Hell and God cant Co-exist.

[dyresand]

Uh.. yeah the world was different way back in the day when it was forming it and the further you dig down you can see the evidence of that. 
You don't need to default onto faith to know the world was different a few million and more years ago. The planet at a point was much more volcanic active
and would have looked like this. 



With science you don't need faith you need evidence. And being wrong is science is a good thing its better to be proven wrong
with evidence. Hawken was proven wrong he didn't get upset he just moved on and thought about a better theory. And said theory
pretty much solved the information paradox with black holes.

Context, Dyer. 

I wasn't referring to the world being different. I was referring to the basic laws of nature. Particularly, the fact that things and forces all have an origin and all come from something.... and don't materialize from nothing at all.

Well the laws of nature change over time depending on the environment.

[quip]

There's no dichotomy. They're just metaphorical, representations of mankind's moral vicissitudes.

Deepak, is that you?

LOL..shit like that'll get you kicked from the Oprah book club!

---

Everyone needs to self adulate now and again, it's good for the ...soul or whathaveyou. 

My belief in you

Namaste. _/\_

[RozKek]

Ah, nevermind. You guys are blowing this way out of the simple concept I'm bringing to the table, and still making assumptions about things that I never even said.

We aren't. We've me met your claims and assumptions. Simply put, you said either a supernatural element created the universe or nature somehow did it itself, because in nature everything is being created therefore the universe itself must have been created. (I explained that it's not created in the way you think it is). But the important things.

1) You're using the laws of nature to explain something that happened before the existence of our nature itself.
2) A supernatural element has not been proven
3) Esquilax explained how something can come from nothing according to quantum mechanics.

---

 

 No, actually, you're wrong. Leaving aside quantum mechanics, which suggests that you can, in fact, get something from nothing, all of the evidence from physics suggests that this "you can't get something from nothing" style of causality breaks down past the Planck time. That things require causes in this specific iteration of the universe is simply a function of the linear time inherent in this specific iteration, but it's not a uniform standard applicable to every region of spacetime, just what we can observe.

Essentially, prior to the Planck time the universe existed in a state completely unlike anything we've ever known, and beyond our current ability to measure, so expecting that it operates by the same causal rules is extremely silly.

---

 This is what I meant earlier, the everday logics doesn't need to apply to the beginning of the universe and doesn't.

So there, I summed it up to make it easier for us, picked out the important parts, and I'd appreciate it if we could continue discussing, I happen to find this interesting.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Ah, nevermind. You guys are blowing this way out of the simple concept I'm bringing to the table, and still making assumptions about things that I never even said.

---

We aren't. We've me met your claims and assumptions. Simply put, you said either a supernatural element created the universe or nature somehow did it itself, because in nature everything is being created therefore the universe itself must have been created. (I explained that it's not created in the way you think it is). But the important things.

1) You're using the laws of nature to explain something that happened before the existence of our nature itself.
2) A supernatural element has not been proven
3) Esquilax explained how something can come from nothing according to quantum mechanics.

---

 

 No, actually, you're wrong. Leaving aside quantum mechanics, which suggests that you can, in fact, get something from nothing, all of the evidence from physics suggests that this "you can't get something from nothing" style of causality breaks down past the Planck time. That things require causes in this specific iteration of the universe is simply a function of the linear time inherent in this specific iteration, but it's not a uniform standard applicable to every region of spacetime, just what we can observe.

Essentially, prior to the Planck time the universe existed in a state completely unlike anything we've ever known, and beyond our current ability to measure, so expecting that it operates by the same causal rules is extremely silly.

---

 This is what I meant earlier, the everday logics doesn't need to apply to the beginning of the universe and doesn't.

So there, I summed it up to make it easier for us, picked out the important parts, and I'd appreciate it if we could continue discussing, I happen to find this interesting.

I have been following this conversation, and find it interesting as well.   I think it is interesting that so many self proclaimed skeptics are willing to dissolve the principle of causality and the principle of sufficient reason so readily.  I will comment in blue for your list below.

1) You're using the laws of nature to explain something that happened before the existence of our nature itself.
When you say the laws of nature, I think of natural forces.  You seem to be implying that the principle of causality is a result of these forces.   How did you come to that conclusion?  Also, if what is being put forth is possible, then what in nature is prohibiting this from occurring now?
2) A supernatural element has not been proven
I would not use the word proven (as this pertains to math and logic), but I would disagree.   In the previous comment you alluded to something outside of nature (or supernatural).   So I don't think you agree with this either. 
3) Esquilax explained how something can come from nothing according to quantum mechanics.
I have seen this statement a number of times, and asked before; but don't think I ever got an answer.   What is the reasoning behind this statement?   What "according to quantum mechanics" says that something can come from nothing?

[Neo-Scholastic]

The issue at hand concerns whether a specific observation (that only actual objects can cause change) could be considered evidence for something. It is certainly evident to the senses. I’ve always thought that evidence meant just that: something, well, evident.

This is nothing but twaddle. We know where you're going Chad, we've been there before. Have you seen a universe created? No? Then how do you know these 'observations' of yours are at all representative of what happens when a universe is created?

I never said anything about the creation of the universe. You and Esquilax seem hell bent on putting words in my mouth. My own experience, in this universe, within the here and now, confirms what lots of other people throughout history have observed. Change happens. When change happens, it seems to always happen as result of actual things. Why put the word, observation, in scare quotes? Do you feel threatened by some observations?

But if you're so big on evidence, why don't you provide some. Show me some evidence that God is uncaused

You must be Irish. Rather than address the question on the table you want to talk about something else. That is fine. I’m not asking you about any specific conclusions drawn from a certain observation; but rather about the observation itself. For example, Newton observed the apple falling toward the ground. Based on this observation he came to certain conclusions leading to the theory of gravity. I thought that was how people gain knowledge? They observe things, then they reason about it, then they reach conclusions. When asked about the evidence that supports their conclusions, they then point back to the initial observation. That seems pretty basic to me. Are you suggesting an alternate process for learning about the world?

My observation, one that seems pretty obvious is that only actual things can cause change. Is the observation itself valid? Is there a compelling reason to suppose that this observation is an illusion? Why do you feel justified excluding this particular observation from rational inquiry?

We have no scientific proof or evidence of any sort regarding how this all began, and as far as we know, everything in nature, every force, etc, has to come from something.

No, actually, you're wrong. Leaving aside quantum mechanics, which suggests that you can, in fact, get something from nothing,…

[/quote]

The quantum vacuum is not a ‘nothing’.

…all of the evidence from physics suggests that this "you can't get something from nothing" style of causality breaks down past the Planck time.

If at some point your theory of causality devolves into paradox and incoherence, then those problems suggest that you have a flawed theory of causality.

That things require causes in this specific iteration of the universe is simply a function of the linear time inherent in this specific iteration, but it's not a uniform standard applicable to every region of space-time, just what we can observe.

So your counterpoint to everyday observations about this universe is that some unknown speculative universes, universes that have never been directly observed, might operate differently from your paradoxical and incoherent theory of causality.

Essentially, prior to the Planck time the universe existed in a state completely unlike anything we've ever known, and beyond our current ability to measure, so expecting that it operates by the same causal rules is extremely silly.

Prior to Planck time? Planck time is just the theoretically smallest scale, a unit of measurement like minutes or seconds. That just means either 1) there are increments of time with less duration that are beyond our ability to measure or 2) a Planck unit actually is the smallest increment of time.

I really don’t understand you, Esq. On the one hand you dispute the observations of others based on your understanding of physics and then you dispute them on the grounds that the laws of physics eventually break down into paradox and incoherence. To me that seems very evasive.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well the laws of nature change over time depending on the environment.

Are there meta-laws that constrain the ways in which the laws of nature change depending on their environment or is everything up for grabs? Just using the word depends implies some kind of causal relationship between the laws of nature and the environment, now doesn't it?

[dyresand]

Well the laws of nature change over time depending on the environment.

Are there meta-laws that constrain the ways in which the laws of nature change depending on their environment or is everything up for grabs? Just using the word depends implies some kind of causal relationship between the laws of nature and the environment, now doesn't it?

You know chad there is google and you can find many many many wonderful peer reviewed articles here is one of them.

http://phys.unsw.edu.au/astro/research/PWAPR03webb.pdf

[Neo-Scholastic]

Let me spell it out for you: causality might just be a brute fact within expansionist models of the universe- you've completely failed to demonstrate that it has any additional significance or requires any special justification, as usual- but just because something is a function of a given universe model doesn't mean that it's the same in every model, including pre-big bang models...

(Emphasis mine.)

If causality [causal relationships] can be different from universe to universe, then they aren’t really brute facts. If they aren’t brute facts then the principle of sufficient reason applies. There must be a reason, or justification, for why these particular causal relationships hold and not some alternatives.

…let's assume that time as a whole did start with the big bang: wouldn't that mean that your observations of change and how that works stop counting at that time, meaning that they don't apply globally…

Not at all. I do not limit causal relationship to temporally succession the way Hume, for example, does.

Argument from fucking ignorance again. You know, for someone so hot on logical arguments, you've got a conveniently loose grip on basic tenets of logic and its associated fallacies. It's almost as if you're just trying anything to reach a presupposed conclusion where you've been right all along, and you don't really give a shit about logic proper…[/i]

The logical principles at play are the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. The argument-from-ignorance objection only applies when conceivable but as yet unknown alternatives are possible. In this case, there are only three conceivable categories under discussion: 1) things that could exist and do; 2) things that could exist and don’t; 3) things that cannot exist and don’t, and; 4) things that cannot exist yet do. These four exhaust all possibilities. Any of the first three are conceivable. The fourth is incoherent, and yet this is the one to which you continually appeal.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Are there meta-laws that constrain the ways in which the laws of nature change depending on their environment or is everything up for grabs? Just using the word depends implies some kind of causal relationship between the laws of nature and the environment, now doesn't it?

You know chad there is google and you can find many many many wonderful peer reviewed articles here is one of them. http://phys.unsw.edu.au/astro/research/PWAPR03webb.pdf

If your point is that the physical universe, as a whole, is capable of change then you will find no argument from me. All I was saying is that if the physical universe can change from what it actually is now into something it possibly could be then the principle of sufficient reason applies. Are there any constraints on which possibilities it could potentially actualize?

[dyresand]

You know chad there is google and you can find many many many wonderful peer reviewed articles here is one of them. http://phys.unsw.edu.au/astro/research/PWAPR03webb.pdf

If your point is that the physical universe, as a whole, is capable of change then you will find no argument from me. All I was saying is that if the physical universe can change from what it actually is now into something it possibly could be then the principle of sufficient reason applies. Are there any constraints on which possibilities it could potentially actualize?

Well considering the universe is in a state of entropy that would mean its changing considering that will be the end of everything.
I.E. lights off for good.