Reaction

[redtilt1]

Cna you show me a single thing that began to exist without any prior moment of time ?

[Rick Dawkins]

Cna you show me a single thing that began to exist without any prior moment of time ?

the universe according to the big bang model, seeing as time breaks down into no time.

[Fred]

Cna you show me a single thing that began to exist without any prior moment of time ?

the universe according to the big bang model, seeing as time breaks down into no time.

The contention is that causes must temporally precede the effect.  It is logically impossible to precede the first moment of time, therefore the universe is uncaused.

Independent of this, it is reasonable to consider WHY there is causation.  There is causation in the universe because there are laws of nature.  This means the laws of nature are the cause of causation.  There's no reason to believe the cause of causation requires a cause. 

[Rick Dawkins]

Cna you show me a single thing that began to exist without any prior moment of time ?

the universe according to the big bang model, seeing as time breaks down into no time.

The contention is that causes must temporally precede the effect.  It is logically impossible to precede the first moment of time, therefore the universe is uncaused.

Independent of this, it is reasonable to consider WHY there is causation.  There is causation in the universe because there are laws of nature.  This means the laws of nature are the cause of causation.  There's no reason to believe the cause of causation requires a cause.

I think my argument was , (if its  a valid arguement at least ) ,logically speaking, A universe surely cannot  be here in the first place, because time itself was not present so without  time a cause cannot exist neither an effect.

And that in itself is showing intervention or a placement and an intvernetion.

Thats what i think anyway.

[Fred]

I think my argument was , (if its  a valid arguement at least ) ,logically speaking, A universe surely cannot  be here in the first place, because time itself was not present so without  time a cause cannot exist neither an effect.

There is no point in time during which the universe is absent.  Both time and the universe begin concurrently.  There can be no cause that temporally precedes the universe, since there is no earlier time.  Therefore, one of the following must be true:

1)   The universe was not caused.
2)   The universe was caused by something in an atemporal fashion, without existing temporally prior to the universe. 

Regarding #1: One of my points pertained to the reason there is causation.  There is causation in the universe because the universe includes natural law.  But this is the natural law OF the universe, so there’s no justification for assuming causation applies to the universe itself.    This implies #1 is plausible.

For #2 to be true, it would mean that:

a) causation is not merely due to the laws of nature, but is some sort of metaphysical necessity. AND
b) A cause needn’t be temporally prior to the effect

While a&b are logically possible, there no justification for believing either to be true – therefore it is implausible.  b also entails a problem for the cause: it exists at no earlier point in time than the universe, so its existence coincides with the universe.  If it is reasonable to assume God (with a finite past) does not begin to exist, it is equally reasonable to assume the universe (with a finite past) does not begin to exist. 

[Rick Dawkins]

i Dont think i can believe that , because existence is a whole load of causes and effects, and  the origin of them all , itself then  has no cause or is an effect - sure i can agree that what you say makes sense , that its natural laws are the cause of all the causes and effects  italk about.


200000 things are caused
 0 things are uncaused

I think majority is on my side

and particles coming into existence from seemingly nothing and uncaused i disagree with , for 1 its not the nothing at the start of universe , the context iof nothing is different, and its assumed that the particles are uncaused ....



I think i could agree with people when they say the universe came from nothing, since to me that fits the data as i know it, but  to say it had no cause iis then absurd surely, because coming into existence IS an effect ... surely.

[redtilt1]

Cna you show me a single thing that began to exist without any prior moment of time ?

the universe according to the big bang model, seeing as time breaks down into no time.

Whether or not the universe had a cause or not is what we are trying to establish, so you cant use the big bang as an example.
In comsology there are often two definitions of the big bang.
One is "big bang singularity "this does imply no time before the bgi bang , but there is no cause either.
The other more common one is "Big bang phase", this does not imply there was no time before the big bang. Only the latter has an observational support. You should read this short one page article form the mAx Planck Instutute for Gravitational Physics whci explain the difference:
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/big_bangs

[joey]

i Dont think i can believe that , because existence is a whole load of causes and effects, and  the origin of them all , itself then  has no cause or is an effect - sure i can agree that what you say makes sense , that its natural laws are the cause of all the causes and effects  italk about.


200000 things are caused
 0 things are uncaused

I think majority is on my side

and particles coming into existence from seemingly nothing and uncaused i disagree with , for 1 its not the nothing at the start of universe , the context iof nothing is different, and its assumed that the particles are uncaused ....



I think i could agree with people when they say the universe came from nothing, since to me that fits the data as i know it, but  to say it had no cause iis then absurd surely, because coming into existence IS an effect ... surely.

Aristotelean understanding of cause breaks down in the face of modern physics.

also, quantum instantiation has no cause. the closest thing to a "cause" there is in it is the Casimir effect but that hardly fits the classical understanding of cause.

[redtilt1]

i Dont think i can believe that , because existence is a whole load of causes and effects, and  the origin of them all , itself then  has no cause or is an effect - sure i can agree that what you say makes sense , that its natural laws are the cause of all the causes and effects  italk about.


200000 things are caused
 0 things are uncaused

I think majority is on my side

and particles coming into existence from seemingly nothing and uncaused i disagree with , for 1 its not the nothing at the start of universe , the context iof nothing is different, and its assumed that the particles are uncaused ....



I think i could agree with people when they say the universe came from nothing, since to me that fits the data as i know it, but  to say it had no cause iis then absurd surely, because coming into existence IS an effect ... surely.

There is no data that shows the unvierse came from nothing. The data shows the unvierse came from a hot desne state. Anything else  is a theoretical extrapolation well beyond what the data can tell us.