A quick note on causality (3 Viewers)

[Hist]

Yes.

I don't know how your post provides a sufficient explanation to how something came from nothing. What you said was that there was no explanation, or rather we must suspend our judgement for that matter because we don't know anything about matter arising from non-matter. This is a typical fallacy known as argumentum ad futurum, it is an argument to the future (possible events). It is a sub fallacy to argumentum ad ignorantium; an argument from ignorance.

From what we know today. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that since a viable naturalistic explanation for what caused the Big Bang does not exist, a supernatural explanation is necessary. Your first post does not solve the problem at all. Suspending judgment is not an answer.

why? on what principle do you make this claim? cite your principle and cite the experience that support it.

Suspending judgment does not solve the problem... its more of admitting its beyond our abilities to find out.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

why? on what principle do you make this claim? cite your principle and cite the experience that support it.

Suspending judgment does not solve the problem... its more of admitting its beyond our abilities to find out.

1. We have established that a cause does exist.
2. This cause is either natural or supernatural.
3. Since the cause is not natural, this necessarily implies that the cause is supernatural.

You want something out of experience that would indicate to you the existence of God?

Let me clear this up a little. When you solve mathematical equations, do you use formulas from physics? When you want to solve a question in literature, do use formulas in chemistry, when you want to solve a question in history, do use priniciples from economics?

NO.

The question, "Does God exist?" is a philosophical inquiry, therefore, you must address the question philosophically. You are demanding that I give you scientific data that proves philosophical propositions, but clearly, this is nonesensical.

Suspending judgement is not an answer. We must answer the question based on what we know now, not on what we might possibly know in the future.

 

[Hist]

1. We have established that a cause does exist.
2. This cause is either natural or supernatural.
3. Since the cause is not natural, this necessarily implies that the cause is supernatural.

You want something out of experience that would indicate to you the existence of God?

Let me clear this up a little. When you solve mathematical equations, do you use formulas from physics? When you want to solve a question in literature, do use formulas in chemistry, when you want to solve a question in history, do use priniciples from economics?

NO.

The question, "Does God exist?" is a philosophical inquiry, therefore, you must address the question philosophically. You are demanding that I give you scientific data that proves philosophical propositions, but clearly, this is nonesensical.

Suspending judgement is not an answer. We must answer the question based on what we know now, not on what we might possibly know in the future.

No sir, we have not established that a cause exists thats the whole problem.. that we do not know whether a change from nonexistence to existence requires a cause or not.
Not to mention that you are assuming that a cause can be a super natural one... we dont even know what the word means

 

[rounder]

No sir, we have not established that a cause exists thats the whole problem.. that we do not know whether a change from nonexistence to existence requires a cause or not.
Not to mention that you are assuming that a cause can be a super natural one... we dont even know what the word means

Think about the term 'absolutely nothing' for a second. Absolutely nothing implies no laws, no matter, no existence, no time, no space. It is logically impossible for matter to come into being from non-matter, this is not debatable. Furthermore, the only possible way for a temporal universe to come into existence is through an atemporal cause, something must have been outside time. Because if the cause were temporal, then we would have an infinite chain of causal events that would really explain nothing.

As for your second objection. Supernatural just means 'something' that transcends nature. For example, since nature is temporal, something supernatural is atemporal. This will imply that this atemporal agent cannot have memories because memories occur through time. It could not decide to cause things to happen today and then decide to cause things to happen tommorow. It would have to cause everything at the same time. For example, the sun will today and tommorow.

The term 'outside time' also can be explained depending on your definition of causality. If you consider causality to be a concept that strictly applies to things that happen through, then it won't mean anything to you. But if you consider causality to be a primitive concept that does not necessarily have to apply to things that don't happen only in time, then the term 'outside time' can make sense.

The point is, we can identify certain attributes that pertain to something that is supernatural. Therefore, your objection is an invalid one.


Look, if you're trying to defend the claim that states that 'absolute nothingness, given an infinite amount of time, could create a temporal universe and eventually give birth to self-conscious life uncaused' then I give up. Don't give me that suspending judgement excuse, it's either A or B. It's either the universe had a cause or it didn't. If you believe it didn't, or at least you aren't denying that it didn't, please, provide me with a coherent argument from empirical observation for how something could exist or begin to exist without a cause.

 

[Hist]

Think about the term 'absolutely nothing' for a second. Absolutely nothing implies no laws, no matter, no existence, no time, no space. It is logically impossible for matter to come into being from non-matter, this is not debatable. Furthermore, the only possible way for a temporal universe to come into existence is through an atemporal cause, something must have been outside time. Because if the cause were temporal, then we would have an infinite chain of causal events that would really explain nothing.

As for your second objection. Supernatural just means 'something' that transcends nature. For example, since nature is temporal, something supernatural is atemporal. This will imply that this atemporal agent cannot have memories because memories occur through time. It could not decide to cause things to happen today and then decide to cause things to happen tommorow. It would have to cause everything at the same time. For example, the sun will today and tommorow.

The term 'outside time' also can be explained depending on your definition of causality. If you consider causality to be a concept that strictly applies to things that happen through, then it won't mean anything to you. But if you consider causality to be a primitive concept that does not necessarily have to apply to things that don't happen only in time, then the term 'outside time' can make sense.

The point is, we can identify certain attributes that pertain to something that is supernatural. Therefore, your objection is an invalid one.


Look, if you're trying to defend the claim that states that 'absolute nothingness, given an infinite amount of time, could create a temporal universe and eventually give birth to self-conscious life uncaused' then I give up. Don't give me that suspending judgement excuse, it's either A or B. It's either the universe had a cause or it didn't. If you believe it didn't, or at least you aren't denying that it didn't, please, provide me with a coherent argument from empirical observation for how something could exist or begin to exist without a cause.

Causality does not apply if there is no time as the cause must precede the effect in time. There is nothing wrong with suspending judgment about something that is beyond our knowledge.. its better than depending on false or uncertain claims

we are running around in circles... pm me your e-mail.. I'll send you a paper that i wrote maybe it helps in pointing out where exactly i stand.