Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[polymath257]

---

That is the ONLY option. You cannot talk about "scientific" for things prior to the first moments of the universe. Full Stop. All of our intuitions about reality (not just our universe) screams out a causal principle. There is no way around this and for this reason alone, Premise (1) is more likely true than not. 


Regarding your first point about category error, yes--comparing God to physical laws is an obvious and silly category error and shouldn't be done. This is not that.

Regarding you second point, is there any reason whatsoever to think that causal principles only apply within the universe? Why are scientist talking about string theory, multiverses, etc.? Because they seem to think there is such a thing. Why? Because it seems like an objective feature of reality--no matter what physical conditions you find yourself in. These are the points you must answer to be successful in refuting the KCA--not complaining that you can't win after bringing up weak arguments.

---

This is why I like the KCA!  I think that the range and depth of the rebuttals are somewhat humorous.  I've seen the same person argue, that things don't need a cause to begin to exists.  Which one may point out, that the causal principle is foundational to the study of science.  If nothing is a cause, then what are the limits of nothing?   The Causal Principle is not only used to deduce what will happen when some change is introduced, but is also used to infer a cause based on the effect.  And not only must there be a cause to produce an effect, this cause must be sufficient for the effect.  It begs the question how one determines that nothing a cause (how would one falsify it)?

From here, the same person may change up; and say it's the fallacy of composition.   That the things within the universe no require a cause, but the universe does not.   Which leads us to ask why is that?  How is the universe being defined, that makes it different?   First I don't think that it is explicit in the premise (everything that begin to exist; must have a cause) that the whole has the same attributes as the parts.  I do not see anyone making this argument.  It may be said, that this is based on our observation from within the universe.  However if this is true; then, how can a cosmologist say anything about the origin of the universe (which is half of their job description).  If the claim is that the universe doesn't require a cause whereas, that which makes up the universe does.  I ask why is that? 

It is natural to look for a cause for an effect.  It is natural to expect a sufficient cause for a given effect, even if that cause cannot be demonstrated.  We may even infer certain properties about a cause that is unknown based on what we see in the effect.  I am curious for those who invoke nothing as a cause, how often you would accept this in any other circumstance?   Many here are fond of quoting "that which is given without reason, can be dismissed without reason".  Apparently until it comes to the universe and everything in it, then... one doesn't need a reason (at least if the alternative might be something like God).

No, science does NOT rely on a 'Causal Principle'. For example, quantum mechanics is an inherently acausal scientific theory. In *most* quantum events, all that can be predicted is a *probability* of what can happen, not what actually *will* happen. There simply is not a strict cause-effect relationship.


And we can go further: there are very strict limits based upon observation concerning what 'hidden variables' could potentially explain the actual evidence of the real world. In particular, if you assume causality and relativity, the observations requires a very, very strict supercausality where *everything* is precisely determined at the outset.

More specifically, what science requires is that consistent initial events have consistent subsequent events, whether 'caused' or not. It requires *predictability*, not *causality*. And the consistency required is not on a case-by-case basis, but can be at a level of overall probability.

You may ask what is so special about the universe that it does not need a cause. Easy: the universe is ALL of space and time and ALL matter and energy throughout both. Anything in the universe has a duration within the universe, but the universe itself does not. But we can dig a bit deeper on this. Causality requires time and time is *part* of the universe. So ALL causes are causes inside the universe. So, in particular, time itself cannot have a cause, even if it 'has a beginning' (I put scare quotes because the concept of 'before time' is clearly inconsistent).

The same argument can be stated as follows: everything within the universe that begins has a cause within the universe. But the universe itself is not something *within* the universe. So it need not, in fact, cannot have a cause because ALL causes are within the universe!

It may be 'natural' on the macroscopic level to 'look for a cause', but we have learned through experience that such is not always available. What we *can* find is aspects that affect probabilities. We can and do find patterns of behavior in those probabilities. And we can ask to what extent those patterns apply to the early universe. When we apply them, we find that the *known* conservation laws allow for the production of all known matter and energy from a 'vacuum' containing neither matter nor energy without a causal precursor. On a theoretical level, that alone destroys the KCA.

No causality in the old Aristotelian sense is required for science. In fact, it is even shown to not be the case in practice.

---

Are you saying that The Causal Priniple is not born out of our inductive experience? If not, then why do its proponents assume it’s an obvious truth? What about the principle makes it obvious other than our direct experience of a universe that we can best describe in terms of cause and effect? Isn’t that what human intuition is, after all? Instinct derived from our aggregate experiences? We are forever limited to our experience as beings within this universe, and as constituents of it.  I don’t see any way we can soundly reason beyond that experience. I agree with you that there are probably objective features to reality, but I don’t see that a positive case for the CP as an objective feature has been sufficiently argued.  ‘Everything we know about has a cause, therefore things we don’t know about, or may never be able to know about, also have to have causes’ is still a composition fallacy. 

I am saying that while we can look to our inductive experience as a guide, people who think about such things like before the universe are also using inductive reasoning. You seem to think the only tool that can be used is experience. However, since they know that the our laws of physics do not necessarily apply to other states of reality, they are reasoning into a lot of assumptions. 

I feel like you’re talking past me.  I’m not asserting premise (1) is false.  I’m saying you have no way to demonstrate or justify that assumption is an obvious truth, or that it’s more likely true than not.  If you can’t, then the argument is stalled at (1).  Even if I grant you (1), you’re now stuck at (2).   ‘I set them up unjustified, and if you can’t knock them down, I win’ is not how this works.  The onus is on you.

I thought that was what you were thinking--that's why I brought it up. The onus is not on me if the position is that these are near universally held beliefs. There is a good reason why most challengers to the KCA do not try to attack Premise (1). Being skeptical of Premise (1) carries a high price because to make any headway against the argument, you can't just bring up the objection, you have to say that the Premise (1) is not likely. Simply bringing up a remote possibility does nothing to an inductive argument. 

First of all, this is the same composition fallacy, restated.  Things within our universe can’t pop into being, therefore the universe it’s self cannot.  I’m not even sure what you mean by, “pop into being”.  Jehanne just put up a thread with some current scientific hypotheses describing an eternal, infinite universe, despite your foot stamping about the math. 

If you want to go with questioning a causal principle as an objective feature of reality, you have to answer questions like why only universes pop into existence and why not other things like dogs, pasta, and VW Beetles. They are infinitely more simple than universes. 

Your second sentence would be an objection to Premise (2). To that, I say there is the math problem about an infinite series of causes as well as the most promising and well-received models do posit a universe starting a finite time ago. Again, simply putting up a possibility does not get make Premise (2) unlikely. That is a much bigger task because I will continually trot out the majority of the cosmologists and their take on things. And like I said above, I can throw in the rather significant infinity problem to push it way over the top. So, I have both scientific grounds and philosophical grounds to support Premise (2). Jehanne has a fringe theory and an uphill philosophical battle to contend with. 

You must mean that we humans cannot describe our experiences within the universe without using causal principles in our descriptions, right?  That, I would agree with.  But, how can we possibly reason beyond that? 

I don't think we are too far off. Just you think that your objections carry more weight than I think they do. 

An eternal universe.  Infinite space and time.  No beginning, and no end.

I’m not sure what you mean here.

You can't describe a structure to a state that has no causal principle. The only law would be that there are none. I really don't see how anything could exist without a causal principle. You can't have matter, movement, or enduring through time. I am not sure you can even have what would pass for space without a causal principle. The very question of whether anything could exist without it seems legit. This is why I claim that a causal principle seems to be an objective feature of reality/existence.

Universes 'pop into existence' because, initially, they are *much* simpler than things like automobiles and brains. In fact, one of the basic characteristics of the early universe is how *simple* it is: depending on how far back you go, the picture is simpler and simpler. For example, prior to the era of nucleosynthesis, the whole of the universe consisted of neutrons and photons. That's it: a very hot 'soup' of those two components. Later, the neutrons decayed providing electrons, protons, and neutrinos. The condensation into things like stars and automobiles came much much later.

What precisely happened before that is still largely speculation, but it is clear that the complexity we are all familiar with is a late development, not an aspect of the initial conditions.

And no, you don't have to assume space and time for initial conditions. At least in speculation based on laws we know, no such initial space or time is required.