Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

There is Uncaused Cause

Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 3:02:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TWO POLES

This argument may have perfected the argument that you know is: "because of the infinite backward search is not possible, then it will end to the earliest of Something" (cosmological argument), where I made perfection by abolishing the reasons relied on "the consequences of infinity", and by looking at what happens if the idea of infinity in this argument is sustained, then observe the consequences.

A Causal Chain

New creation asserts a causal chain: If there is a new creation, therefore we can trace backward to previous cause

----- Your Objection: There is no evidence for new creation, just conservation of energy.

The Law of Conservation of Energy: Related to your objection, new creation is new conversion from one form of energy to another form energy and from the current form of energy we can trace back to something that has ability to make a new appearance of new form of energy. And if this tracing is ended at one thing, which is energy itself, this huge energy must be considered as the first cause or if we disagree with it then we must accept there is possibility to trace back to the source of energy that doesn't relate to the law of conservation energy.

And this energy as the first cause must be considered as the uncaused conscious energy, and if we disagree with it then we have to accept that human (that has consciousness) is not coming from energy (this open new perspective as a causal chain that has no relation with your objection). -----

Infinite Backward

Infinite backward asserts new creation: If an infinite backward asserts there is no creation then there will be an ended point as an uncaused cause, therefore we try another assertion to assert the consequences

----- Your objection: no logical support for infinite backward causality.

Infinite backward can be considered as our trial to push our logical to the farthest extent and see where is it going to? To make us clear that any possibilities thinking on something (even the impossible one) always assert finite backward causality. And eventually forcing any kind of thinking will lead us to conclusion to finite causality. That's one point. The second point: your statement asserts there is finite backward causality. -----

Opposite Direction of Causal Chain

Infinite backward asserts a causal chain: If infinite backward asserts new creation, then there is a causal chain at forward direction closer to current

The Intersection of The Two Opposite Directions of The Causal Chain

Backward direction and forward direction of causal chain are ended at the uncaused cause: The two points close together assert consequences that each of the two points must be an uncaused cause or both of the two points as uncaused causes, therefore for the last consequence if there is no one as a cause for the other then it asserts there is a creation that exist from nowhere which is an uncaused cause itself.

SYLLOGISM

- New creation (new form or new function) asserts a causal chain

- Infinite backward asserts new creation (new form or new function)

* therefore, infinite backward asserts a causal chain, and further, backward direction and forward direction of causal chain are ended at the uncaused cause

FIXED EXISTENCE

- Axiom:

Something (without additional assertions) can't transcend beyond something itself

From one liter water (without additional assertions) can't be poured as much as 1 gallon water. Meaning: All existences (without additional assertions) can not transcend beyond all existences (their self)

- All Existences are Fixed (or aren't fixed):

If the number of all existences are not fixed, then, the number of all existences (without additional assertions) transcend beyond all existences (their self). It against axiom.

- Therefore: The number of all existences are fixed. It asserts there is finite regression. IOW, there is an uncause caused (there is only finite backward)

The Consequence of Infinite Backward:

- we have to agree that causality has to stop somewhere, it's not because we think there is missing links and that we should make our own completion behind the infinite to create reasoning by linking it to something to create completion that it could be considered as "makes sense", as classical understanding, but,

- we have to agree that causality has to stop somewhere, because consequences of infinite itself (in any possible ways) insist us to go to the single pointer as "the earliest".
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 3:38:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 3:02:07 AM, Seremonia wrote:
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TWO POLES

This argument may have perfected the argument that you know is: "because of the infinite backward search is not possible, then it will end to the earliest of Something" (cosmological argument), where I made perfection by abolishing the reasons relied on "the consequences of infinity", and by looking at what happens if the idea of infinity in this argument is sustained, then observe the consequences.

A Causal Chain

New creation asserts a causal chain: If there is a new creation, therefore we can trace backward to previous cause

----- Your Objection: There is no evidence for new creation, just conservation of energy.

The Law of Conservation of Energy: Related to your objection, new creation is new conversion from one form of energy to another form energy and from the current form of energy we can trace back to something that has ability to make a new appearance of new form of energy. And if this tracing is ended at one thing, which is energy itself, this huge energy must be considered as the first cause or if we disagree with it then we must accept there is possibility to trace back to the source of energy that doesn't relate to the law of conservation energy.

And this energy as the first cause must be considered as the uncaused conscious energy, and if we disagree with it then we have to accept that human (that has consciousness) is not coming from energy (this open new perspective as a causal chain that has no relation with your objection). -----

Infinite Backward

Infinite backward asserts new creation: If an infinite backward asserts there is no creation then there will be an ended point as an uncaused cause, therefore we try another assertion to assert the consequences

----- Your objection: no logical support for infinite backward causality.

Infinite backward can be considered as our trial to push our logical to the farthest extent and see where is it going to? To make us clear that any possibilities thinking on something (even the impossible one) always assert finite backward causality. And eventually forcing any kind of thinking will lead us to conclusion to finite causality. That's one point. The second point: your statement asserts there is finite backward causality. -----

Opposite Direction of Causal Chain

Infinite backward asserts a causal chain: If infinite backward asserts new creation, then there is a causal chain at forward direction closer to current

The Intersection of The Two Opposite Directions of The Causal Chain

Backward direction and forward direction of causal chain are ended at the uncaused cause: The two points close together assert consequences that each of the two points must be an uncaused cause or both of the two points as uncaused causes, therefore for the last consequence if there is no one as a cause for the other then it asserts there is a creation that exist from nowhere which is an uncaused cause itself.

SYLLOGISM

- New creation (new form or new function) asserts a causal chain

- Infinite backward asserts new creation (new form or new function)

* therefore, infinite backward asserts a causal chain, and further, backward direction and forward direction of causal chain are ended at the uncaused cause

FIXED EXISTENCE

- Axiom:

Something (without additional assertions) can't transcend beyond something itself

From one liter water (without additional assertions) can't be poured as much as 1 gallon water. Meaning: All existences (without additional assertions) can not transcend beyond all existences (their self)

- All Existences are Fixed (or aren't fixed):

If the number of all existences are not fixed, then, the number of all existences (without additional assertions) transcend beyond all existences (their self). It against axiom.

- Therefore: The number of all existences are fixed. It asserts there is finite regression. IOW, there is an uncause caused (there is only finite backward)

The Consequence of Infinite Backward:

- we have to agree that causality has to stop somewhere, it's not because we think there is missing links and that we should make our own completion behind the infinite to create reasoning by linking it to something to create completion that it could be considered as "makes sense", as classical understanding, but,

- we have to agree that causality has to stop somewhere, because consequences of infinite itself (in any possible ways) insist us to go to the single pointer as "the earliest".

I agree
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 2:04:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 3:02:07 AM, Seremonia wrote:
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TWO POLES

This argument may have perfected the argument that you know is: "because of the infinite backward search is not possible, then it will end to the earliest of Something" (cosmological argument), where I made perfection by abolishing the reasons relied on "the consequences of infinity", and by looking at what happens if the idea of infinity in this argument is sustained, then observe the consequences.

A Causal Chain

New creation asserts a causal chain: If there is a new creation, therefore we can trace backward to previous cause

----- Your Objection: There is no evidence for new creation, just conservation of energy.

The Law of Conservation of Energy: Related to your objection, new creation is new conversion from one form of energy to another form energy and from the current form of energy we can trace back to something that has ability to make a new appearance of new form of energy. And if this tracing is ended at one thing, which is energy itself, this huge energy must be considered as the first cause or if we disagree with it then we must accept there is possibility to trace back to the source of energy that doesn't relate to the law of conservation energy.

And this energy as the first cause must be considered as the uncaused conscious energy, and if we disagree with it then we have to accept that human (that has consciousness) is not coming from energy (this open new perspective as a causal chain that has no relation with your objection). -----

Infinite Backward

Infinite backward asserts new creation: If an infinite backward asserts there is no creation then there will be an ended point as an uncaused cause, therefore we try another assertion to assert the consequences

----- Your objection: no logical support for infinite backward causality.

Infinite backward can be considered as our trial to push our logical to the farthest extent and see where is it going to? To make us clear that any possibilities thinking on something (even the impossible one) always assert finite backward causality. And eventually forcing any kind of thinking will lead us to conclusion to finite causality. That's one point. The second point: your statement asserts there is finite backward causality. -----

Opposite Direction of Causal Chain

Infinite backward asserts a causal chain: If infinite backward asserts new creation, then there is a causal chain at forward direction closer to current

The Intersection of The Two Opposite Directions of The Causal Chain

Backward direction and forward direction of causal chain are ended at the uncaused cause: The two points close together assert consequences that each of the two points must be an uncaused cause or both of the two points as uncaused causes, therefore for the last consequence if there is no one as a cause for the other then it asserts there is a creation that exist from nowhere which is an uncaused cause itself.

SYLLOGISM

- New creation (new form or new function) asserts a causal chain

- Infinite backward asserts new creation (new form or new function)

* therefore, infinite backward asserts a causal chain, and further, backward direction and forward direction of causal chain are ended at the uncaused cause

FIXED EXISTENCE

- Axiom:

Something (without additional assertions) can't transcend beyond something itself

From one liter water (without additional assertions) can't be poured as much as 1 gallon water. Meaning: All existences (without additional assertions) can not transcend beyond all existences (their self)

- All Existences are Fixed (or aren't fixed):

If the number of all existences are not fixed, then, the number of all existences (without additional assertions) transcend beyond all existences (their self). It against axiom.

- Therefore: The number of all existences are fixed. It asserts there is finite regression. IOW, there is an uncause caused (there is only finite backward)

The Consequence of Infinite Backward:

- we have to agree that causality has to stop somewhere, it's not because we think there is missing links and that we should make our own completion behind the infinite to create reasoning by linking it to something to create completion that it could be considered as "makes sense", as classical understanding, but,

- we have to agree that causality has to stop somewhere, because consequences of infinite itself (in any possible ways) insist us to go to the single pointer as "the earliest".

Allow me to condense your position: GOD.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 5:38:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 2:04:18 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
Allow me to condense your position: GOD.

Simply put, I am not The First Cause, therefore I am (the caused) less than The Uncaused Cause, and The Uncaused Cause is more than me (as the caused). Otherwise (equality in between the cause and The Uncaused Cause asserts that) there is no causality in any possible means to put me (as the caused) on consciousness (I used to be unconscious ...).
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2012 8:17:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 5:38:11 PM, Seremonia wrote:
At 10/22/2012 2:04:18 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
Allow me to condense your position: GOD.

Simply put, I am not The First Cause, therefore I am (the caused) less than The Uncaused Cause, and The Uncaused Cause is more than me (as the caused). Otherwise (equality in between the cause and The Uncaused Cause asserts that) there is no causality in any possible means to put me (as the caused) on consciousness (I used to be unconscious ...).

But not as simple as: GOD.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2012 8:40:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/23/2012 8:17:52 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/22/2012 5:38:11 PM, Seremonia wrote:
At 10/22/2012 2:04:18 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
Allow me to condense your position: GOD.

Simply put, I am not The First Cause, therefore I am (the caused) less than The Uncaused Cause, and The Uncaused Cause is more than me (as the caused). Otherwise (equality in between the cause and The Uncaused Cause asserts that) there is no causality in any possible means to put me (as the caused) on consciousness (I used to be unconscious ...).

But not as simple as: GOD.

As simple as: I am not GOD. I am not sure with others.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2012 5:14:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 3:02:07 AM, Seremonia wrote:
There is Uncaused Cause
Uncaused Cause = contradiction. End of story; we need not look further than this. However, I will assume that there is some semantic issue on the term "Cause". For argument's sake, I am going to assume that you mean "There is an Uncaused State" or more at "There is an Initial Uncaused State." For me, this phrasing has the caveat of being something that I believe to be true.

A Causal Chain

New creation asserts a causal chain: If there is a new creation, therefore we can trace backward to previous cause

----- Your Objection: There is no evidence for new creation, just conservation of energy.
That's correct! ---JUST CONVERSION---

The Law of Conservation of Energy: Related to your objection, new creation is new conversion from one form of energy to another form energy and from the current form of energy we can trace back to something that has ability to make a new appearance of new form of energy.
This is NOT correct. First of all, I am not sure why you are prefixing "conversion" with "new" when only a few lines before you stated "just conversion."

By doing this, you are implying that there is more than one type of conversion: for example, "old conversion" vs "new conversion", etc. This makes no sense.

Contrary to this, I would suggest to simply call it "conversion". In this case, there is either conversion or no conversion, and we do not get stuck in the mire. However, if we continue down your path of "New Conversion," we have the following situation:

P1: There is no evidence for New Creation
P2: New Conversion = New Creation
C: Ergo, there is no evidence for new conversion.

And if this tracing is ended at one thing, which is energy itself, this huge energy must be considered as the first cause or if we disagree with it then we must accept there is possibility to trace back to the source of energy that doesn't relate to the law of conservation energy.
Not at all. What we have here is a contradiction because IF New Conversion = New Creation THEN there is NO evidence of New Conversion...but the fact that there IS evidence for New Conversion MUST mean that New Conversion is NOT New Creation. And thus P2 MUST be false and we need look no further.

And this energy as the first cause must be considered as the uncaused conscious energy, and if we disagree with it then we have to accept that human (that has consciousness) is not coming from energy (this open new perspective as a causal chain that has no relation with your objection). -----
Non sequitur; but, because P2 is a contradiction, the rest is pointless.

FIXED EXISTENCE

- Axiom:
- All Existences are Fixed (or aren't fixed):
Existence exists; non existence does not exist. It's as simple as it gets and is the most fundamental of Axioms. I am guessing that that is what you mean by fixed.

Infinity (defined as "never ending") is itself a contradiction. Defined this way, infinity has no real meaning; it conveys no real knowledge. However, if we simply define infinity as all, then it can convey knowledge.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2012 10:51:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/25/2012 5:14:18 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:02:07 AM, Seremonia wrote:
There is Uncaused Cause
Uncaused Cause = contradiction. End of story; we need not look further than this. However, I will assume that there is some semantic issue on the term "Cause". For argument's sake, I am going to assume that you mean "There is an Uncaused State" or more at "There is an Initial Uncaused State." For me, this phrasing has the caveat of being something that I believe to be true.

1. My answer: Uncaused cause asserts that an uncaused state can (cause by) make function(s) which we perceive these function(s) as realities.


A Causal Chain

New creation asserts a causal chain: If there is a new creation, therefore we can trace backward to previous cause

----- Your Objection: There is no evidence for new creation, just conservation of energy.
That's correct! ---JUST CONVERSION---

The Law of Conservation of Energy: Related to your objection, new creation is new conversion from one form of energy to another form energy and from the current form of energy we can trace back to something that has ability to make a new appearance of new form of energy.
This is NOT correct. First of all, I am not sure why you are prefixing "conversion" with "new" when only a few lines before you stated "just conversion."

By doing this, you are implying that there is more than one type of conversion: for example, "old conversion" vs "new conversion", etc. This makes no sense.


2. My answer: "NEW" conversion means, that from the past to current time and further (maybe) in the future, we perceive changing.

Contrary to this, I would suggest to simply call it "conversion". In this case, there is either conversion or no conversion, and we do not get stuck in the mire. However, if we continue down your path of "New Conversion," we have the following situation:

P1: There is no evidence for New Creation
P2: New Conversion = New Creation
C: Ergo, there is no evidence for new conversion.

3. My answer: I am not asserting P1, since P1 is someone's assertions (which i disagree). In fact, i asserts that on "the law of conversation of energy" there are (SEQUENCES OF) changing, and it can be traced back.


And if this tracing is ended at one thing, which is energy itself, this huge energy must be considered as the first cause or if we disagree with it then we must accept there is possibility to trace back to the source of energy that doesn't relate to the law of conservation energy.
Not at all. What we have here is a contradiction because IF New Conversion = New Creation THEN there is NO evidence of New Conversion...but the fact that there IS evidence for New Conversion MUST mean that New Conversion is NOT New Creation. And thus P2 MUST be false and we need look no further.

4. My answer: Please, refer to my answer no.3 . Further what i mean, that from any ways of reasoning (whether through understanding that there is NEW CREATION, or related to "the law of conservation of energy" that there is new changing, new form, new functions. THESE STILL ASSERT THAT "IT CAN BE TRACED BACK".

And related to "the law of conservation of energy" i asserts that there is new form (of changing) rather than new creation (as i already asserted on my argument). As i already stated: "if someone disagree with me that there is no new creation" then still we can traced back (according to "new form changing").


And this energy as the first cause must be considered as the uncaused conscious energy, and if we disagree with it then we have to accept that human (that has consciousness) is not coming from energy (this open new perspective as a causal chain that has no relation with your objection). -----
Non sequitur; but, because P2 is a contradiction, the rest is pointless.

5. My answer: as i already stated, i disagree with P2. Please, refer to my answer no. 4.


FIXED EXISTENCE

- Axiom:
- All Existences are Fixed (or aren't fixed):
Existence exists; non existence does not exist. It's as simple as it gets and is the most fundamental of Axioms. I am guessing that that is what you mean by fixed.

6. My answer: fixed in this case, that, existence as whole can't be expanded or can't be decreased. Expanded to where? to non existence? No! to existence? then existence as whole is expanded to itself (which means not expanded).


Infinity (defined as "never ending") is itself a contradiction. Defined this way, infinity has no real meaning; it conveys no real knowledge. However, if we simply define infinity as all, then it can convey knowledge.

7. My answer: as i already asserted on my post (http://debate.org...), therefore infinity can't be related to infinite regress.

Thank you for your conversation. This enriches our understanding.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 3:59:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/25/2012 10:51:32 PM, Seremonia wrote:
At 10/25/2012 5:14:18 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:02:07 AM, Seremonia wrote:
There is Uncaused Cause
Uncaused Cause = contradiction. End of story; we need not look further than this. However, I will assume that there is some semantic issue on the term "Cause". For argument's sake, I am going to assume that you mean "There is an Uncaused State" or more at "There is an Initial Uncaused State." For me, this phrasing has the caveat of being something that I believe to be true.
1. My answer: Uncaused cause asserts that an uncaused state can (cause by) make function(s) which we perceive these function(s) as realities.
Understood. Therefore, you are referring to an Uncaused Initial State from which all other states evolve from, correct?

The Law of Conservation of Energy: Related to your objection, new creation is new conversion from one form of energy to another form energy and from the current form of energy we can trace back to something that has ability to make a new appearance of new form of energy.
This is NOT correct. First of all, I am not sure why you are prefixing "conversion" with "new" when only a few lines before you stated "just conversion."

By doing this, you are implying that there is more than one type of conversion: for example, "old conversion" vs "new conversion", etc. This makes no sense.

2. My answer: "NEW" conversion means, that from the past to current time and further (maybe) in the future, we perceive changing.
So I ask again: why are you saying "NEW conversion" instead of simply "conversion" or for that matter simply "change"?

By saying "NEW conversion" you are implying some false distinction between that and something else.

P1: There is no evidence for New Creation
P2: New Conversion = New Creation
C: Ergo, there is no evidence for new conversion.
3. My answer: I am not asserting P1, since P1 is someone's assertions (which i disagree).
Now that I think of it, why are you saying "NEW Creation"? This too sets up some kind of false dichotomy. There is simply "creation". Now if you disagree with P1 then you are stating that "there is evidence for creation" which to my knowledge is false. Please present "evidence for creation."

In fact, i asserts that on "the law of conversation of energy" there are (SEQUENCES OF) changing, and it can be traced back.
Not sure what you mean by "traced back" or why that would even matter.

4. My answer: Please, refer to my answer no.3 . Further what i mean, that from any ways of reasoning (whether through understanding that there is NEW CREATION, or related to "the law of conservation of energy" that there is new changing, new form, new functions. THESE STILL ASSERT THAT "IT CAN BE TRACED BACK".
Again, not sure what you mean by "traced back" or why that would even matter.

And related to "the law of conservation of energy" i asserts that there is new form (of changing) rather than new creation (as i already asserted on my argument).
You still haven't explained why I should accept your false distinction of "NEW".

As i already stated: "if someone disagree with me that there is no new creation" then still we can traced back (according to "new form changing").
Still have no idea what you mean by "traced back" or why that would even matter.

FIXED EXISTENCE
- Axiom:
- All Existences are Fixed (or aren't fixed):
Existence exists; non existence does not exist. It's as simple as it gets and is the most fundamental of Axioms. I am guessing that that is what you mean by fixed.
6. My answer: fixed in this case, that, existence as whole can't be expanded or can't be decreased.
Yes.

Expanded to where? to non existence? No! to existence? then existence as whole is expanded to itself (which means not expanded).
Ah! You're trying to argue against the "expansion of the Universe!" It isn't "expanding to" anywhere: this "expansion" is actually an UNFOLDING, a TRANSFORMATION, or a CONVERSION as you like to refer to it. So what we observe as the "expansion of the Universe" is basically a transformation of the Universe. I hope that clears it up, because there should be no confusion regarding the "expansion of the Universe."

Infinity (defined as "never ending") is itself a contradiction. Defined this way, infinity has no real meaning; it conveys no real knowledge. However, if we simply define infinity as all, then it can convey knowledge.
7. My answer: as i already asserted on my post (http://debate.org...), therefore infinity can't be related to infinite regress.
Huh? Infinite regress is PREDICATED upon Infinity defined as "never ending"; ergo, infinite regress has no real meaning; it conveys no real knowledge.

Thank you for your conversation. This enriches our understanding.
Your welcome. I hope that we can continue this quid pro quo.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 4:08:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The singularity 13.7 billion years ago could be the uncaused cause. It itself could be uncaused, while also being the cause of everything that happened after.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 4:49:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 4:08:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The singularity 13.7 billion years ago could be the uncaused cause. It itself could be uncaused, while also being the cause of everything that happened after.
Absolutely.

And that means that there was no creation event but instead an unfolding or unraveling transformation that's still going on today!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 11:04:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hi,

I wrote: 2. My answer: "NEW" conversion means, that from the past to current time and further (maybe) in the future, we perceive changing.

tBoonePickens wrote:
So I ask again: why are you saying "NEW conversion" instead of simply "conversion" or for that matter simply "change"?

1. My answer: I am asserting "CONVERSION", since this is popular term related to "the law of the conservation of energy". I am adding "NEW" to assert that there is current and the past, and we can trace back. But if you are familiar with "change", that's ok, since it's still in line with essential understanding (there is changing and it has consequence that "we can trace back"). It's my adaptation from popular term to personal understanding (which is provided in between you and me within this conversation), to provide smooth translation of understanding but still maintain original understanding as a core (just to let us go further but still within boundaries "of understanding", within tolerance)

tBoonePickens wrote: About P1. Now that I think of it, why are you saying "NEW Creation"? This too sets up some kind of false dichotomy. There is simply "creation". Now if you disagree with P1 then you are stating that "there is evidence for creation" which to my knowledge is false. Please present "evidence for creation."etc

2. My answer: As i already asserted that my reasoning is not trying to put my thought on specific argument. Meaning, i am not asserting that "THERE IS CREATION", and i am not asserting that "THERE IS NO CREATION", but i am asserting that "WHETHER THERE IS CREATION OR THERE IS NO CREATION, WHICHEVER WE ASSERT BUT EVENTUALLY THOSE ASSERT THAT WE CAN TRACE BACK FROM CURRENT CREATION OR CURRENT CHANGING TO THE PREVIOUS CREATION OR PREVIOUS CHANGING, AND THIS ASSERT REASONABLY THAT THERE IS MEETING POINT (THE ROOT OF ALL CREATION OR THE ROOT OF ALL ACTUALIZATIONS OF CHANGING).

Trace back to the previous, meaning: we can trace back from current CREATION OR CURRENT CHANGING to PREVIOUS CREATION OR CHANGING (whichever we agree).

(May be) now we are perceived by someone, but we used to be unperceived by anybody, until we were born. This fact put us on understanding that before us (trace back) there is or there are something (for example our parents).

As i already stated: "it can be considered as our trial to push our logical to the farthest extent and see where is it going to" and eventually, as i already asserted that "THERE IS THE ROOT OF ALL" WHATEVER WE ARE TRYING TO THINK OF (WHETHER "THERE IS CREATION OR NOT", WHETHER WE CAN TRACE BACK TO THE ROOT OR WE CAN'T)
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 11:39:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 11:04:27 PM, Seremonia wrote:
Hi,
Hello.

I wrote: 2. My answer: "NEW" conversion means, that from the past to current time and further (maybe) in the future, we perceive changing.
tBoonePickens wrote:
So I ask again: why are you saying "NEW conversion" instead of simply "conversion" or for that matter simply "change"?
1. My answer: I am asserting "CONVERSION", since this is popular term related to "the law of the conservation of energy". I am adding "NEW" to assert that there is current and the past, and we can trace back. But if you are familiar with "change", that's ok, since it's still in line with essential understanding (there is changing and it has consequence that "we can trace back"). It's my adaptation from popular term to personal understanding (which is provided in between you and me within this conversation), to provide smooth translation of understanding but still maintain original understanding as a core (just to let us go further but still within boundaries "of understanding", within tolerance)
tBoonePickens wrote: About P1. Now that I think of it, why are you saying "NEW Creation"? This too sets up some kind of false dichotomy. There is simply "creation". Now if you disagree with P1 then you are stating that "there is evidence for creation" which to my knowledge is false. Please present "evidence for creation."etc
So simply "conversion" and "creation" it is! Now that we peeled away "new", let us continue...

2. My answer: As i already asserted that my reasoning is not trying to put my thought on specific argument. Meaning, i am not asserting that "THERE IS CREATION", and i am not asserting that "THERE IS NO CREATION", but i am asserting that "WHETHER THERE IS CREATION OR THERE IS NO CREATION, WHICHEVER WE ASSERT BUT EVENTUALLY THOSE ASSERT THAT WE CAN TRACE BACK FROM CURRENT CREATION OR CURRENT CHANGING TO THE PREVIOUS CREATION OR PREVIOUS CHANGING, AND THIS ASSERT REASONABLY THAT THERE IS MEETING POINT (THE ROOT OF ALL CREATION OR THE ROOT OF ALL ACTUALIZATIONS OF CHANGING).
(1) OK, so I understand that you are not making a claim either way as to creation or no creation; however, there isn't really a choice because one is a possible and the other is a contradiction. Creation violates the known laws of physics (thermodynamics) as well as reason (ex nihilo). Creation requires the violation of the laws of thermodynamics or lead to "creation ex nihilo." Actually, the concept of creation is itself a contradiction because any "creation" that is "NOT ex nihilo" is actually a "conversion" thus leaving only creation ex nihilo. And as you know "from nothing, nothing comes." That and the fact that "nothingness" is it self a contradiction!

(2) Your point is that we can trace back to the root; however, that's not new. We already know this, so WHAT is your point about being able to trace back to the ROOT? State your case.

Trace back to the previous, meaning: we can trace back from current CREATION OR CURRENT CHANGING to PREVIOUS CREATION OR CHANGING (whichever we agree).
In other words, we can trace back CONVERSIONS to an origin. As I stated before, we know this; this is actually the current model: The Big Bang Theory. Ergo, you've simply stated the case for the Big Bang Theory. Was that your intent?

(May be) now we are perceived by someone, but we used to be unperceived by anybody, until we were born.
And? Why would we expect anything else? Regardless, reality isn't molded by people's perception but rather the other way around.

This fact put us on understanding that before us (trace back) there is or there are something (for example our parents).
There is ALWAYS something: that's the point. There cannot BE a NOTHING.

As i already stated: "it can be considered as our trial to push our logical to the farthest extent and see where is it going to" and eventually, as i already asserted that "THERE IS THE ROOT OF ALL" WHATEVER WE ARE TRYING TO THINK OF (WHETHER "THERE IS CREATION OR NOT", WHETHER WE CAN TRACE BACK TO THE ROOT OR WE CAN'T)
Again, we can rule out creation (ie creation ex nihilo) because it is a contradiction. Any other thing we can call "creation" AND is "NOT ex nihilo" is actually defined as "CONVERSION"; ergo, there is ONLY conversion. This IS the status quo.

Because we CAN "trace back" the "conversions" we are able to determine that there is indeed a "root". This too is ALSO the status quo and is commonly called The Big Bang Theory. Outside of this, it doesn't seem that you are stating anything new.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 4:29:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 11:39:42 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/26/2012 11:04:27 PM, Seremonia wrote:
Hi,
Hello.

I wrote: 2. My answer: "NEW" conversion means, that from the past to current time and further (maybe) in the future, we perceive changing.
tBoonePickens wrote:
So I ask again: why are you saying "NEW conversion" instead of simply "conversion" or for that matter simply "change"?
1. My answer: I am asserting "CONVERSION", since this is popular term related to "the law of the conservation of energy". I am adding "NEW" to assert that there is current and the past, and we can trace back. But if you are familiar with "change", that's ok, since it's still in line with essential understanding (there is changing and it has consequence that "we can trace back"). It's my adaptation from popular term to personal understanding (which is provided in between you and me within this conversation), to provide smooth translation of understanding but still maintain original understanding as a core (just to let us go further but still within boundaries "of understanding", within tolerance)
tBoonePickens wrote: About P1. Now that I think of it, why are you saying "NEW Creation"? This too sets up some kind of false dichotomy. There is simply "creation". Now if you disagree with P1 then you are stating that "there is evidence for creation" which to my knowledge is false. Please present "evidence for creation."etc
So simply "conversion" and "creation" it is! Now that we peeled away "new", let us continue...

2. My answer: As i already asserted that my reasoning is not trying to put my thought on specific argument. Meaning, i am not asserting that "THERE IS CREATION", and i am not asserting that "THERE IS NO CREATION", but i am asserting that "WHETHER THERE IS CREATION OR THERE IS NO CREATION, WHICHEVER WE ASSERT BUT EVENTUALLY THOSE ASSERT THAT WE CAN TRACE BACK FROM CURRENT CREATION OR CURRENT CHANGING TO THE PREVIOUS CREATION OR PREVIOUS CHANGING, AND THIS ASSERT REASONABLY THAT THERE IS MEETING POINT (THE ROOT OF ALL CREATION OR THE ROOT OF ALL ACTUALIZATIONS OF CHANGING).
(1) OK, so I understand that you are not making a claim either way as to creation or no creation; however, there isn't really a choice because one is a possible and the other is a contradiction. Creation violates the known laws of physics (thermodynamics) as well as reason (ex nihilo). Creation requires the violation of the laws of thermodynamics or lead to "creation ex nihilo." Actually, the concept of creation is itself a contradiction because any "creation" that is "NOT ex nihilo" is actually a "conversion" thus leaving only creation ex nihilo. And as you know "from nothing, nothing comes." That and the fact that "nothingness" is it self a contradiction!

(2) Your point is that we can trace back to the root; however, that's not new. We already know this, so WHAT is your point about being able to trace back to the ROOT? State your case.

1. My answer: i am asserting that there is no infinite regression, and most popular argument to support it by using cosmological argument. I am working on it.

Trace back to the previous, meaning: we can trace back from current CREATION OR CURRENT CHANGING to PREVIOUS CREATION OR CHANGING (whichever we agree).
In other words, we can trace back CONVERSIONS to an origin. As I stated before, we know this; this is actually the current model: The Big Bang Theory. Ergo, you've simply stated the case for the Big Bang Theory. Was that your intent?

2. My answer: why do you limit to big bang? Big bang is just something. The explotion from big bang needs space or something bigger than this event (big bang). There must be something bigger than big bang, before big bang, again before that, and again before that. Bigger and bigger, and bigger again and again. How do we solve this? As i already stated, that there are people using cosmological argument to stop this infinite regression. And again i am working on this to assert that this "bigger and bigger, again and again" will eventually go back to the earliest (ROOT) OR, if we push it to consider that there is creation, then the consequence is an assertion that we must stop to the earliest.

(May be) now we are perceived by someone, but we used to be unperceived by anybody, until we were born.
And? Why would we expect anything else? Regardless, reality isn't molded by people's perception but rather the other way around.

This fact put us on understanding that before us (trace back) there is or there are something (for example our parents).
There is ALWAYS something: that's the point. There cannot BE a NOTHING.

3. My answer: Yes, there is always something, but this is just an example of "there is always something"
As i already stated: "it can be considered as our trial to push our logical to the farthest extent and see where is it going to" and eventually, as i already asserted that "THERE IS THE ROOT OF ALL" WHATEVER WE ARE TRYING TO THINK OF (WHETHER "THERE IS CREATION OR NOT", WHETHER WE CAN TRACE BACK TO THE ROOT OR WE CAN'T)
Again, we can rule out creation (ie creation ex nihilo) because it is a contradiction. Any other thing we can call "creation" AND is "NOT ex nihilo" is actually defined as "CONVERSION"; ergo, there is ONLY conversion. This IS the status quo.

4. My answer: That's ok for me, whether someone is saying that there is (or there is no) creation or conversion or anything else. I am more focusing on the fact that whether creation is contradiction or not, but eventually it can be traced back to the earliest. Again, as i already asserted, that this argument related to "creation" (at least) is not for you. Meaning i don't have to rule out this argument, because it's for others that stand for "creation".

Because we CAN "trace back" the "conversions" we are able to determine that there is indeed a "root". This too is ALSO the status quo and is commonly called The Big Bang Theory. Outside of this, it doesn't seem that you are stating anything new.

5. My answer: i am not stating something new, rather than continuing and working on one of popular arguments (cosmological argument). "Conversion argument" is compliment. These arguments, just to assert that there is no way for us, unless to be directed to "the root (earliest)".
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 5:08:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 4:29:27 PM, Seremonia wrote:
At 10/29/2012 11:39:42 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
1. My answer: i am asserting that there is no infinite regression, and most popular argument to support it by using cosmological argument. I am working on it.
I agree that there is no infinite regression on 2 points:

1) The concept of infinity necessary for infinite regression is itself a contradiction.

2) If we allow the concept of infinity in (1) above: if an infinite amount of time needs to pass before the moment of "now", then we could never have gotten to "now."

Trace back to the previous, meaning: we can trace back from current CREATION OR CURRENT CHANGING to PREVIOUS CREATION OR CHANGING (whichever we agree).
In other words, we can trace back CONVERSIONS to an origin. As I stated before, we know this; this is actually the current model: The Big Bang Theory. Ergo, you've simply stated the case for the Big Bang Theory. Was that your intent?
2. My answer: why do you limit to big bang? Big bang is just something.
This is irrelevant and doesn't answer my question, or any question for that matter. Every thing is limited; every thing is a something. You really do enjoy speaking in vague generalities. You are able to speak many words and really say nothing at all!

The explotion from big bang needs space or something bigger than this event (big bang).
That is INCORRECT. You are falling into your own trap of infinite regression: "needs something bigger" and then that thing "needs something bigger" and then...

The Big Bang "converts" the singularity into space and time, matter and energy, etc. The singularity at t=0 of the Big Bang IS everything there is no outside of it.

There must be something bigger than big bang...
No there mustn't be; furthermore, there CANNOT be.

...before big bang...
There is no before t=0 because there cannot be a before time. At t=0 there is a timeless state that existed indefinitely and timelessly; then time begins as the Big Bang happens.

...again before that, and again before that. Bigger and bigger, and bigger again and again. How do we solve this?
Again, this is incorrect and the BBT does not encompass or depend upon infinite regression.

As i already stated, that there are people using cosmological argument to stop this infinite regression.
There's no need to stop this because infinite regression is not part of the BBT and so there is no need to use the Cosmological Argument.

And again i am working on this to assert that this "bigger and bigger, again and again" will eventually go back to the earliest (ROOT) OR, if we push it to consider that there is creation, then the consequence is an assertion that we must stop to the earliest.
Again, the singularity at t=0 of the BBT is the root; end of story. There's no need for a Cosmological Argument which embodies an "uncaused cause" which is itself a contradiction and thus leads to many other contradictions.

The singularity at t=0 of the BBT is an UNCAUSED Initial State from which ALL other states evolve. Simple and no contradictions!

3. My answer: Yes, there is always something, but this is just an example of "there is always something"
You are only repeating what I said; this doesn't answer my question about why perception has to do with any of this. Regardless, let's drop this point.

Again, we can rule out creation (ie creation ex nihilo) because it is a contradiction. Any other thing we can call "creation" AND is "NOT ex nihilo" is actually defined as "CONVERSION"; ergo, there is ONLY conversion. This IS the status quo.
4. My answer: That's ok for me, whether someone is saying that there is (or there is no) creation or conversion or anything else.
What are you talking about? You cannot just dismiss these things; you cannot just say that you agree and disagree at the same time! These are OPPOSING concepts that are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. If you agree with one then you NECESSARILY disagree with the other and vice versa.

I am more focusing on the fact that whether creation is contradiction or not, but eventually it can be traced back to the earliest. Again, as i already asserted, that this argument related to "creation" (at least) is not for you. Meaning i don't have to rule out this argument, because it's for others that stand for "creation".
The point is that CREATION is a contradictory concept whether I, you, or anyone else stands for it or not. That's the point. Creation is NOT possible because it is a contradiction it leads to "SOMETHING FROM NOTHING" which is a contradiction as well as "NOTHING" a contradiction on its own.

So if you are building your concept using "creation" then you are building a concept based on a contradiction and so your concept is itself a contradiction. That's the point.

Because we CAN "trace back" the "conversions" we are able to determine that there is indeed a "root". This too is ALSO the status quo and is commonly called The Big Bang Theory. Outside of this, it doesn't seem that you are stating anything new.
5. My answer: i am not stating something new, rather than continuing and working on one of popular arguments (cosmological argument).
And my point to you is that your argument is based on a contradiction: something from nothing. And so it is incorrect.

"Conversion argument" is compliment.
If by "Conversion Argument" you mean the BBT, then as I stated before it CANNOT complement that which it is DIRECT OPPOSITION of.

These arguments, just to assert that there is no way for us, unless to be directed to "the root (earliest)".
I have no idea what this means.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 7:30:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 5:08:05 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/29/2012 4:29:27 PM, Seremonia wrote:
At 10/29/2012 11:39:42 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
1. My answer: i am asserting that there is no infinite regression, and most popular argument to support it by using cosmological argument. I am working on it.
I agree that there is no infinite regression on 2 points:

1) The concept of infinity necessary for infinite regression is itself a contradiction.

2) If we allow the concept of infinity in (1) above: if an infinite amount of time needs to pass before the moment of "now", then we could never have gotten to "now."

Trace back to the previous, meaning: we can trace back from current CREATION OR CURRENT CHANGING to PREVIOUS CREATION OR CHANGING (whichever we agree).
In other words, we can trace back CONVERSIONS to an origin. As I stated before, we know this; this is actually the current model: The Big Bang Theory. Ergo, you've simply stated the case for the Big Bang Theory. Was that your intent?
2. My answer: why do you limit to big bang? Big bang is just something.
This is irrelevant and doesn't answer my question, or any question for that matter. Every thing is limited; every thing is a something. You really do enjoy speaking in vague generalities. You are able to speak many words and really say nothing at all!

The explotion from big bang needs space or something bigger than this event (big bang).
That is INCORRECT. You are falling into your own trap of infinite regression: "needs something bigger" and then that thing "needs something bigger" and then...

The Big Bang "converts" the singularity into space and time, matter and energy, etc. The singularity at t=0 of the Big Bang IS everything there is no outside of it.

There must be something bigger than big bang...
No there mustn't be; furthermore, there CANNOT be.

...before big bang...
There is no before t=0 because there cannot be a before time. At t=0 there is a timeless state that existed indefinitely and timelessly; then time begins as the Big Bang happens.

...again before that, and again before that. Bigger and bigger, and bigger again and again. How do we solve this?
Again, this is incorrect and the BBT does not encompass or depend upon infinite regression.

As i already stated, that there are people using cosmological argument to stop this infinite regression.
There's no need to stop this because infinite regression is not part of the BBT and so there is no need to use the Cosmological Argument.

And again i am working on this to assert that this "bigger and bigger, again and again" will eventually go back to the earliest (ROOT) OR, if we push it to consider that there is creation, then the consequence is an assertion that we must stop to the earliest.
Again, the singularity at t=0 of the BBT is the root; end of story. There's no need for a Cosmological Argument which embodies an "uncaused cause" which is itself a contradiction and thus leads to many other contradictions.

The singularity at t=0 of the BBT is an UNCAUSED Initial State from which ALL other states evolve. Simple and no contradictions!

3. My answer: Yes, there is always something, but this is just an example of "there is always something"
You are only repeating what I said; this doesn't answer my question about why perception has to do with any of this. Regardless, let's drop this point.

Again, we can rule out creation (ie creation ex nihilo) because it is a contradiction. Any other thing we can call "creation" AND is "NOT ex nihilo" is actually defined as "CONVERSION"; ergo, there is ONLY conversion. This IS the status quo.
4. My answer: That's ok for me, whether someone is saying that there is (or there is no) creation or conversion or anything else.
What are you talking about? You cannot just dismiss these things; you cannot just say that you agree and disagree at the same time! These are OPPOSING concepts that are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. If you agree with one then you NECESSARILY disagree with the other and vice versa.

I am more focusing on the fact that whether creation is contradiction or not, but eventually it can be traced back to the earliest. Again, as i already asserted, that this argument related to "creation" (at least) is not for you. Meaning i don't have to rule out this argument, because it's for others that stand for "creation".
The point is that CREATION is a contradictory concept whether I, you, or anyone else stands for it or not. That's the point. Creation is NOT possible because it is a contradiction it leads to "SOMETHING FROM NOTHING" which is a contradiction as well as "NOTHING" a contradiction on its own.

So if you are building your concept using "creation" then you are building a concept based on a contradiction and so your concept is itself a contradiction. That's the point.

Because we CAN "trace back" the "conversions" we are able to determine that there is indeed a "root". This too is ALSO the status quo and is commonly called The Big Bang Theory. Outside of this, it doesn't seem that you are stating anything new.
5. My answer: i am not stating something new, rather than continuing and working on one of popular arguments (cosmological argument).
And my point to you is that your argument is based on a contradiction: something from nothing. And so it is incorrect.

"Conversion argument" is compliment.
If by "Conversion Argument" you mean the BBT, then as I stated before it CANNOT complement that which it is DIRECT OPPOSITION of.

These arguments, just to assert that there is no way for us, unless to be directed to "the root (earliest)".
I have no idea what this means.

Hehehe, as i already stated, that cosmological argument is not for you, and actually you are answering for yourself. What you are trying to argue on my argument is definitely that's what i want. But it's just on your version. And thank you for enriching.

Meaning, if you found there is contradiction on my argument and it leads to THE ROOT, then you are correct, you found it.

As i already stated many times, that i am using argument on both sides. Whether it's contradiction or not, eventually it must lead to THE ROOT.

About BING BANG, whether we consider there is bigger covers the big bang or not, but eventually it will end to the ROOT. I am just stating that, we must consider any possibilities and see where is it going to? As i already stated, i am arguing on both sides of possibilities.

I accept whether an argument is contradiction or not, and see where is it going to? Does the conclusion lead to something? And from here we can know, how far for possibilities (whether contradiction or not) lead to something.

Because, i know that "once fail at the beginning of reasoning, the rest will be the same", and from here we will know, "to where, this correctness or fallacy lead to different consequence". It's about "trying to see something as it is".
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 8:54:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 7:30:17 PM, Seremonia wrote:
Hehehe, as i already stated, that cosmological argument is not for you, and actually you are answering for yourself. What you are trying to argue on my argument is definitely that's what i want. But it's just on your version. And thank you for enriching.

Meaning, if you found there is contradiction on my argument and it leads to THE ROOT, then you are correct, you found it.
1) You don't really have an argument because you're not really expressing anything coherent.
2) There is a root in the Big Bang Theory REGARDLESS of anything you've said.

What I've been trying to tell you is that the Big Bang Theory has a root and it does not depend on the Cosmological Argument for it. Perhaps repetition will get through to you...

As i already stated many times, that i am using argument on both sides. Whether it's contradiction or not, eventually it must lead to THE ROOT.
1) You don't really have an argument because you're not really expressing anything coherent.
2) There is a root in the Big Bang Theory REGARDLESS of anything you've said.
3) If there is a contradiction then the rest is invalid. From a contradiction ANYTHING follows.

About BING BANG, whether we consider there is bigger covers the big bang or not, but eventually it will end to the ROOT. I am just stating that, we must consider any possibilities and see where is it going to? As i already stated, i am arguing on both sides of possibilities.
1) You don't really have an argument because you're not really expressing anything coherent.
2) There is a root in the Big Bang Theory REGARDLESS of anything you've said.

I accept whether an argument is contradiction or not, and see where is it going to? Does the conclusion lead to something? And from here we can know, how far for possibilities (whether contradiction or not) lead to something.
3) If there is a contradiction then the rest is invalid. From a contradiction ANYTHING follows.

Because, i know that "once fail at the beginning of reasoning, the rest will be the same", and from here we will know, "to where, this correctness or fallacy lead to different consequence". It's about "trying to see something as it is".
3) If there is a contradiction then the rest is invalid. From a contradiction ANYTHING follows.

QED
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 3:06:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 8:54:03 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 11/1/2012 7:30:17 PM, Seremonia wrote:
Hehehe, as i already stated, that cosmological argument is not for you, and actually you are answering for yourself. What you are trying to argue on my argument is definitely that's what i want. But it's just on your version. And thank you for enriching.

Meaning, if you found there is contradiction on my argument and it leads to THE ROOT, then you are correct, you found it.
1) You don't really have an argument because you're not really expressing anything coherent.
2) There is a root in the Big Bang Theory REGARDLESS of anything you've said.

What I've been trying to tell you is that the Big Bang Theory has a root and it does not depend on the Cosmological Argument for it. Perhaps repetition will get through to you...

1. My answer: again, i wasn't saying Big Bang must be related to Cosmological argument

As i already stated many times, that i am using argument on both sides. Whether it's contradiction or not, eventually it must lead to THE ROOT.
1) You don't really have an argument because you're not really expressing anything coherent.
2) There is a root in the Big Bang Theory REGARDLESS of anything you've said.
3) If there is a contradiction then the rest is invalid. From a contradiction ANYTHING follows.

About BING BANG, whether we consider there is bigger covers the big bang or not, but eventually it will end to the ROOT. I am just stating that, we must consider any possibilities and see where is it going to? As i already stated, i am arguing on both sides of possibilities.
1) You don't really have an argument because you're not really expressing anything coherent.
2) There is a root in the Big Bang Theory REGARDLESS of anything you've said.

2. My answer: if there is a root for BIG BANG then that's it, finished. But if someone (not you, again not you) consider there is something bigger than BIG BANG, and if someone is trying to solve using Cosmological argument, then i am working on it to share how to do it.

I accept whether an argument is contradiction or not, and see where is it going to? Does the conclusion lead to something? And from here we can know, how far for possibilities (whether contradiction or not) lead to something.
3) If there is a contradiction then the rest is invalid. From a contradiction ANYTHING follows.

Because, i know that "once fail at the beginning of reasoning, the rest will be the same", and from here we will know, "to where, this correctness or fallacy lead to different consequence". It's about "trying to see something as it is".
3) If there is a contradiction then the rest is invalid. From a contradiction ANYTHING follows.

QED

Consider this: There is labyrinth, and someone inside it. He/She is trying to go out of this labyrinth, by finding the correct path to the exit gate. After trying more and more (AND IT COULD BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING TROUBLE WITH CONTRADICTION), eventually He/She found the way.

This is not about "using contradiction as part of reasoning", but it's about "if we find a contradiction in our reasoning, then we can try to see, whether this contradiction can say something about (lead us to) another direction which is reasonable".
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 5:28:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 3:06:01 PM, Seremonia wrote:
At 11/2/2012 8:54:03 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Meaning, if you found there is contradiction on my argument and it leads to THE ROOT, then you are correct, you found it.
1) You don't really have an argument because you're not really expressing anything coherent.
2) There is a root in the Big Bang Theory REGARDLESS of anything you've said.

What I've been trying to tell you is that the Big Bang Theory has a root and it does not depend on the Cosmological Argument for it. Perhaps repetition will get through to you...
1. My answer: again, i wasn't saying Big Bang must be related to Cosmological argument
You are saying that it is related to the ROOT and the ROOT is the BBT ergo you ARE relating it to the BBT!

2. My answer: if there is a root for BIG BANG then that's it, finished.
Great!

But if someone (not you, again not you) consider there is something bigger than BIG BANG, and if someone is trying to solve using Cosmological argument, then i am working on it to share how to do it.
(1) There IS not BUT; if you or anyone else "consider something bigger" then it is NOT the BBT. If it is the BBT, then you CANNOT "consider something bigger".

(2) The Cosmological Argument depends on creation ex nihilo which is a contradiction.

Consider this: There is labyrinth, and someone inside it. He/She is trying to go out of this labyrinth, by finding the correct path to the exit gate. After trying more and more (AND IT COULD BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING TROUBLE WITH CONTRADICTION), eventually He/She found the way.
No, it is not considered having trouble with contradiction unless you point out the contradiction. What you are saying is that if take an algebra test and you solve a problem incorrectly but happen to get the right answer, then that is correct? You couldn't be further from the truth! Any algebra teacher worth his salt would mark it as incorrect.

BTW, the ends do NOT justify the means. Also, if you always follow the wall to one of your sides (say left) you will eventually get out, so long as the maze is solvable.

This is not about "using contradiction as part of reasoning", but it's about "if we find a contradiction in our reasoning, then we can try to see, whether this contradiction can say something about (lead us to) another direction which is reasonable".
(1) It is EXACTLY about "using contradiction as part of reasoning".

(2) There is NO DIFFERENCE between "using contradiction as part of reasoning" AND "if we find a contradiction in our reasoning, then we can try to see, whether this contradiction can say something about (lead us to) another direction which is reasonable".
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 1:35:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 5:28:09 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 11/2/2012 3:06:01 PM, Seremonia wrote:
At 11/2/2012 8:54:03 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Meaning, if you found there is contradiction on my argument and it leads to THE ROOT, then you are correct, you found it.
1) You don't really have an argument because you're not really expressing anything coherent.
2) There is a root in the Big Bang Theory REGARDLESS of anything you've said.

What I've been trying to tell you is that the Big Bang Theory has a root and it does not depend on the Cosmological Argument for it. Perhaps repetition will get through to you...
1. My answer: again, i wasn't saying Big Bang must be related to Cosmological argument
You are saying that it is related to the ROOT and the ROOT is the BBT ergo you ARE relating it to the BBT!

2. My answer: if there is a root for BIG BANG then that's it, finished.
Great!

But if someone (not you, again not you) consider there is something bigger than BIG BANG, and if someone is trying to solve using Cosmological argument, then i am working on it to share how to do it.
(1) There IS not BUT; if you or anyone else "consider something bigger" then it is NOT the BBT. If it is the BBT, then you CANNOT "consider something bigger".

(2) The Cosmological Argument depends on creation ex nihilo which is a contradiction.

BIG BANG

Whether we consider it as explosion or expanding, both requires something which covers this event (BIG BANG). IOW, it's an expanding within something, otherwise it's expanding transcend beyond itself. There is something which covers an event of BIG BANG (explosion or expanding). We may stop at this point by asserting that the root of BIG BANG (something covers BIG BANG) is energy, or we can trace back that this kind of energy is covered by something. It could be that "HUGE ENERGY" is just small part OF WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE, again and again it creates infinite regression. So, BIG BANG does or (doesn't) have relation with Cosmological or not.

As i already stated many times, that i disbelieve "creatio ex nihilo" and i consider cosmological argument has no relation with "creatio ex nihilo".

Consider this: There is labyrinth, and someone inside it. He/She is trying to go out of this labyrinth, by finding the correct path to the exit gate. After trying more and more (AND IT COULD BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING TROUBLE WITH CONTRADICTION), eventually He/She found the way.

There is only one path to exit gate compared to another path which doesn't lead to exit gate. "E" is exit gate, "A" is another possibility. If not "A" then it has to be "E", there can't be both ("E" & "A" can't be both as exit gate). If we found that "A" is not an exit gate, then (maybe) there is something other than "A" as an exit gate (or there is no exit gate).

No, it is not considered having trouble with contradiction unless you point out the contradiction. What you are saying is that if take an algebra test and you solve a problem incorrectly but happen to get the right answer, then that is correct? You couldn't be further from the truth! Any algebra teacher worth his salt would mark it as incorrect.

I solve problem incorrectly, then i made correction reasonably and leave incorrectness left behind (not "but happen to get the right answer")

BTW, the ends do NOT justify the means. Also, if you always follow the wall to one of your sides (say left) you will eventually get out, so long as the maze is solvable.

This is not about "using contradiction as part of reasoning", but it's about "if we find a contradiction in our reasoning, then we can try to see, whether this contradiction can say something about (lead us to) another direction which is reasonable".
(1) It is EXACTLY about "using contradiction as part of reasoning".

(2) There is NO DIFFERENCE between "using contradiction as part of reasoning" AND "if we find a contradiction in our reasoning, then we can try to see, whether this contradiction can say something about (lead us to) another direction which is reasonable".

Yes, there is difference. We don't have intention to use contradiction, but by accident (after making comparison to another argument) we found contradiction at the first place.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 10:23:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 4:49:27 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/26/2012 4:08:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The singularity 13.7 billion years ago could be the uncaused cause. It itself could be uncaused, while also being the cause of everything that happened after.
Absolutely.

And that means that there was no creation event but instead an unfolding or unraveling transformation that's still going on today!

It also means that we can never construct a theory the explains the presence of the initial state. By theory I mean scientific theory one that expresses material interactions.

Therefore whatever the explanation may be for the presence of our universe it cannot be a scientific that is material explanation.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 10:47:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/25/2012 5:14:18 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:02:07 AM, Seremonia wrote:
There is Uncaused Cause
Uncaused Cause = contradiction. End of story; we need not look further than this.

I'm not sure I agree here - though you might be prove me wrong.

Can we decouple cause from effect?

Could we ever identify a cause that yields no effects?

Does it make sense to conceive of causes that yield no effects and effects that are not consequences of causes?

Is not a cause also a consequence of some effect? if so then we could take "uncaused cause" to mean a cause which is not itself the consequence of an effect and so cannot be the consequence of a prior cause.

I'm not restricing this to materialism here by the way.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 5:54:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 10:47:52 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/25/2012 5:14:18 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/21/2012 3:02:07 AM, Seremonia wrote:
There is Uncaused Cause
Uncaused Cause = contradiction. End of story; we need not look further than this.

I'm not sure I agree here - though you might be prove me wrong.

Can we decouple cause from effect?

Could we ever identify a cause that yields no effects?

Does it make sense to conceive of causes that yield no effects and effects that are not consequences of causes?

Is not a cause also a consequence of some effect? if so then we could take "uncaused cause" to mean a cause which is not itself the consequence of an effect and so cannot be the consequence of a prior cause.

I'm not restricing this to materialism here by the way.

I don't see where contradiction is in this case. We need more explanation from him for his claim.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 6:26:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Things taken together are whole and not whole, something which is being brought together and taken apart, in and out of tune; out of all things there comes unity, and out of unity all things." Hericlitus of Ephesus
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 6:56:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Heraclitus: "The beginning and the end are common on the circumference of a circle"

"[it is not about] listening to me but to the LOGOS it is wise to agree that all things are one". "For, they do not understand how by being at variance with itself, it agrees with itself; more literally, how being brought apart it is brought together. It is backwards turning, attunement like that of the Bow and the Lyre." The beginning and the end are common on the circumference of a circle."

Heraclitus of Ephesus (535 " c. 475 BCE)

If you like philosophy-->http://en.wikipedia.org...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 9:11:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 6:26:16 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Things taken together are whole and not whole, something which is being brought together and taken apart, in and out of tune; out of all things there comes unity, and out of unity all things." Hericlitus of Ephesus

At 11/3/2012 6:56:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Heraclitus: "The beginning and the end are common on the circumference of a circle"

"[it is not about] listening to me but to the LOGOS it is wise to agree that all things are one". "For, they do not understand how by being at variance with itself, it agrees with itself; more literally, how being brought apart it is brought together. It is backwards turning, attunement like that of the Bow and the Lyre." The beginning and the end are common on the circumference of a circle."

Heraclitus of Ephesus (535 " c. 475 BCE)

Agree! But with a note that "all things are (within) ONE", but i am not "THE ONE", in the sense that i am part of "THE ONE". I am the functions of THE ONE.

Agree! :)
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 2:05:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 1:35:53 AM, Seremonia wrote:
At 11/2/2012 5:28:09 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
BIG BANG

Whether we consider it as explosion or expanding, both requires something which covers this event (BIG BANG).
No. You are falling into the trap that leads to infinite regression/progression.

IOW, it's an expanding within something, otherwise it's expanding transcend beyond itself.
Yes. This "expansion" is actually a "transformation": it is TRANSFORMING from 0 space to greater-than-0 space.

There is something which covers an event of BIG BANG (explosion or expanding).
No, again. Your wording is not well chosen: "root" is ok but "covers" is terrible. Let's clarify and begin using proper terms, shall we?

(A) The "ROOT" is: the beginning; the source; the "UNCAUSED INITIAL STATE". I believe that you concur with this definition.

(B) For "COVER" I believe you need to use "CONTAINER" because when you say "requires something which covers this event", I believe that you are saying that "requires something which CONTAINS this event." I think that you are saying that these events need to be "contained" or occur "within" something. Please verify this.

We may stop at this point by asserting that the root of BIG BANG (something covers BIG BANG) is energy, or we can trace back that this kind of energy is covered by something.
(1) The ROOT of the BB is at t=0 and it CANNOT be said to be energy. It can however be said to simply be "something". The reason we cannot say that it is energy per se, is because there is no time occurring yet and as far as we know, we need time and space for there to be energy.

(2) When you say "we can trace back that this kind of energy is covered by something" I think that you are saying that this energy is CONTAINED in something. This is incorrect, because the ROOT is all of existence ergo there is NOTHING left that can contain it.

It could be that "HUGE ENERGY" is just small part OF WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE, again and again it creates infinite regression. So, BIG BANG does or (doesn't) have relation with Cosmological or not.
This is incorrect. The Big Bang IS the WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE or it is NOT the Big Bang Theory of the Universe. What I mean is that if you are using a Multiverse theory, then there can be many universes CONTAINED within a Multiverse. This is the currently proposed model in all String Theories. In this case, there are many (maybe infinite) universe that come into being through Big Bangs. However, these theories do NOT explain the origins of the Multiverse very well and lack ANY empirical evidence.

BTW, both the BBT and the Multiverse theories are cosmological theories.

As i already stated many times, that i disbelieve "creatio ex nihilo" and i consider cosmological argument has no relation with "creatio ex nihilo".
Then you would be mistaken if you consider that the Cosmological Argument has no relation to creation ex nihilo.

There is only one path to exit gate compared to another path which doesn't lead to exit gate.
Then all you have to do is follow 1 wall and you will ALWAYS be able to get out.

I solve problem incorrectly, then i made correction reasonably and leave incorrectness left behind (not "but happen to get the right answer")
This is not the same thing. If you give the correct answer (no contradiction) BUT your method to arrive at that answer is incorrect (contains contradiction) then your correct answer is INVALID. There is NO difference between this and "happen to get it right"; this IS an example of "happen to get it right!"

Yes, there is difference. We don't have intention to use contradiction, but by accident (after making comparison to another argument) we found contradiction at the first place.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Cosmology, logic, mathematics, physics, etc. is NOT about "intentions"; it is about reason. And thanks for proving what I said ("happen to get it right" = "intended to get it right")!

*********************************************
At 11/3/2012 10:23:46 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/26/2012 4:49:27 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
And that means that there was no creation event but instead an unfolding or unraveling transformation that's still going on today!
It also means that we can never construct a theory the explains the presence of the initial state.
But there is already such a theory: the Big Bang. There's no special need to explain the "presence of the initial state" because it is self-evident: there's no other possibility! The Initial State exists because there is no other possibility: existence cannot not exist. Even our most FUNDAMENTAL laws of physics say that (Thermodynamics.)

By theory I mean scientific theory one that expresses material interactions.
There are no material interactions at t=0. Heck, there are no interactions!

Therefore whatever the explanation may be for the presence of our universe it cannot be a scientific that is material explanation.
See above.

Uncaused Cause = contradiction. End of story; we need not look further than this.

I'm not sure I agree here - though you might be prove me wrong.
Maybe...

Can we decouple cause from effect?
Naw, don't think so.

Could we ever identify a cause that yields no effects?
Naw, don't think so either.

Does it make sense to conceive of causes that yield no effects and effects that are not consequences of causes?
No. They would not be able to be identified. This is because "causes that yield no effects" are not causes; ergo, this is a contradiction.

Is not a cause also a consequence of some effect? if so then we could take "uncaused cause" to mean a cause which is not itself the consequence of an effect and so cannot be the consequence of a prior cause.
And so we would need to EQUIVOCATE to do that. But as I said, we can allow such an equivocation and continue on. That's why I have entertained it thus far. As I said before, I just prefer to call such a thing an "uncaused initial state."
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 3:24:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 2:05:01 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 11/3/2012 10:23:46 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/26/2012 4:49:27 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
And that means that there was no creation event but instead an unfolding or unraveling transformation that's still going on today!
It also means that we can never construct a theory the explains the presence of the initial state.
But there is already such a theory: the Big Bang. There's no special need to explain the "presence of the initial state" because it is self-evident: there's no other possibility! The Initial State exists because there is no other possibility: existence cannot not exist. Even our most FUNDAMENTAL laws of physics say that (Thermodynamics.)

The big bang theory does not explain the presence of the initial state - it states its presence as an axiom. There is a need if one's goal to explain the presence of the universe.

How did you establish there is no other possibility?


By theory I mean scientific theory one that expresses material interactions.
There are no material interactions at t=0. Heck, there are no interactions!

Yes - prior to it existing there can be no material interactions.


Therefore whatever the explanation may be for the presence of our universe it cannot be a scientific that is material explanation.
See above.

See above.


Uncaused Cause = contradiction. End of story; we need not look further than this.

I'm not sure I agree here - though you might be prove me wrong.
Maybe...

Can we decouple cause from effect?
Naw, don't think so.

Could we ever identify a cause that yields no effects?
Naw, don't think so either.

Does it make sense to conceive of causes that yield no effects and effects that are not consequences of causes?
No. They would not be able to be identified. This is because "causes that yield no effects" are not causes; ergo, this is a contradiction.

Is not a cause also a consequence of some effect? if so then we could take "uncaused cause" to mean a cause which is not itself the consequence of an effect and so cannot be the consequence of a prior cause.

And so we would need to EQUIVOCATE to do that. But as I said, we can allow such an equivocation and continue on. That's why I have entertained it thus far. As I said before, I just prefer to call such a thing an "uncaused initial state."

If one confines the discussion to the material realm then I agree, there was no material cause (nor could there be) for the presence of the universe.

But one must then be a materialist in order to conclude that there cannot have been a cause, ruling out a material cause is not sufficient to show there was no cause.

Harry.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:13:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 3:24:41 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/5/2012 2:05:01 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
The big bang theory does not explain the presence of the initial state - it states its presence as an axiom. There is a need if one's goal to explain the presence of the universe.
Right and axioms don't need to be explained. There's no need to explain it because there is no other possibility.

How did you establish there is no other possibility?
Because the ONLY other possibility is a contradiction!

By theory I mean scientific theory one that expresses material interactions.
There are no material interactions at t=0. Heck, there are no interactions!
Yes - prior to it existing there can be no material interactions.
There is no "prior" ergo your statement above makes no sense. Please rectify.

Therefore whatever the explanation may be for the presence of our universe it cannot be a scientific that is material explanation.
See above.
See above.
It's not helpful to repeat "see above" after I did it. Anyways, I have given a scientific explanation for the presence of the Universe which you have not refuted; ergo, it stands. Your statement above ("Yes - prior to it existing there can be no material interactions.") is technically undefined so I cannot respond to it until you rectify it.

If one confines the discussion to the material realm then I agree, there was no material cause (nor could there be) for the presence of the universe.
By material, do you mean the physical? And if so, then of course because we are talking about "the study of the physical" aka physics. I'd say there cannot be any cause for the presence of the Universe because existence is not caused! Existence is the default state because the only other possibility (ie non-existence) does not exist! Anyways, is there anything else?

But one must then be a materialist in order to conclude that there cannot have been a cause, ruling out a material cause is not sufficient to show there was no cause.
Well, other than an ex nihilo cause or a bold assertion that is!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 6:10:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:13:05 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 11/5/2012 3:24:41 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/5/2012 2:05:01 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
The big bang theory does not explain the presence of the initial state - it states its presence as an axiom. There is a need if one's goal to explain the presence of the universe.
Right and axioms don't need to be explained. There's no need to explain it because there is no other possibility.

Right but axioms in physics always refer to physical quantities like mass, energy, charge - that is physics (theories) always presupposes the presence of the universe.

Let me see... ahh yes: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" - there you are how's that? and you said there was no other possibility...


How did you establish there is no other possibility?
Because the ONLY other possibility is a contradiction!

See above - and if you think there is ONLY one possibility (that may lead to a contradiction) then what exactly is that possibility?


By theory I mean scientific theory one that expresses material interactions.
There are no material interactions at t=0. Heck, there are no interactions!
Yes - prior to it existing there can be no material interactions.
There is no "prior" ergo your statement above makes no sense. Please rectify.

If there was no prior then there could be no after either. Since there is an after there must have been a prior.


Therefore whatever the explanation may be for the presence of our universe it cannot be a scientific that is material explanation.
See above.
See above.
It's not helpful to repeat "see above" after I did it.

Well I did it for the same reason you did - the answer you sought was contained in a previous paragraph.

Anyways, I have given a scientific explanation for the presence of the Universe which you have not refuted; ergo, it stands. Your statement above ("Yes - prior to it existing there can be no material interactions.") is technically undefined so I cannot respond to it until you rectify it.

Well it was not in need of rectification but I did clarify it for you above.

What are the axioms that underpin this supposed scientific explanation? If you do not have axioms then you do not have a theory but if you do have axioms then your theory cannot explain the universe since it needs to presuppose its existence in order for the axioms to be true.

In either case you've not scientifically explained the presence of the universe at all only dogmatically asserted that "it is" which is not a scientific explanation. (It may at first site appear to be a scientific explanation but it leads to infinite regress and so on that basis is not an explanation).


If one confines the discussion to the material realm then I agree, there was no material cause (nor could there be) for the presence of the universe.
By material, do you mean the physical?

In the philosophical sense of materialism: http://en.wikipedia.org...

And if so, then of course because we are talking about "the study of the physical" aka physics. I'd say there cannot be any cause for the presence of the Universe because existence is not caused! Existence is the default state because the only other possibility (ie non-existence) does not exist! Anyways, is there anything else?

Yes of course - for example the universe did not exist - God created the universe.


But one must then be a materialist in order to conclude that there cannot have been a cause, ruling out a material cause is not sufficient to show there was no cause.
Well, other than an ex nihilo cause or a bold assertion that is!

Exactly - but you are now saying other causes can be conceived - whereas above you said " there is no other possibility."

Harry.