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

[SteveII]

That statement is so wrong in so many ways. Really, you should have taken that Philosophy course that you thumbed your nose at --it would have provided a better foundation for thinking through these things. Now you're left with incredibly crappy reasoning skills. 

 First, YES, science does rely on a Causal Principle. These are the very first sentences of the relevant articles:


1. You cannot do even one experiment without having a philosophical assumption of a causal principle (part of the Philosophy of Science).

2. Regarding quantum mechanics--this is such a red herring. Virtual particles or other quantum particles come from the quantum vacuum and the energy that’s stored up in the vacuum and it’s definitely a causal process that produces these, even if it is indeterministic in that the time at which these things come into being is spontaneous. But this is clearly a causal process. 


More nonsense. This from the second sentence of the relevant article:


3. Notice my bold. Perfect predictability implies a perfect understanding of causal principles. How much clearer could that be? 


4. More philosophical missteps. Causality does not require time. If anything, time is a product of causality OR, if you prefer, time is not a thing, it is illusory (as I think you have claimed in the past). Anyway, it is certainly not the way you are characterizing it. 


5. You are making a huge assertion with literally no justification: "ALL causes are within the universe". How in the world could you make that statement with a straight face?  You certainly don't get to that from your reasoning above. Also, the cosmologist that talk about multiverses and possible conditions before the Big Bang have not gotten your memo. 


6. What are you talking about? What vacuum caused all "known matter and energy"? 


7. This is great. Your argument is that universes are fundamentally simple and therefore can pop into existence. It's really hard to argue with that logic--so I will just leave it at that.

1. Completely false. All we need for science to work is observation of patterns. No assumption of causality is required.

I showed you were wrong with actual definitions. That does not change when you re-assert your point. Address the references or you loose by definition alone.

2. The point is that the fluctuations themselves are not caused: they are completely probabilistic.

No, the fluctuations are certainly  caused by the energy swirling around in the quantum vacuum. Only the timing of their appearance seems to be indetiministic. This is a silly objection you can't possibly succeed with. It is humorous how it gets propagated from atheist to atheist who somehow think this a silver bullet for causality. 

3. you are correct that lack of predictability does nto imply a lack of causality. But that isn't the argument I made. Any causal theory has to obey Bell's inequalities, but quantum mechanics does not. And the observations agree with the quantum mechanical prediction not the prediction based on the assumption of causality.

No, it is not that QM does not obey Bell's theorem, it is that the concept of locality is wrong. I believe Bell thought Einstein was wrong and Lorentz’s theory of relativity was correct. AND there are QM, non-local theories as well (Brohm). Either way, you are not going to develop a successful argument against causality by attacking probability theory through a disagreement on aspects of relativity theory. 

4. yes, of course causality requires time. What does it mean to say event A causes event B (more appropriately, a set of events A causes an event B)? it means that whenever the conditions A happen, the action of natural laws (identical with causal laws) produces the event B at a later time. Time is absolutely required for causality. And since time is an aspect of the universe, all causes are within the universe. If youo go to the level of a multiverse, that only changes things to say that all causes are within the multiverse (since we are talking about the universe being all of existence).

What is time without any space, matter and motion? If it a separate thing, it should be able to exist. Is there time in the multiverse?  It would almost definitely have a different set of physical laws. Under your theory, why couldn't time be absent in the multiverse? Then there is this reference (note the bold). 

Causality (also referred to as causation,[1] or cause and effect) is the natural or worldly agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes,[2] which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space.[3][4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

[quote pid='1719708' dateline='1521558406']
5. Dealt with in the previous.

6. No, it is not 'caused'.
[/quote]

Whoa, whoa. Are you suggesting that all matter and energy emerged from some sort of vacuum uncaused?  I just want to be sure before I pick that apart. 

7. No, this is a response to the question of why universes can pop into existence but automobiles cannot. The basic simplicity of early universes is one reason why the probabilities are so different.

One aspect that you seem to ignore is the very definition of causality. In order for a set of events, A, to cause an event B, it is required that *whenever* the conditions A happen, we inevitably get the event B.

if that is NOT the definition of causality you use, please give a better one. In particular, causality requires the action of natural laws to go from one state at one time to another state at another time. Both time and natural laws are required for causality to have any meaning.

Let's go with the reference in #5 above. 

---

Yes they very much do begin to exist.  It has to do with the word 'snowflake' and the necessary properties that form the underlying meaning of the word. If something does not match these properties, necessarily, it is not a snowflake. We have define the word 'snowflake' to have a couple of necessary properties to be considered a snowflake (frozen, crystallized water molecules in such and such a pattern...). The water molecules at some point don't have these properties, then they do. 

Here is the logical definition:

Something begins to exist if and only if x exists at some time t and there is no time t* prior to t at which x exists.

An easier example is that you began to exist even though every one of your molecules existed before you did. There are properties that make you a 'you'. And the 'beginning to exist' is linked to when you matched those properties.

What happens in this definition if time t has no prior times at all? In other words, if time t is the 'first time'?

Then you would also be talking about the point at which time begins. Therefore x would begin at the same point that time begins. The logical sentence even works for the beginning of time (time being x).