Am I a Deist? Cosmological Argument seems reasonable to me.

[_Velvet_]

Things having reasons? What does that mean?

If something breaks the law of nature, how is it a law? It's just wrong to begin with, no? Or the law applies differently to things in group A than in group B. I think you're trying to say it does the impossible. See the problem?

Sure, you can expect things to have a cause. You end up with infinite regression or a circle, usually; unless you just special plead an exception to your own idea.

It doesn't break the laws of nature if it is not from our universe, and therefore not expected to behave as if it was made of/bound by same rules.

Then it would not be impossible.

[robvalue]

So... magic means not from our universe?

I'd advise saying our reality, because universe usually means "everything that exists".

You're saying things not from our reality interact with our reality differently than if they were from our reality? Quite possibly, yeah.

So "nature" is our reality, and "supernature" is things outside our reality? That's actually one of the only sensible definitions there is. And it's relative. Things outside our reality are magic/supernatural to us. Not to things from their own reality. And things may be magic in relation to this other reality too, from yet another one.

Are we supernatural in relation to this other reality too? Stuff from here would interact differently there also, I expect?

So all we're saying is different stuff produces different results. I won't argue with that.

[Angrboda]

So... all you need to break the laws of nature is stuff from a different universe. That's a hefty assumption.

[robvalue]

Yeah, it's not even breaking them. It's just applying differently, to different things. Which "laws" are perfectly entitled to do. If you insist on calling them laws "of nature" then define stuff outside our reality as being not of nature, then of course the part you define won't apply; or at least might not. It might just be more of the same junk.

[_Velvet_]

So... magic means not from our universe?

I'd advise saying our reality, because universe usually means "everything that exists".

You're saying things not from our reality interact with our reality differently than if they were from our reality? Quite possibly, yeah.

So "nature" is our reality, and "supernature" is things outside our reality? That's actually one of the only sensible definitions there is. And it's relative. Things outside our reality are magic/supernatural to us. Not to things from their own reality. And things may be magic in relation to this other reality too, from yet another one.

Are we supernatural in relation to this other reality too? Stuff from here would interact differently there also, I expect?

So all we're saying is different stuff produces different results. I won't argue with that.

I find that definitions a bit convoluted, but yes.

I use the word "universe" as "everything that came out of our big bang event"

If there are multiple universes (or realities by your wording) the first cause could be an event from there, thats why it does "magic".

But now if we have some event that doesn't follow causation because it is from "another place" then it is not special, its just the first cause because causes are things innate only to our reality...

...well that makes sense.

This is still multiverse tho.

[robvalue]

Okay. So something in another reality caused our reality, because things need a cause.

Where did that reality come from? It must have been caused by something in yet another reality, because everything needs a cause.

And so on. This is fine of course, there's no logical problem with infinite regression. But that's all you get until you just break your own rule. If you're going to do that, it's not a rule at all. You can't even apply it to our reality. If there are exceptions, it could be one of them.

[_Velvet_]

Okay. So something in another reality caused our reality, because things need a cause.

Where did that reality come from? It must have been caused by something in yet another reality, because everything needs a cause.

And so on. This is fine of course, there's no logical problem with infinite regression. But that's all you get until you just break your own rule. If you're going to do that, it's not a rule at all. You can't even apply it to our reality. If there are exceptions, it could be one of them.

Idk if everything needs a cause, its only reasonable to expect that everything in our reality needs a cause.

If we just assumed that its reasonable to expect that other realities might work differently makes no sense to think all them would follow causation, they might not even have time as time might be our thing

Tho I'll admit I have no idea where i'm going with this... I was favoring "first cause from outside" being the last thing we can reasonably phatom, that thing would have originated our universe, and thats it, we can't expect to know further than that.

(at least not without allowing us to be unreasonable, and that would make the whole idea useless)

[Mr Greene]

So the problem is that you don't understand quantum mechanics.
Has it occurred to you to try and learn some quantum mechanics so you could comprehend the quantum fluctuations cause you referred to earlier?
Sometimes there really is no other option than to take a deep breath and advance into the unknown.

[_Velvet_]

So...  all you need to break the laws of nature is stuff from a different universe.  That's a hefty assumption.

Well the stuff we know its already breaking down badly when we get really really close to big bang, so I think its a reasonable assumption to think that on a different universe things might be different, and its not breaking the laws if the laws are innate to our conditions of universe, it would only apply to other universes if those also had all conditions of our universe, and they might not do so.

---

So the problem is that you don't understand quantum mechanics.
Has it occurred to you to try and learn some quantum mechanics so you could comprehend the quantum fluctuations cause you referred to earlier?
Sometimes there really is no other option than to take a deep breath and advance into the unknown.

Well I've tried, I know only a bit of it... the "i ll just look all the stuff on wikipedia I can understand" bit of it.

I assumed I was too illiterate on serious physics to step on advanced subjects like that.

Are you saying that you know the answers to the questions we are dealing with?

[robvalue]

Sure, our reality might have a cause, it might not. That is my position exactly. We have literally no idea. Assuming it does because it seems intuitive is not scientific nor of any use; trying to demonstrate it does using the contents of the same reality is the fallacy of composition.