A Couple of Fair Questions

[demosthenes]

Physicist define time by atomic events such as an atomic clock that uses an electronic transition frequency in as a frequency standard for its timekeeping element.  So by this definition of time if there is no atoms or physical stuff for atomic activity, then there is no basis for defining this kind of time.  So when saying “When the stuff of the universe first existed is the first moment in time” is just a statement of this kind of time.  An argument achieved by just stating the definition is a Rhetoric Tautology.  Consequently, the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity making it unfalsifiable. It is a way of formulating a description such that masquerades as an explanation when the real reason for the phenomena cannot be independently derived.

Tautology (rhetoric) ,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29

This is just what Carroll did in the quote below.  He has formulated an unfalsifiable argument on which he can make the “popping into existence any physical stuff” sound not so implausible.  Since by this kind of time there is no atomic or energy events before the atomic or energy existed one can just we do not need to worry about how they came into existence because by this definition of time there is no time before they existed.

Carroll -  “Again, I tried to explain what makes the universe different but more importantly the phrase “popping into existence” is not the right one to use when you’re talking about the universe. It sounds as if it’s something that happens in time but that’s not the right way to do it because there’s no before the beginning, if there’s a beginning. The correct thing to say is there was a first moment of time.  When you say it that way it doesn’t’ sound so implausible.”

Scientist are not supposed to promote unfalsifiable arguments.

If there is something else besides physical stuff that caused the physical stuff to come into existence, then I do not see any reason why this non-natural something could have sequential events so a time could be defined by it’s sequential events and this time would be related to atomic time by the time when it caused the physical stuff to come into existence.

Hinrichs Webpage  http://home.roadrunner.com/~rrr33/homepage.html

What Carroll did was posit an unprovable maxim that fits a one possible model. It doesn't mean the universe didn't have an absolute beginning. It proves that it potentially may not have had an absolute beginning. Actually that's not true. The universe, by very definition of the term is defined by everything in it. So he shows that a model exists were there was something prior to the universe. But that doesn't negate cosmology, it kicks the causal can down the road. One can always asked "What caused it?", because by definition it's not uncaused. Carrolls argument is weak. That is why he had to start talking about social justice and homosexuals and such non-sense based on stereotypes of Christians. If his argument had any real teeth, he would not have to have resorted to tactics. The argument alone would suffice.

How is your causal can kicked down road, what do you mean by prior to the universe? (what kind of time/series/ordering?) My argument is that you are actually doing a "42"! You have the answer: God!
- but no question! -- what does "create/cause/pop/come from/become" mean outside the universe?, how is this meaning connected to the ex-materia causation?
what are you actually asking?

[pat1911]

Physicist define time by atomic events such as an atomic clock that uses an electronic transition frequency in as a frequency standard for its timekeeping element.  So by this definition of time if there is no atoms or physical stuff for atomic activity, then there is no basis for defining this kind of time.  So when saying “When the stuff of the universe first existed is the first moment in time” is just a statement of this kind of time.  An argument achieved by just stating the definition is a Rhetoric Tautology.  Consequently, the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity making it unfalsifiable. It is a way of formulating a description such that masquerades as an explanation when the real reason for the phenomena cannot be independently derived.

Tautology (rhetoric) ,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29

This is just what Carroll did in the quote below.  He has formulated an unfalsifiable argument on which he can make the “popping into existence any physical stuff” sound not so implausible.  Since by this kind of time there is no atomic or energy events before the atomic or energy existed one can just we do not need to worry about how they came into existence because by this definition of time there is no time before they existed.

Carroll -  “Again, I tried to explain what makes the universe different but more importantly the phrase “popping into existence” is not the right one to use when you’re talking about the universe. It sounds as if it’s something that happens in time but that’s not the right way to do it because there’s no before the beginning, if there’s a beginning. The correct thing to say is there was a first moment of time.  When you say it that way it doesn’t’ sound so implausible.”

Scientist are not supposed to promote unfalsifiable arguments.

If there is something else besides physical stuff that caused the physical stuff to come into existence, then I do not see any reason why this non-natural something could have sequential events so a time could be defined by it’s sequential events and this time would be related to atomic time by the time when it caused the physical stuff to come into existence.

Hinrichs Webpage  http://home.roadrunner.com/~rrr33/homepage.html

What Carroll did was posit an unprovable maxim that fits a one possible model. It doesn't mean the universe didn't have an absolute beginning. It proves that it potentially may not have had an absolute beginning. Actually that's not true. The universe, by very definition of the term is defined by everything in it. So he shows that a model exists were there was something prior to the universe. But that doesn't negate cosmology, it kicks the causal can down the road. One can always asked "What caused it?", because by definition it's not uncaused. Carrolls argument is weak. That is why he had to start talking about social justice and homosexuals and such non-sense based on stereotypes of Christians. If his argument had any real teeth, he would not have to have resorted to tactics. The argument alone would suffice.

How is your causal can kicked down road, what do you mean by prior to the universe? (what kind of time/series/ordering?) My argument is that you are actually doing a "42"! You have the answer: God!
- but no question! -- what does "create/cause/pop/come from/become" mean outside the universe?, how is this meaning connected to the ex-materia causation?
what are you actually asking?

I don't know what a '42' is so I am not going to admit to doing one.
And clearly if this is what you think, you do not understand the arguments at all. All you think of is 'the universe'. I don't care about 'the universe'. I care about existence itself. What we can know to exist is contingent. And as long as that is the case, it requires a Necessary Being to stop the infinite regress. Time may be infinite, but regresses are not.

[demosthenes]

Physicist define time by atomic events such as an atomic clock that uses an electronic transition frequency in as a frequency standard for its timekeeping element.  So by this definition of time if there is no atoms or physical stuff for atomic activity, then there is no basis for defining this kind of time.  So when saying “When the stuff of the universe first existed is the first moment in time” is just a statement of this kind of time.  An argument achieved by just stating the definition is a Rhetoric Tautology.  Consequently, the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity making it unfalsifiable. It is a way of formulating a description such that masquerades as an explanation when the real reason for the phenomena cannot be independently derived.

Tautology (rhetoric) ,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29

This is just what Carroll did in the quote below.  He has formulated an unfalsifiable argument on which he can make the “popping into existence any physical stuff” sound not so implausible.  Since by this kind of time there is no atomic or energy events before the atomic or energy existed one can just we do not need to worry about how they came into existence because by this definition of time there is no time before they existed.

Carroll -  “Again, I tried to explain what makes the universe different but more importantly the phrase “popping into existence” is not the right one to use when you’re talking about the universe. It sounds as if it’s something that happens in time but that’s not the right way to do it because there’s no before the beginning, if there’s a beginning. The correct thing to say is there was a first moment of time.  When you say it that way it doesn’t’ sound so implausible.”

Scientist are not supposed to promote unfalsifiable arguments.

If there is something else besides physical stuff that caused the physical stuff to come into existence, then I do not see any reason why this non-natural something could have sequential events so a time could be defined by it’s sequential events and this time would be related to atomic time by the time when it caused the physical stuff to come into existence.

Hinrichs Webpage  http://home.roadrunner.com/~rrr33/homepage.html

What Carroll did was posit an unprovable maxim that fits a one possible model. It doesn't mean the universe didn't have an absolute beginning. It proves that it potentially may not have had an absolute beginning. Actually that's not true. The universe, by very definition of the term is defined by everything in it. So he shows that a model exists were there was something prior to the universe. But that doesn't negate cosmology, it kicks the causal can down the road. One can always asked "What caused it?", because by definition it's not uncaused. Carrolls argument is weak. That is why he had to start talking about social justice and homosexuals and such non-sense based on stereotypes of Christians. If his argument had any real teeth, he would not have to have resorted to tactics. The argument alone would suffice.

How is your causal can kicked down road, what do you mean by prior to the universe? (what kind of time/series/ordering?) My argument is that you are actually doing a "42"! You have the answer: God!
- but no question! -- what does "create/cause/pop/come from/become" mean outside the universe?, how is this meaning connected to the ex-materia causation?
what are you actually asking?

I don't know what a '42' is so I am not going to admit to doing one.
And clearly if this is what you think, you do not understand the arguments at all. All you think of is 'the universe'. I don't care about 'the universe'. I care about existence itself. What we can know to exist is contingent. And as long as that is the case, it requires a Necessary Being to stop the infinite regress. Time may be infinite, but regresses are not.

Thank you for the answer, this is exactly what I am curious about.

The great Wiki says:

n philosophy and logic, contingency is the status of propositions that are neither true under every possible valuation (i.e. tautologies) nor false under every possible valuation (i.e. contradictions). A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false. Propositions that are contingent may be so because they contain logical connectives which, along with the truth value of any of its atomic parts, determine the truth value of the proposition. This is to say that the truth value of the proposition is contingent upon the truth values of the sentences which comprise it. Contingent propositions depend on the facts, whereas analytic propositions are true without regard to any facts about which they speak

or (www.merriam-webster.com):

:  likely but not certain to happen :  possible
2:  not logically necessary; especially :  empirical
3
 a :  happening by chance or unforeseen causes
 b :  subject to chance or unseen effects :  unpredictable
 c :  intended for use in circumstances not completely foreseen
4:  dependent on or conditioned by something else <payment is contingent on fulfillment of certain conditions>
5:  not necessitated :  determined by free choice

- which of these contingent are you using in "What we can know to exist is contingent"? - I am sorry that I am a little slow, but I am new to this field of study...

"Time may be infinite, but regresses are not": What is time like, in non-existence?

"And as long as that is the case, it requires a Necessary Being to stop the infinite regress":
My last stupid question: Can you point me to a proof why regresses are always finite?

And also, how do we know that certain beings in the non-existence... are there to start things up? (a Being outside existence; to be, but not to exist? huh? I am totally dizzy now?)

Do you have a good reference on metaphysics please?

edit: "42" is from the book-series "Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy"

[pat1911]

Physicist define time by atomic events such as an atomic clock that uses an electronic transition frequency in as a frequency standard for its timekeeping element.  So by this definition of time if there is no atoms or physical stuff for atomic activity, then there is no basis for defining this kind of time.  So when saying “When the stuff of the universe first existed is the first moment in time” is just a statement of this kind of time.  An argument achieved by just stating the definition is a Rhetoric Tautology.  Consequently, the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity making it unfalsifiable. It is a way of formulating a description such that masquerades as an explanation when the real reason for the phenomena cannot be independently derived.

Tautology (rhetoric) ,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29

This is just what Carroll did in the quote below.  He has formulated an unfalsifiable argument on which he can make the “popping into existence any physical stuff” sound not so implausible.  Since by this kind of time there is no atomic or energy events before the atomic or energy existed one can just we do not need to worry about how they came into existence because by this definition of time there is no time before they existed.

Carroll -  “Again, I tried to explain what makes the universe different but more importantly the phrase “popping into existence” is not the right one to use when you’re talking about the universe. It sounds as if it’s something that happens in time but that’s not the right way to do it because there’s no before the beginning, if there’s a beginning. The correct thing to say is there was a first moment of time.  When you say it that way it doesn’t’ sound so implausible.”

Scientist are not supposed to promote unfalsifiable arguments.

If there is something else besides physical stuff that caused the physical stuff to come into existence, then I do not see any reason why this non-natural something could have sequential events so a time could be defined by it’s sequential events and this time would be related to atomic time by the time when it caused the physical stuff to come into existence.

Hinrichs Webpage  http://home.roadrunner.com/~rrr33/homepage.html

What Carroll did was posit an unprovable maxim that fits a one possible model. It doesn't mean the universe didn't have an absolute beginning. It proves that it potentially may not have had an absolute beginning. Actually that's not true. The universe, by very definition of the term is defined by everything in it. So he shows that a model exists were there was something prior to the universe. But that doesn't negate cosmology, it kicks the causal can down the road. One can always asked "What caused it?", because by definition it's not uncaused. Carrolls argument is weak. That is why he had to start talking about social justice and homosexuals and such non-sense based on stereotypes of Christians. If his argument had any real teeth, he would not have to have resorted to tactics. The argument alone would suffice.

How is your causal can kicked down road, what do you mean by prior to the universe? (what kind of time/series/ordering?) My argument is that you are actually doing a "42"! You have the answer: God!
- but no question! -- what does "create/cause/pop/come from/become" mean outside the universe?, how is this meaning connected to the ex-materia causation?
what are you actually asking?

I don't know what a '42' is so I am not going to admit to doing one.
And clearly if this is what you think, you do not understand the arguments at all. All you think of is 'the universe'. I don't care about 'the universe'. I care about existence itself. What we can know to exist is contingent. And as long as that is the case, it requires a Necessary Being to stop the infinite regress. Time may be infinite, but regresses are not.

Thank you for the answer, this is exactly what I am curious about.

The great Wiki says:

n philosophy and logic, contingency is the status of propositions that are neither true under every possible valuation (i.e. tautologies) nor false under every possible valuation (i.e. contradictions). A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false. Propositions that are contingent may be so because they contain logical connectives which, along with the truth value of any of its atomic parts, determine the truth value of the proposition. This is to say that the truth value of the proposition is contingent upon the truth values of the sentences which comprise it. Contingent propositions depend on the facts, whereas analytic propositions are true without regard to any facts about which they speak

or (www.merriam-webster.com):

:  likely but not certain to happen :  possible
2:  not logically necessary; especially :  empirical
3
 a :  happening by chance or unforeseen causes
 b :  subject to chance or unseen effects :  unpredictable
 c :  intended for use in circumstances not completely foreseen
4:  dependent on or conditioned by something else <payment is contingent on fulfillment of certain conditions>
5:  not necessitated :  determined by free choice

- which of these contingent are you using in "What we can know to exist is contingent"? - I am sorry that I am a little slow, but I am new to this field of study...

"Time may be infinite, but regresses are not": What is time like, in non-existence?

"And as long as that is the case, it requires a Necessary Being to stop the infinite regress":
My last stupid question: Can you point me to a proof why regresses are always finite?

And also, how do we know that certain beings in the non-existence... are there to start things up? (a Being outside existence; to be, but not to exist? huh? I am totally dizzy now?)

Do you have a good reference on metaphysics please?

edit: "42" is from the book-series "Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy"

Yes, I have a good link for Cosmological argument from which you can dig into metaphysics further by way of search:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/


I would say neither definition is entirely correct. Contingencies are simple. Instead of the normal way we think of causation: Because X therefore Y. Contingencies are timeless, for Y to exist, therefore X must be.
So I guess the wiki definition is closer, but it over complicates.

What we can know to exist, is something that exists for another reason. Pick anything, it is composed of things that make it what it is.

Why an infinite regress is impossible is 2 reasons, one it begs the question, I.E. it's circular. Necessarily one of the premises must be 'It exists, because it exists'. That is necessary if we are considering infinite possibilities, this has to be one of them. Second, a given argument that has an infinite amount of premises can never reach a conclusion, hence it's not an argument, just a never ending set of premises.

[demosthenes]

Thank you,

I am still condused though...

What we can know to exist, is something that exists for another reason. Pick anything, it is composed of things that make it what it is

If I pick a photon alone between two galaxies, for what reason does that exist?

[pat1911]

Thank you,

I am still condused though...

What we can know to exist, is something that exists for another reason. Pick anything, it is composed of things that make it what it is

If I pick a photon alone between two galaxies, for what reason does that exist?

What makes a photon what it is? That is your answer. Why it is where it is, well unless you can trace it's history you won't know, but if you could you would.

[Nightvid Cole]

After watching the Carroll debate, I felt there was one question that needed to be dealt with and I was wondering if some of you had an opinion on them.

How do we respond to the objection that "causality" is a weak premise in that the only time something truly "began to exist" was at the big bang.  The argument goes something like this... We only have evidence that causation is true of things that already exist - that is to say matter/energy/etc. transform from one into another and a cause and effect are described at that point. We do not have evidence causation is true of things that did begin to exist because we have no observation of anything that began to exist, much less of something prior to it beginning to exist.

Of course, we can easily make the claim that IF something began to exist and it IF it has a cause, that cause cannot carry the properties of what began to exist (otherwise it did not, in fact, begin to exist).

Any thoughts?

Dr. Craig pointed out that a world which allows universes to come into being uncaused will also allow anything else to come into being--tables, chairs, clouds of electrons, black holes, planets, etc.--since nothingness has no properties and is thus indiscriminate.  Taking this further, it seems perfectly plausible that in a world which allows things to come out of nothing, an item could pop into being uncaused and immediately obey the laws of physics and physical causal restraints it now finds itself in.  For in Carroll's world, it is only ontological entities which are restricted by the causal principle.  An existing chair, for instance, must obey cause and effect and the physical laws upon which cause and effect are based.  But if the chair doesn't exist, then it doesn't have to obey this causal principle and can come to be uncaused.  Which begets the question, why don't more things come into existence causeless given Carroll's physical causal principle?  Why has it only happened once, as a universe?  The fact there has only been a creation ex nihilo event once actually supports Craig's position (which predicts it), not Carroll's.  We don't see violations of ex nihilo nihil fit when we should all the time on Carroll's metaphysics.

This isn't to say that the universe is the only entity which began to be, certainly you and I are two further examples.  There is no need to grant any reductionist assumptions.

This argument confuses "coming into being without a cause" and "coming into being from nothing without a cause". These are not a priori the same thing!

[pat1911]

After watching the Carroll debate, I felt there was one question that needed to be dealt with and I was wondering if some of you had an opinion on them.

How do we respond to the objection that "causality" is a weak premise in that the only time something truly "began to exist" was at the big bang.  The argument goes something like this... We only have evidence that causation is true of things that already exist - that is to say matter/energy/etc. transform from one into another and a cause and effect are described at that point. We do not have evidence causation is true of things that did begin to exist because we have no observation of anything that began to exist, much less of something prior to it beginning to exist.

Of course, we can easily make the claim that IF something began to exist and it IF it has a cause, that cause cannot carry the properties of what began to exist (otherwise it did not, in fact, begin to exist).

Any thoughts?

Dr. Craig pointed out that a world which allows universes to come into being uncaused will also allow anything else to come into being--tables, chairs, clouds of electrons, black holes, planets, etc.--since nothingness has no properties and is thus indiscriminate.  Taking this further, it seems perfectly plausible that in a world which allows things to come out of nothing, an item could pop into being uncaused and immediately obey the laws of physics and physical causal restraints it now finds itself in.  For in Carroll's world, it is only ontological entities which are restricted by the causal principle.  An existing chair, for instance, must obey cause and effect and the physical laws upon which cause and effect are based.  But if the chair doesn't exist, then it doesn't have to obey this causal principle and can come to be uncaused.  Which begets the question, why don't more things come into existence causeless given Carroll's physical causal principle?  Why has it only happened once, as a universe?  The fact there has only been a creation ex nihilo event once actually supports Craig's position (which predicts it), not Carroll's.  We don't see violations of ex nihilo nihil fit when we should all the time on Carroll's metaphysics.

This isn't to say that the universe is the only entity which began to be, certainly you and I are two further examples.  There is no need to grant any reductionist assumptions.

This argument confuses "coming into being without a cause" and "coming into being from nothing without a cause". These are not a priori the same thing!

Good observation

[maryamshah1]

I actually knew about most of this, but having said that, I still thought it was useful. Nice job!