Who won?

[Huskqa]

vilenkin does not contest that the past is finite--he contends that our intuitions about time break down because of quantum gravity, but this shifts the discussion to the philosophical nature of time as opposed to cosmology.

And have we ever observed an efficient AND material cause actually cause anything outside space and time?
Have we ever observed an efficient cause cause something out of nothing? We have simply no reason to assume that the universe has a cause.

[lucious]

Yes we do, if the two premises are true, it would necessitate that the universe has a cause.

[Huskqa]

Yes we do, if the two premises are true, it would necessitate that the universe has a cause.

We have good reasons to think that they are not true.

[Architecto]

Yes we do, if the two premises are true, it would necessitate that the universe has a cause.

We have good reasons to think that they are not true.

And, we have good reason to think even if true, they don't lead to a God.

[Huskqa]

And, we have good reason to think even if true, they don't lead to a God.

I, as a total noob in philosophy, can't get passed some line of reasoning from professional theists.

The universe (despite the fact we have only ever observed one) must have a cause because everything we know has a cause. The explanation is a non physical mind that has never been observed, ever. How does that work?

[Architecto]

And, we have good reason to think even if true, they don't lead to a God.

I, as a total noob in philosophy, can't get passed some line of reasoning from professional theists.

The universe (despite the fact we have only ever observed one) must have a cause because everything we know has a cause. The explanation is a non physical mind that has never been observed, ever. How does that work?

I honestly don't know. My suspicion is that they believe in God, then look for rationales to support their beliefs, ignoring the problems with their arguments.

[lucious]

And, we have good reason to think even if true, they don't lead to a God.

I, as a total noob in philosophy, can't get passed some line of reasoning from professional theists.

The universe (despite the fact we have only ever observed one) must have a cause because everything we know has a cause. The explanation is a non physical mind that has never been observed, ever. How does that work?

The argument does not say the universe must have a cause because everything we know has a cause. Can you present the argument fairly and honestly?


What are the reasons for thinking either premise is false? Where is the argument?

[Huskqa]

The argument does not say the universe must have a cause because everything we know has a cause. Can you present the argument fairly and honestly?


What are the reasons for thinking either premise is false? Where is the argument?

You lost me, what argument are we talking about?

[kravarnik]

And, we have good reason to think even if true, they don't lead to a God.

I, as a total noob in philosophy, can't get passed some line of reasoning from professional theists.

The universe (despite the fact we have only ever observed one) must have a cause because everything we know has a cause. The explanation is a non physical mind that has never been observed, ever. How does that work?

I honestly don't know. My suspicion is that they believe in God, then look for rationales to support their beliefs, ignoring the problems with their arguments.

Perhaps, you guys should get acquainted with philosophy of causation, but not only. If the universe isn't caused by anything, then that leaves two options:

- beginning from nothing(which is logically impossible - nothing in and of itself is the lack of anything, thus it lacks any causal potential, thus the universe just is... without any explanation whatsoever)

- the universe is necessary, which isn't the case as showed by science in that there's no particular aspect of the universe to make it necessary - the laws of the universe might have been different ; the universe beginning could take no place(there's no law, or fact about the universe, that necessitates the unvierse to exist)


So, one's left with looking for a cause, because the other two options are illogical. Nothing cannot produce something, thus it's not a viable option for an explanation ; the universe contains no fact, at least in our current knowledge, which makes it necessary to exist... it might have easily not existed at all, thus the option that it's necessary, that's why you need no further explanation is not viable.


Anyhow, one arrives at a mind, because all which constitutes "physical" has a finite beginning some 13-14 billion years ago. Thus, it leaves us with looking for either "extra physical stuff," or "non-physical stuff." :

- extra physical stuff comes by the form of a multiverse and positing more physical stuff to exist prior and transcendent of our universe, but we have no evidence for such a case

- non-physical stuff comes by the form of a mind, because that's the only non-physical thing we know of that may be capable of causality


In my honest evaluation, I think a powerful non-physical mind is more plausible, due to billions of people claiming of actually experiencing one(God). While we have no experiential support for the "extra physical" stuff.

[Huskqa]

- beginning from nothing(which is logically impossible - nothing in and of itself is the lack of anything, thus it lacks any causal potential, thus the universe just is... without any explanation whatsoever)

Let's run with this one for a while. Is this based on our experience or intuition?

[kravarnik]

- beginning from nothing(which is logically impossible - nothing in and of itself is the lack of anything, thus it lacks any causal potential, thus the universe just is... without any explanation whatsoever)

Let's run with this one for a while. Is this based on our experience or intuition?

Both. There's neither the fact of something existing for no reason, nor is it intuitively arrived at that things happen for no reason. Usually, when people encounter something they don't know the cause of, the thought "it came from nothing, for no reason" is usually never inferred, because experience also shows that those things that happen actually are preceded by a causal chain of some sort, which led to them happening.


Also, logically the very proposition "nothing caused something" is logically incoherent. Something which lacks every property - it has no properties, no potential, no anything - cannot lead to the beginning of something.

[Huskqa]

Both.

I don't think intuition is a very good source of knowladge when it comes to cosmology. It is shown to be wrong manay times. Enough reason to assume it is going to be wrong again.

There's neither the fact of something existing for no reason, nor is it intuitively arrived at that things happen for no reason.

I think dr Krauss gave an example: atoms emitting electrons. Seems to happen for no reason at all.

Usually, when people encounter something they don't know the cause of, the thought "it came from nothing, for no reason" is usually never inferred, because experience also shows that those things that happen actually are preceded by a causal chain of some sort, which led to them happening.

Yes, but.....for all those cases the things that have been caused are always made of stuff that already existed. Have you ever seen a carpenter create a table and not use any source material? No imagine the carpenter as an unembodied mind creating a table out of no source material.....

[Architecto]

Have you ever seen a carpenter create a table and not use any source material? Now imagine the carpenter as an unembodied mind creating a table out of no source material.....

But if the carpenter can do magic...

[Huskqa]

Have you ever seen a carpenter create a table and not use any source material? Now imagine the carpenter as an unembodied mind creating a table out of no source material.....

But if the carpenter can do magic...

 
cherry picking our experiance of the world...."magic"  :-D

[kravarnik]

Both.

I don't think intuition is a very good source of knowladge when it comes to cosmology. It is shown to be wrong manay times. Enough reason to assume it is going to be wrong again.

There's neither the fact of something existing for no reason, nor is it intuitively arrived at that things happen for no reason.

I think dr Krauss gave an example: atoms emitting electrons. Seems to happen for no reason at all.

Usually, when people encounter something they don't know the cause of, the thought "it came from nothing, for no reason" is usually never inferred, because experience also shows that those things that happen actually are preceded by a causal chain of some sort, which led to them happening.

Yes, but.....for all those cases the things that have been caused are always made of stuff that already existed. Have you ever seen a carpenter create a table and not use any source material? No imagine the carpenter as an unembodied mind creating a table out of no source material.....

Well, intuition may be bad for doing cosmology, but currently we speak about philosophy and namely - metaphysics, - not cosmology. Cosmology deals with the singularity and the subsequent events to it, not with what was prior to it - these state of affairs are unobservable and inexaminable(is that a word? ) for cosmology.


Krauss gives an example where we don't know the reason, not where we have established that there's no reason. Also it's quite clear "atoms emitting electrons," means that atoms do something which has an effect(cause + effect), as opposed to "electrons come out of nowhere with no cause, for no reason." More than obviously they are emitted from atoms. Why they are emitted may be unknown for now, but they do come from somewhere and this somewhere isn't "nothing," but an empirical phenomena with properties and potential causation - atoms. If anything, this gives support that stuff do not come out of nothing, for no reason.



In this last point of yours, you're kinda drawing a false analogy:

A table by definition is something created from other pre-existing stuff. Or in more technical terms - a table by definition has a material cause as well as efficient cause.

However, we have good reasons to think that the universe lacks material cause, because the only thing that contains material - the universe - and not only, but contains all the material we know and have experienced, has a beginning, which entails that this material hasn't existed into past infinity.


So, one may have good reasons to think a mind can be a cause to the universe. Namely, an all-powerful mind, who can create stuff brand new by the sheer force of His will without the need of a pre-existing material cause.