there is.  In other words, we always have room to continue building our understanding.
 1. Note that this does not invalidate the Big Bang theory, because the fundamental part of the theory states that the universe expanded from a super-dense, super-hot, super-small singularity - not that any of those were ever equal to infinity.
 2. objective and verifiable, that can be confirmed independently regardless of preexisting beliefs.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Zankuu on October 17, 2011, 04:39:43 PM
..........So, it seems like people are saying that there could never have been a point where there was truly a void or total "nothingness" else that state would have persisted endlessly. Therefore, SOMETHING(s) has always been in existence. Perhaps 14.6 billions years is a gross undercalculation of the age of matter and energy. Who really knows? The multiverse theories are starting to sound more and more reasonable the more I think about all this..................

TOT, that's about where I stand as well. A cause that was not caused is a contradiction, and stating that a complex being created a first cause makes things unnecessarily more complex. Every cause can be explained by its antecedent. It's our calculations of the past that are and may always be limited. I think it's more reasonable to say things just exist.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Godexists on October 17, 2011, 04:45:14 PM
How do you know this?

What a question..... Absolutely nothing is the absence of any thing, and has therefore no potentialities.....
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Godexists on October 17, 2011, 04:47:14 PM
I have no doubt about that.

Not having doubt - having certainty - is a dangerous and stupid position to take.  Particularly since the universe does not change according to your convictions.

when enough evidence is on hand, we can eliminate doubts, and a strong conviction takes place. Thats not a stupid position at all. I don't see your point. Do you have any doubt, the sun will rise tomorrow ? Not ?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Omen on October 17, 2011, 04:50:58 PM
Do you have any doubt, the sun will rise tomorrow ? Not ?

Actually, at some point the 'sun' will not rise again.

Plus, screwtape is talking about god claims, which are not objectively verifiable through observable data.  The orbital movements of the earth around the sun and the light that streams from the sun ARE objectively verifiable through observable data.  It is really dishonest to conflate the two.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Godexists on October 17, 2011, 04:55:53 PM
From absolutely nothing, nothing can arise. Period.

The Uncertainty Principle disagrees with you.

healty rational thinking disagrees with you.......

As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: 12 Monkeys on October 17, 2011, 06:26:41 PM
From absolutely nothing, nothing can arise. Period.

How do you know this?
well except his God .....he must have come from something......he had siblings,there were other Gods at the time,the earth was flat,virus's and germs were his wraith,not biological.........then the funny thing they do as Christians is ignore the OT and all it's rules except when it explains a point they are trying to make. Not that it's true because it is written,or there would still be slaves,rapists marrying their victims,no Sunday shopping(sabbath)............
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: 12 Monkeys on October 17, 2011, 06:29:34 PM
I have no doubt about that.

Not having doubt - having certainty - is a dangerous and stupid position to take.  Particularly since the universe does not change according to your convictions.

when enough evidence is on hand, we can eliminate doubts, and a strong conviction takes place. Thats not a stupid position at all. I don't see your point. Do you have any doubt, the sun will rise tomorrow ? Not ?
what is this evidence you speak of? care to share it in detail?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Cyberia on October 17, 2011, 06:35:52 PM

The Uncertainty Principle disagrees with you.

healty rational thinking disagrees with you.......

As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

I'm not talking about quantum vacuum fluctuations.  Those are part of space-time, which began at the BB.  I'm talking about Time-Energy Uncertainty as defined by the Uncertainty Principle.

Delta-T * Delta-E > h

Before the BB, Delta-T is ZERO, since time does not exist.  Therefore the uncertainty in Energy is INFINITE.  You CAN get something from nothing (and in fact, will) provided you do not have Time (and that condition existed "prior" to the BB)
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Godexists on October 17, 2011, 09:54:34 PM
Before the BB, Delta-T is ZERO, since time does not exist.  Therefore the uncertainty in Energy is INFINITE.  You CAN get something from nothing (and in fact, will) provided you do not have Time (and that condition existed "prior" to the BB)

i don't understand what you meant to say with " Before the BB, Delta-T is ZERO, since time does not exist.  Therefore the uncertainty in Energy is INFINITE. ". What has one thing to do with the other ?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: jaimehlers on October 17, 2011, 10:05:27 PM
It's like position and momentum.  If you know with absolute certainty something's position, the uncertainty in its momentum has to be infinite.

Though, this is the first I've heard of time-energy uncertainty.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: 12 Monkeys on October 17, 2011, 11:49:30 PM
Before the BB, Delta-T is ZERO, since time does not exist.  Therefore the uncertainty in Energy is INFINITE.  You CAN get something from nothing (and in fact, will) provided you do not have Time (and that condition existed "prior" to the BB)

i don't understand what you meant to say with " Before the BB, Delta-T is ZERO, since time does not exist.  Therefore the uncertainty in Energy is INFINITE. ". What has one thing to do with the other ?
Time still does not exist,it is a human concept used to gauge what we do while we are alive.....cavemen hardly gave a fuck about time,but your boss does
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Cyberia on October 18, 2011, 01:21:00 AM
Energy-time uncertainty principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Energy-time_uncertainty_principle)
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: screwtape on October 18, 2011, 07:45:56 AM
Not having doubt - having certainty - is a dangerous and stupid position to take.  Particularly since the universe does not change according to your convictions.

when enough evidence is on hand, we can eliminate doubts, and a strong conviction takes place. Thats not a stupid position at all. I don't see your point. Do you have any doubt, the sun will rise tomorrow ? Not ?

You should not ever eliminate doubt.  Then sun is easily observed.  The earth and its rotation is easily observed.  We have evidence of this and as you point out, that grants us a degree of certainty.  However, there are still uncertainties involved.  Perhaps a gigantic meteor we have not detected, or a heretofore unknown phenomenon in the sun that makes it unstable or emit a deadly burst of microwaves.  Nefarious elements of the Paki government hand over a nuke to islamic radicals triggering a nuclear war.  Any of these could cause the sun to not rise for us in the morning, however certain we may feel.

We know things.  But we should be humble about what we know and allow for reality to change our minds.  In light of that spirit, certitude is a counterproductive emotion.  I'm not talking about checking first principles before getting out of bed in the morning or brain in a jar scenarios.  That is no way to live.  I'm talking about knowing that what we know is a tenuous model that is subject to change.

You stand on even more tenuous ground.  A god who hides beyond time and space, who leaves no footprints, who will not deign to be tested, who ambiguously answers prayers with "yes, no, wait".  Your philosophysizing is nice, but unless (until) you can check it against reality, it should be taken as seriously as Sasquatch or Area 51 conspiracy theories. 

So my point, young buck, is if you want to say you believe in god, that is your prerogative, unjustified as I find it.  But to say you have certitude about it, well, then you have adopted an idiot's position.  And frankly, it sounds as if the lady doth protest too much.


Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: ungod on October 22, 2011, 01:21:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: riley2112 on November 05, 2011, 12:04:23 PM
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
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Zankuu on November 05, 2011, 12:16:52 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Historicity on November 05, 2011, 03:30:04 PM
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"
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: riley2112 on November 09, 2011, 02:07:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: velkyn on November 09, 2011, 02:21:02 PM
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. 
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: ungod on November 09, 2011, 04:43:14 PM

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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDEhQ-Ks5CE&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDEhQ-Ks5CE&feature=related)
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: riley2112 on November 09, 2011, 06:30:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Brakeman on November 09, 2011, 07:33:44 PM
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..?
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Alzael on November 09, 2011, 07:53:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Historicity on November 09, 2011, 08:47:08 PM
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.
Title: Alright, New Drank.......
Post by: Truth OT on November 10, 2011, 01:28:35 PM
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? 
Title: Re: Alright, New Drank.......
Post by: RaymondKHessel on November 10, 2011, 02:21:10 PM
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?

 :o

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!!! 8)

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!!!
Title: Re: Alright, New Drank.......
Post by: Whateverman on November 10, 2011, 03:25:17 PM
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Alright, New Drank.......
Post by: Cyberia on November 10, 2011, 05:23:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Truth OT on November 10, 2011, 05:41:10 PM
Quote from: Truth OT on Today at 01:28:35 PM
approaching infinity prior to the existense of space, time, and matter seems problematic.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Cyberia on November 10, 2011, 07:11:33 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: riley2112 on November 12, 2011, 11:46:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: JeffPT on November 13, 2011, 08:43:51 AM
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. 

Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Brakeman on November 13, 2011, 09:03:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Uncaused Cause
Post by: Add Homonym on November 13, 2011, 09:05:01 AM
Quote from: Truth OT on Today at 01:28:35 PM
approaching infinity prior to the existense of space, time, and matter seems problematic.

Quote
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/