Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

In Defense Of Creationism

DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 2:40:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
In order to defend the idea of creationism it must first be shown to be, at the very least, possible that something existed causally prior to the beginning of the universe. My purpose with this argument is to not only prove the possibility of something existing but rather the necessity of it. This argument does not claim to define what that "something" was/is. It merely shows that there must have been something as opposed to nothing. Whether that "something" was (a) god or something else is irrelevant to this particular argument.

This is a variation of the cosmological argument that I came up with. I am posting it here in the hopes of getting a thorough critique on what logical inconsistencies might be within my argument.

For the sake of making it easy to follow I have listed all of the arguments (and their premises) that support the premises of the original argument (listed first). I tried to boil each premise down to its supporting argument and so on with the premises of that supporting argument until all that was left was either proven or was an actual definition.

In responses to this post please state what you disagree with and why.

Prove: Something independent of the Universe caused it to come into being.

Premise 1: The Universe did not cause itself to come into being. *

Premise 2: The Universe did not come into being, uncaused, from absolute nothingness. **

Premise 3: The Universe had a beginning. ***

Argument: If the Universe did not bring itself into being and did not come into being without a cause from absolute nothingness, then it must have come from something independent of this universe.

Conclusion: Something independent of this Universe must have caused this Universe to come into being.

*Prove: The Universe did not cause itself to come into being.

Premise 1: An effect cannot come before its own cause.
(Due to the Law of Causality)

Premise 2: If any given thing that must have a beginning never had a beginning, then it does not exist
(Due to the Definition of Beginning)

Premise 3: If something does not exist then it cannot have an effect on reality.
(Due to the Definition of Existence)

Argument: If the Universe did not exist before its own creation, then it could not possibly have influenced its own beginning.

Conclusion: The Universe did not cause itself to come into being.

** Prove: The Universe did not come into being, uncaused, from absolute nothingness.

Premise 1: At any two points, given perfectly identical circumstances, the exact same events will occur with the exact same results. *

Premise 2: In absolute nothingness any two points are perfectly identical both in and of themselves and their circumstances.

(Due to the Definition of absolute nothingness)

Premise 3: In absolute nothingness there is no outside force that could possibly act upon any given point.

(Due to the Definition of absolute nothingness)

Premise 4: There are at least two points in all of existence that are not perfectly identical.

(Given)

Argument: If there are no outside influences on any point within the expanse of absolute nothingness, then only events which do not need causes could possibly occur. If only spontaneous events could occur, then they would occur equally and simultaneously at every point in this expanse of nothingness. If the only events that could possibly occur always occur at every point equally and result in all of existence being perfectly uniform, then all of existence should still be perfectly uniform. Since all of existence is not perfectly uniform then it is not possible that there was ever absolute nothing.

Conclusion: The Universe did not come into being, uncaused, from absolute nothingness.

*All this premise states is that any given point (p) plus five (a random number representing an event) p+5 will always equal p+5.

Absolute Nothingness- A Universal state of nothing and only nothing at any given point in existence.

***Prove: The Universe had a beginning.

Premise 1: As time progresses, any given system will become more uniform.

(Due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics)

Premise 2: If the Universe did not have a beginning, then it would have existed indefinitely before this current moment.

(Due to the Definition of Beginning)

Premise 3: The Universe is not perfectly uniform.

(Given)

Argument: If the Universe existed indefinitely before this current moment, then it would be perfectly uniform. Since it is not perfectly uniform it is an impossibility that the Universe never had a beginning.

Conclusion: The Universe had a beginning.

I am looking forward to any and all comments and criticisms.

Thank you.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 4:27:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/25/2009 2:40:11 PM, DevinKing wrote:
Prove: Something independent of the Universe caused it to come into being.

Contradiction. Nothing can be independent of the Universe. Universe = everything that exists, so whatever it is that you are asserting that "caused" the Universe, is part of the Universe.

Premise 1: The Universe did not cause itself to come into being. *

False assumption. It is not necessary to assume that it was caused. It probably brought itself into existence.

Premise 2: The Universe did not come into being, uncaused, from absolute nothingness. **

According to Stephen Hawking, yes it did.

Premise 3: The Universe had a beginning. ***

No it didn't. Perhaps what we call "our universe" had a beginning, but the Universe did not have a beginning. People think the universe had a beginning because they think that the singularity point is the entire universe. Yes, the singularity point (Big Bang) had a beginning, but no, it is not the entire Universe.

Argument: If the Universe did not bring itself into being and did not come into being without a cause from absolute nothingness, then it must have come from something independent of this universe.

This does not follow the premises, nor are the premises valid.

Conclusion: Something independent of this Universe must have caused this Universe to come into being.

Again, contradiction. The Universe is everything that exists. Nothing can be separate from it. If it exists, it's in the Universe.

*Prove: The Universe did not cause itself to come into being.

Premise 1: An effect cannot come before its own cause.
(Due to the Law of Causality)

That's assuming that the Universe is an "effect." If the Universe has existed for an eternity, which it did, then it is not the effect of anything, nor did anything cause it.

Premise 2: If any given thing that must have a beginning never had a beginning, then it does not exist
(Due to the Definition of Beginning)

Flawed premise. There is nothing that requires the Universe to have a beginning.

Premise 3: If something does not exist then it cannot have an effect on reality.
(Due to the Definition of Existence)

Of course it can. Many people believe in delusions and it effects their day to day life greatly. Besides, this does not help the argument. It's a meaningless statement.

Argument: If the Universe did not exist before its own creation, then it could not possibly have influenced its own beginning.

There is no beginning, but if there was, why can't it bring itself into being?

Conclusion: The Universe did not cause itself to come into being.

Bare assertion. The previous premises did not provide evidence and were not sufficient enough to come to this conclusion.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 4:34:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
*Let me note that it seemed like I made contradictions in my response, but it's merely a semantic confusion. For me, I cannot discuss the origins of the Universe without referring to the Multiverse. So when I say the Universe existed for eternity, and in another sentence say, the universe brought itself into being, I am talking about two different things.

Our singularity point (Big Bang) is often called the universe (lower case u), but the Universe (capital U) is everything that exists, the Big Bang is not. So I would say that theses singularity points do have beginnings, but the entire Universe itself, which is much larger than our little big bang universe, has existed forever.

Do you follow what I'm saying?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 5:10:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"Law" = Generalized observation limited to the human scope.

Your arguments = Application of that scope far beyond its limitations.

Therefore, no.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 7:15:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I like you, you have pretty solid logic. I am an Atheist and I actually agree with everything that you posted. But these things do not prove God, they only say he is possible. Very nice work though. Please reply to my forum I posted concerning the logical impossibility of an omnipotent God. http://www.debate.org...
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2009 7:10:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"Contradiction. Nothing can be independent of the Universe. Universe = everything that exists, so whatever it is that you are asserting that "caused" the Universe, is part of the Universe."

-- By "Universe" I am refering to all that was created at the big bang. If a "Multiverse" exists, then it is actually supported by my argument.

"False assumption. It is not necessary to assume that it was caused. It probably brought itself into existence."

-- At this point I am wondering if you even read my entire argument...

*Prove: The Universe did not cause itself to come into being.

Premise 1: An effect cannot come before its own cause.
(Due to the Law of Causality)

Premise 2: If any given thing that must have a beginning never had a beginning, then it does not exist
(Due to the Definition of Beginning)

Premise 3: If something does not exist then it cannot have an effect on reality.
(Due to the Definition of Existence)

Argument: If the Universe did not exist before its own creation, then it could not possibly have influenced its own beginning.

...Allow me to emphasize premise one and the law of causality which is in direct conflict with your idea that the Universe caused itself to come into being.

"According to Stephen Hawking, yes it did."

-- Well... since Stephan Hawking is on your side I guess you must be right. Just kidding. This is ridiculous, if you have an ACTUAL reason for disaggreeing then please state it.

"Perhaps what we call "our universe" had a beginning"

-- This is exactly what my premise states. I was not refering to the "Universe" (the one in which everything that exists is a part of) but rather our "local" universe. The Universe in the larger, all-encompasing sense could not have had a beginning. I see no disagreement here, only a misinterpretation of what I wrote.

"This does not follow the premises, nor are the premises valid."

-- Actually, this follows the premises by process of elimination. If the universe exists (which I can prove to you if you really think its nescessary) and began (which is shown elsewhere in the argument) and didn't come from itself (also explained elsewhere in the argument) and didn't come from nothing (once again, explained elsewhere) then the ONLY thing that logically follows is that the cause did not come from one of the two options that were shown to be impossible.

"Again, contradiction. The Universe is everything that exists. Nothing can be separate from it. If it exists, it's in the Universe."

-- If you are refering to the all-encompasing Universe --which I believe you are-- then I agree with you. I, on the other hand, was not refering to this definition of the Universe.

"Flawed premise. There is nothing that requires the Universe to have a beginning."

-- If you read the following argument which was previously posted then you would see why:

***Prove: The Universe had a beginning.

Premise 1: As time progresses, any given system will become more uniform.

(Due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics)

Premise 2: If the Universe did not have a beginning, then it would have existed indefinitely before this current moment.

(Due to the Definition of Beginning)

Premise 3: The Universe is not perfectly uniform.

(Given)

Argument: If the Universe existed indefinitely before this current moment, then it would be perfectly uniform. Since it is not perfectly uniform it is an impossibility that the Universe never had a beginning.

Conclusion: The Universe had a beginning.

"Of course it can. Many people believe in delusions and it effects their day to day life greatly. Besides, this does not help the argument. It's a meaningless statement."

-- Actually no it can't. What the people are deluded into believing in is not real. The delusions and mental conditions or diseases that bring about all of the actual effects, however, are real. Nothing that is nonexistent EVER effects reality.

"There is no beginning, but if there was, why can't it bring itself into being?"

-- Although, I don't feel its necsessary to repeat myself. I have to ask. Did you even read the entire argument? Many sections of the argument are carefully explained by the other sections. If you haven't, then please take the time to read all of it.

"Our singularity point (Big Bang) is often called the universe (lower case u), but the Universe (capital U) is everything that exists, the Big Bang is not. So I would say that theses singularity points do have beginnings, but the entire Universe itself, which is much larger than our little big bang universe, has existed forever.

Do you follow what I'm saying?"

If my argument is flawed and incapable of being repaired... then your "Multiverse"
has very little grounds for existance.

I think that my argument may have been misread. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT (A) GOD EXISTS. It says that "something" exists. Whether it is your multiverse or God is completely irrelevant to this argument. It gives them both equal treatment.

Sorry if I sounded irritated but I felt like I was repeating my argument over again. Thank you for your critisizm, I am looking forward to more.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2009 7:36:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Wait, hold on a second. I'm still confused as to why you think that scientific laws are acceptable as evidence when we're talking about something that goes beyond the scope of our known universe.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2009 8:03:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/26/2009 7:10:51 PM, DevinKing wrote:
-- By "Universe" I am refering to all that was created at the big bang. If a "Multiverse" exists, then it is actually supported by my argument.

But the topic is titled: "In Defense of Creationism." The Multiverse contradicts creationism. Though, I understand your position better, given that you are acknowledging that the Big Bang is not the entire Universe.

*Prove: The Universe did not cause itself to come into being.

Premise 1: An effect cannot come before its own cause.
(Due to the Law of Causality)

I already addressed that earlier: "That's assuming that the Universe is an "effect." If the Universe has existed for an eternity, which it did, then it is not the effect of anything, nor did anything cause it."

However, my point only applies to the entire Universe, the singularity point we call the Big Bang, in which case, you could say that there could be a cause.

Premise 2: If any given thing that must have a beginning never had a beginning, then it does not exist
(Due to the Definition of Beginning)

Premise 3: If something does not exist then it cannot have an effect on reality.
(Due to the Definition of Existence)

Argument: If the Universe did not exist before its own creation, then it could not possibly have influenced its own beginning.

Again, I already addressed that.

...Allow me to emphasize premise one and the law of causality which is in direct conflict with your idea that the Universe caused itself to come into being.

-- Well... since Stephan Hawking is on your side I guess you must be right. Just kidding. This is ridiculous, if you have an ACTUAL reason for disaggreeing then please state it.

You put forth your premise as if it were an obvious fact, which is what premises should be. However, that premise was not an obvious fact, and merely your own assertion. There is no evidence to suggest that anything caused our Universe but itself. I understand your syllogism is trying to demonstrate that, but the premises are themselves, assumptions.

"Perhaps what we call "our universe" had a beginning"

-- This is exactly what my premise states. I was not refering to the "Universe" (the one in which everything that exists is a part of) but rather our "local" universe. The Universe in the larger, all-encompasing sense could not have had a beginning. I see no disagreement here, only a misinterpretation of what I wrote.

Ok, no disagreement there. But then this really diminishes your argument. Because no longer is God responsible for the whole of existence. He is only responsible for a singularity point the size of a pea.

"This does not follow the premises, nor are the premises valid."

-- Actually, this follows the premises by process of elimination. If the universe exists (which I can prove to you if you really think its nescessary) and began (which is shown elsewhere in the argument) and didn't come from itself (also explained elsewhere in the argument) and didn't come from nothing (once again, explained elsewhere) then the ONLY thing that logically follows is that the cause did not come from one of the two options that were shown to be impossible.

Well this disagreement here was a semantic confusion over Universe vs. universe.

"Flawed premise. There is nothing that requires the Universe to have a beginning."

-- If you read the following argument which was previously posted then you would see why:

***Prove: The Universe had a beginning.

Premise 1: As time progresses, any given system will become more uniform.

(Due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics)

So then God created a chaotic, disorganized universe that eventually made itself better? That means God's creation creates itself better than himself.

Premise 2: If the Universe did not have a beginning, then it would have existed indefinitely before this current moment.

(Due to the Definition of Beginning)

But just a second ago, you agreed that: "The Universe in the larger, all-encompasing sense could not have had a beginning."

This Premise 2, that you put forth, you made it seem as if the Universe needs a beginning, because something couldn't have existed indefinitely before this current moment.

Premise 3: The Universe is not perfectly uniform.

(Given)

Argument: If the Universe existed indefinitely before this current moment, then it would be perfectly uniform. Since it is not perfectly uniform it is an impossibility that the Universe never had a beginning.

Conclusion: The Universe had a beginning.

So this whole argument says that NOTHING could have existed indefinitely before this moment, and therefore, requires a beginning.

But again you said: "The Universe in the larger, all-encompasing sense could not have had a beginning."

So I really don't get where you're going with this.

If my argument is flawed and incapable of being repaired... then your "Multiverse"
has very little grounds for existance.

You just agreed that this little singularity point, called the Big Bang, is not everything that exists. If that's the case, then it exists in a much larger Multiverse of singularity points.

I think that my argument may have been misread. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT (A) GOD EXISTS. It says that "something" exists. Whether it is your multiverse or God is completely irrelevant to this argument. It gives them both equal treatment.

You explicitly specified, in defense of creationism which involves a God. Like I said the Multiverse contradicts creationism. Perhaps you'd be interesting in following my debate about this: http://www.debate.org...

Thank you for your critisizm, I am looking forward to more.

No problem, thanks for the response.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2009 6:34:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
To Kleptin:

A law is something that is an absolute truth, and is never wrong. These apply to anything, being of physical nature or otherwise. If a "law" is shown to be wrong in any situation whatsoever then it is not an actual Law and must be changed.

To GeoLaureate8:

"But the topic is titled: "In Defense of Creationism." The Multiverse contradicts creationism."

--This argument is defending creationism by "proving" that something existed casually prior to the beginning of this universe. Because of the nature of the argument, it also supports any theory that has any base in the existance of anything outside of this local universe. (When I say "this local universe" , I do not nescesarily wish to imply that I believe that there are many "universes". I simply want to differentiate this universe from anything that could be out there. Although I do not think that it is impossible I don't support the view of a multiverse.)

"However, my point only applies to the entire Universe, the singularity point we call the Big Bang, in which case, you could say that there could be a cause."

--Good, so we can agree that this universe (lower case u) had a cause?

"You put forth your premise as if it were an obvious fact, which is what premises should be. However, that premise was not an obvious fact, and merely your own assertion. There is no evidence to suggest that anything caused our Universe but itself. I understand your syllogism is trying to demonstrate that, but the premises are themselves, assumptions."

--Once again, I am refering to the local universe. Which did not create itself.

"Ok, no disagreement there. But then this really diminishes your argument. Because no longer is God responsible for the whole of existence. He is only responsible for a singularity point the size of a pea."

--My argument is not diminished. My argument stands. God is not nescesarily responsible for all of existance, namely, his own existance. Which of course, only applies if God exists. Also, find where my argument (the actual argument, not including the into) states the word God. My argument says that "something" existed before this local universe. Whether you fill in that blank with God, Multiverse or anything else, it makes no difference to the point of the argument. That makes his diminishment (if any) irrelevant to my argument. (For the record, I do believe in God)

"So then God created a chaotic, disorganized universe that eventually made itself better? That means God's creation creates itself better than himself."

--Whether he chose to do so or not is entirely pointless in the case of this argument.

"But just a second ago, you agreed that: "The Universe in the larger, all-encompasing sense could not have had a beginning."

This Premise 2, that you put forth, you made it seem as if the Universe needs a beginning, because something couldn't have existed indefinitely before this current moment."

--I never said that nothing can exist indefinitely before this current moment. The "Universe" did exist eternally before now while the "universe" did not.

--My bad I should have been more specific when refering to the second law of thermodynamics. The law applies only to matter/energy/spacetime systems with our know laws of physics.

"So this whole argument says that NOTHING could have existed indefinitely before this moment, and therefore, requires a beginning."

--Yes, but when you consider the above correction regarding the second law of thermodynamics the argument goes from showing that nothing could exist without a beginning without being completely uniform to showing that that only applies to matter/energy/spacetime systems.

"You just agreed that this little singularity point, called the Big Bang, is not everything that exists. If that's the case, then it exists in a much larger Multiverse of singularity points."

--It is too much of an asumption to say the Multiverse definately exists. I do not assume that God MUST exist. I believe he exists.

"Like I said the Multiverse contradicts creationism."

--But not my argument, which is the topic of this debate. While I endorse creationism and my argument provides support to it, it does not rely on it.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:00:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/27/2009 6:34:46 PM, DevinKing wrote:
To Kleptin:

A law is something that is an absolute truth, and is never wrong. These apply to anything, being of physical nature or otherwise. If a "law" is shown to be wrong in any situation whatsoever then it is not an actual Law and must be changed.

This is a completely fallacious definition of a scientific law. I highly recommend that you provide a source. I can assure you that no reputable source provides the definition you just did.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:55:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
To Kleptin:

I am not saying that it is the definition. I am describing what a Law is. Besides I was not speaking specificly of scientific law. I am speaking of the Laws of the unviverse that govern logic and existance.

An example would be the laws that govern of cause and effect... Example: For every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause.

These Laws of nature have unlimited scope and apply to all that is in existance.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 11:05:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 10:55:06 AM, DevinKing wrote:
To Kleptin:

I am not saying that it is the definition. I am describing what a Law is. Besides I was not speaking specificly of scientific law. I am speaking of the Laws of the unviverse that govern logic and existance.

An example would be the laws that govern of cause and effect... Example: For every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause.

These Laws of nature have unlimited scope and apply to all that is in existance.

Laws need to have a basis and a justification for usage. Simply stating random definitions without a source is (in my honest opinion) unacceptable on a site centered around backing up what you say with evidence.

The Law of causality is the result of inductive proof and observation of the natural world. If you looked up any definition of a scientific law, you would note that scientific laws are not definitive, and are only applicable under certain given circumstances and conditions.

As such, any statement that humans make about anything, has a finite scope. The proof is obvious. Human observation is finite in scope, therefore, conclusions of human observation are finite in scope.

Even if you aren't talking about a scientific law and decided to arbitrarily invent a Law of Causality of your own, then I would ask you to provide proof of that. Whatever Law of Causality you have, must be based on human observation and as such, is definitively limited in scope.

Kleptin's Law of Causality states that everything has a cause except the universe itself. The evidence that upholds Kleptin's Law of Causality has just as much evidence as your Law of Causality.

Now, please explain why your law is better than mine.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 11:08:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
And by the way, this is absurd:

At 11/28/2009 10:55:06 AM, DevinKing wrote:
I am not saying that it is the definition. I am describing what a Law is.

The definition of a definition is "a description of what something is".

You've just stated "I am not saying it is the definition. I am saying it is the definition".

I can describe a horse as "a winged, 6 legged animal with a shell and flippers". This does not mean that my description is correct. I would be wise to consult a dictionary to back up my claim, as would you.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 11:18:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
And by the way, you kept sidestepping this issue and I want an answer.

Your first premise is that the universe did not create itself, and in attempting to prove that premise, you said the following

"An effect cannot precede its own cause".

Are you aware that this begs the question? You are defining the universe as an effect to prove that it is an effect, and despite the fact that you were asked to explain it several times, you have not given an explanation.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 1:18:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"I am not saying that it is the definition. I am describing what a Law is."

--When I had said this I meant that it was not the word for word definition. I was using that sentance to show that I was not stating an exact definition but rather that I was stating a longer decription of it. Describe does not equal Define. One can describe something without defining it.

--None of that has anything to do with my argument though.

"Laws need to have a basis and a justification for usage. Simply stating random definitions without a source is (in my honest opinion) unacceptable on a site centered around backing up what you say with evidence."

--The Laws I stated do have a basis and a justification for usage.

--My Description:
"A law is something that is an absolute truth, and is never wrong. These apply to anything, being of physical nature or otherwise. If a "law" is shown to be wrong in any situation whatsoever then it is not an actual Law and must be changed."

Definition from Dictionary.com:
"a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law"

"has been proven to invariably occur" = "is an absolute truth, and is never wrong"

--I think the description I provided is accurate.

"This is a completely fallacious definition of a scientific law. "

--The above statement is "completely fallicious".

"The proof is obvious. "

--I don't see any proof for our limited scope. If there is such proof then please, by all means post it.

--Your law:
"everything has a cause except the universe itself"

--The Law I used:
"For every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause."

--Reason the law I used is better:
You can't prove my law is wrong.

--Reason your law is worse:
The universe had a beginning and therefore a cause. That makes your "law" wrong. As such, it is not actually a law. Rather, it is an opinion, which happens to be incorrect.

--Speaking of opinions...

"Simply stating random definitions without a source is (in my honest opinion) unacceptable on a site centered around backing up what you say with evidence."

--My description was not random.

Definition of random from thefreedictionary.com:
"1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective"

--My description had a clear purpose.

"Posted: 1 hour ago
And by the way, you kept sidestepping this issue and I want an answer.

Your first premise is that the universe did not create itself, and in attempting to prove that premise, you said the following

"An effect cannot precede its own cause".

Are you aware that this begs the question? You are defining the universe as an effect to prove that it is an effect, and despite the fact that you were asked to explain it several times, you have not given an explanation."

--First of all, I am not "sidestepping" anything. If I have not answered a question it is either because I did not notice it or it was not asked. Secondly, I showed that the Universe had a beginning and is therefore an effect. I also showed the impossibility of it coming into being uncaused from nothingness. I also eliminated the possibility of it coming from itself. All of this was done to show that it came from something else. Essentially, I proved that the universe was an effect to prove that something caused it to come into being.

--Restated in a different fashion:
I am not using circular reasoning and I am not saying it is an effect and is therefore an effect. I am showing that it is an effect then I am narrowing down the list of possible causes for that effect.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 1:54:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 1:18:32 PM, DevinKing wrote:
"I am not saying that it is the definition. I am describing what a Law is."

--When I had said this I meant that it was not the word for word definition. I was using that sentance to show that I was not stating an exact definition but rather that I was stating a longer decription of it. Describe does not equal Define. One can describe something without defining it.
--None of that has anything to do with my argument though.

The small print makes a big difference. I suggest you use the definition instead of your personal description.

"Laws need to have a basis and a justification for usage. Simply stating random definitions without a source is (in my honest opinion) unacceptable on a site centered around backing up what you say with evidence."

--The Laws I stated do have a basis and a justification for usage.

--My Description:
"A law is something that is an absolute truth, and is never wrong. These apply to anything, being of physical nature or otherwise. If a "law" is shown to be wrong in any situation whatsoever then it is not an actual Law and must be changed."

Definition from Dictionary.com:
"a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law"

"has been proven to invariably occur" = "is an absolute truth, and is never wrong"

--I think the description I provided is accurate.

And I think you need to read 7 words after when you stopped reading. Note: "whenever certain conditions exist or are met". Sounds like an exception, meaning, not absolute truth.

"This is a completely fallacious definition of a scientific law. "

--The above statement is "completely fallicious".

Incorrect. In fact, your very own source has shown that you are wrong. You just stopped reading 7 words too early.

"The proof is obvious. "

--I don't see any proof for our limited scope. If there is such proof then please, by all means post it.

Okay. When you look at something, do you know the entirety of this thing's existence? Its exact molecular composition, the precise location of each subatomic particle? What you are arguing is omniscience. I don't believe I need too strong of an argument to explain to you why omniscience is impractical. Humans have a finite scope of knowledge because we are not omniscient. Plain and simple.

--Your law:
"everything has a cause except the universe itself"

--The Law I used:
"For every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause."

--Reason the law I used is better:
You can't prove my law is wrong.

--Reason your law is worse:
The universe had a beginning and therefore a cause. That makes your "law" wrong. As such, it is not actually a law. Rather, it is an opinion, which happens to be incorrect.

The universe had a beginning- Begging the question

You never proved that the universe had a beginning. It was actually listed as a premise.

--Speaking of opinions...

"Simply stating random definitions without a source is (in my honest opinion) unacceptable on a site centered around backing up what you say with evidence."

--My description was not random.

Definition of random from thefreedictionary.com:
"1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective"

--My description had a clear purpose.

Fair enough. I'll concede that your description had a purpose, but I also declare that description to be misleading and invalid compared to the actual definition.

"Posted: 1 hour ago
And by the way, you kept sidestepping this issue and I want an answer.

Your first premise is that the universe did not create itself, and in attempting to prove that premise, you said the following

"An effect cannot precede its own cause".

Are you aware that this begs the question? You are defining the universe as an effect to prove that it is an effect, and despite the fact that you were asked to explain it several times, you have not given an explanation."

--First of all, I am not "sidestepping" anything. If I have not answered a question it is either because I did not notice it or it was not asked. Secondly, I showed that the Universe had a beginning and is therefore an effect. I also showed the impossibility of it coming into being uncaused from nothingness. I also eliminated the possibility of it coming from itself. All of this was done to show that it came from something else. Essentially, I proved that the universe was an effect to prove that something caused it to come into being.

--Restated in a different fashion:
I am not using circular reasoning and I am not saying it is an effect and is therefore an effect. I am showing that it is an effect then I am narrowing down the list of possible causes for that effect.

The problem here is this:

"I showed that the Universe had a beginning and is therefore an effect."

This alleged proof doesn't exist. Scan through your proof. You have an argument showing that the Universe had a beginning, but no argument saying that things with a beginning are necessarily an effect.

Let me explain to you where the fallacy arises. It is because of a hidden premise.

The logical string goes like this:

A. The universe had a beginning
B. What has a beginning must be caused to begin
C. The result of a cause is an effect
D. Therefore, the universe is an effect.

This is the hidden assumption that is needed to be made for your argument to work. However, the problem is that this is also where the fallacy is. Look at point B. Without this point, your argument collapses into nothingness. This statement begs the question for your attempted proof that the universe did not cause itself.

Time does not exist without the universe. In an atemporal plane, IF the universe spontaneously came into existence uncaused, it would be an example of something that begins without being caused and without being an effect.

The only counter you have to this concept is the alleged Law of Causality, which as an inductive proof, only has a limited scope. I point again to the definition that you yourself have provided. A Law is only applicable under certain conditions. Absolute truth would not have such a disclaimer.

I said a lot of stuff. But in the end, it all boils down to this:You have to prove that in all circumstances, without exception, things that have a beginning must be effects. In other words, you must prove the Law of Causality to be valid for DEDUCTIVE and not INDUCTIVE proof.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 6:26:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Premise 1: An effect cannot come before its own cause.
(Due to the Law of Causality)


The problem here is the limitation of human knowledge. As far as we have observed, causality exists in the universe due to the physical laws of nature that appear to govern the universe. But now we have shifted the discussion to outside of the universe, so we have no way of knowing what may or may not be true. We have no experience with anything outside of the universe so no one can state what laws apply or if there is even an "outside" or "before" the universe to begin with.

You can come up with whatever conjecture you like, but it is in no way a proof.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 7:52:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/29/2009 6:26:21 AM, Floid wrote:
Premise 1: An effect cannot come before its own cause.
(Due to the Law of Causality)


The problem here is the limitation of human knowledge. As far as we have observed, causality exists in the universe due to the physical laws of nature that appear to govern the universe. But now we have shifted the discussion to outside of the universe, so we have no way of knowing what may or may not be true. We have no experience with anything outside of the universe so no one can state what laws apply or if there is even an "outside" or "before" the universe to begin with.

You can come up with whatever conjecture you like, but it is in no way a proof.

Excellent recap of the two page back&forth that I'm currently having with DevinKing. As Floid said, the Law of Causality is an inductive assumption based on human observation and all human observation is limited in scope. We cannot justify extension of the Law of Causality beyond that scope, and that scope is limited to what we know about the natural universe.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 3:21:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"And I think you need to read 7 words after when you stopped reading. Note: "whenever certain conditions exist or are met". Sounds like an exception, meaning, not absolute truth."

--Oh, don't worry, I read the entire thing. What it is talking about is the applicable item that a particular law governs. Not that certain laws are incorrect under certain conditions. That would be absurd. If they were incorrect then they would not be laws. For example: the law of conservation of mass. It applies to all matter. Just because that law only governs things with mass does not mean that it is incorrect. The "certain conditions" would be that whatever is in question has mass or as you put it the "exception" would be that it doesn't apply if the thing in question is not consisting of matter. It is still an absolute truth, as in, it is never wrong... ever.

"Okay. When you look at something, do you know the entirety of this thing's existence? Its exact molecular composition, the precise location of each subatomic particle? What you are arguing is omniscience. I don't believe I need too strong of an argument to explain to you why omniscience is impractical. Humans have a finite scope of knowledge because we are not omniscient. Plain and simple."

--I am not asserting that humans have omniscience. To do so would be unreasonable. However, you are trying to say that because we don't have omniscience then we cannot know about these things. That statement uses flawed logic. We can know things, just not all of them, as far as I know. Things concerning existance outside of the universe can be discussed meaningfully. There is no reason to assume that logic does not apply outside of the universe.

"Fair enough. I'll concede that your description had a purpose, but I also declare that description to be misleading and invalid compared to the actual definition."

--I do not see how I misused a correct description. You say that I said "absolute truth" ,which I did, and then you say that it is not an absolute truth and therefore my description was invalid. This is what a dictionary has to say about what an absolute truth is:
"full and complete truth, something that is true regardless of belief"

--I don't see how proven scientific laws are not full and complete truth in and of themselves. And, of course, nobody's beliefs ever effect the truth of something else. (I don't mean to say that each law is all of the truth that there is, but rather, that each is complete in it's own statement of the truth.)

"The problem here is this:

"I showed that the Universe had a beginning and is therefore an effect."

This alleged proof doesn't exist. Scan through your proof. You have an argument showing that the Universe had a beginning, but no argument saying that things with a beginning are necessarily an effect.

This is the hidden assumption that is needed to be made for your argument to work. However, the problem is that this is also where the fallacy is. Look at point B. Without this point, your argument collapses into nothingness. This statement begs the question for your attempted proof that the universe did not cause itself."

--Allow me to explain. Anything with a beginning must have a cause. This is always true. Why? Because the word beginning implies a change of some sort. And every change has a cause. If there is no change then there is no cause. The logical chain which you attempted to derive from my posts goes something like this:

A. The universe had a beginning
B. If it had a beginning then a change took place
C. If there was a change then there must have been a cause for said change
D. The result of a cause is an effect
E. Therefore the universe is an effect

--I would appriciate it if you were to point out the fallacy is and state an argument for why it is a fallacy.

"Time does not exist without the universe. In an atemporal plane, IF the universe spontaneously came into existence uncaused, it would be an example of something that begins without being caused and without being an effect."

--Wow, for someone who strongly advocates the limitations of our knowledge of what is outside the universe, you sure do know a lot about where time does and doesn't exist. I would like to know where you found the proof of time's nonexistance outside of our universe. The problem with your second statement is this: The universe could not have come into existance without a cause. Therefore there would be no example ofsomething coming into being uncaused. I challenge you to find ONE, yes, ONE not five, not ten, but ONE actual example that was confirmed to happen withou a cause. The only "example" you attempted to provide has never been confirmed to happen, and in fact would literally defy logic IF it did happen.

"The only counter you have to this concept is the alleged Law of Causality, which as an inductive proof, only has a limited scope. I point again to the definition that you yourself have provided. A Law is only applicable under certain conditions. Absolute truth would not have such a disclaimer."

--This is laughable. The only counter that you have to my argument is that the law of causality is wrong! Going by your standards, nothing can be a deductive proof and everything is inductive. Without the laws of causality then deductive reasoning and logic itself fall apart. As for the definition that I myself provided, It supports my argument. You simply misunderstood what it was saying, and are attempting to use an incorrect understanding of a definition to argue against me.

"I said a lot of stuff. But in the end, it all boils down to this:You have to prove that in all circumstances, without exception, things that have a beginning must be effects. In other words, you must prove the Law of Causality to be valid for DEDUCTIVE and not INDUCTIVE proof."

-- I have shown that, by the very definitions of the words involved, everything that has a beginning must be caused. If you wish to disprove my argument for this then you must provide at least one valid counterexample.

"The problem here is the limitation of human knowledge. As far as we have observed, causality exists in the universe due to the physical laws of nature that appear to govern the universe. But now we have shifted the discussion to outside of the universe, so we have no way of knowing what may or may not be true. We have no experience with anything outside of the universe so no one can state what laws apply or if there is even an "outside" or "before" the universe to begin with."

--Well put, however, there is no valid reason to say that logic does not operate outside of this universe. There is no evidence for its nonexistance outside of the universe. It exists everywhere so far as we know. If it did not, then even concepts of existance are invalid. And, yes, we can extend the knowledge we have with reasoning and logic. In the same way that we can assume that 3+3 will never equal 35, even if we were on Pluto. Even if we have never calculated the addition of 3+3 on Pluto, I assure you that it will not equal 35.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 3:46:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
One thing I forgot to address...

"The universe had a beginning- Begging the question
You never proved that the universe had a beginning. It was actually listed as a premise."

--Yes, I used it as a premise, and then proved it with another argument. It was at the end of my very first post. You yourself say:

"You have an argument showing that the Universe had a beginning"

--Definition of show is as follows: : "to demonstrate or establish by argument or reasoning"

--Look at the definition of prove: "To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence."

--And even more interesting... the definition of demonstrate: "to prove or make clear by reasoning or evidence"

--So, by replacing words with their definitions you just said:

'You have an argument proving or making clear by reasoning or evidence or establishing by argument or reason that the universe had a beginning'

--After you said:

'You never proved that that the universe had a beginning.'

--Correct me if I am wrong but... there seems to be a contradiction.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 4:36:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/29/2009 3:21:30 PM, DevinKing wrote:
...The "certain conditions" would be that whatever is in question has mass or as you put it the "exception" would be that it doesn't apply if the thing in question is not consisting of matter. It is still an absolute truth, as in, it is never wrong... ever.

Incorrect. Your interpretation is nonsensical as laws would obviously be speaking about what they are speaking about. The addendum arises because scientific law is derived from inductive proof and thus, has a naturally finite scope. It is to prevent people like you from doing exactly what you did: assuming that a scientific law must be true for all cases, never to be contradicted, based purely on the act of defining something as scientific law.

--I am not asserting that humans have omniscience. To do so would be unreasonable.

Then you have ceded your argument. Humans have a finite scope because their method of receiving data is finite. Logic is merely the process of analyzing that data. Even if I were to grant you the assumption that the scope of logic is infinite, the data we derive that logic analyzes is finite. Thus, humans have a limited scope in their conclusions, logically derived or otherwise.

--I do not see how I misused a correct description.

Semantics argument. You're straying from the point. Your definition of "absolute truth", which I have accepted, is "always true, without exception". Scientific laws NEVER state that they are always true without exception, as they always state exceptions. As I detailed above, your interpretation is incorrect. Conservation of Mass extends such that it is in a closed system, without regard to quantum mechanics, and without regard to special relativity. Meaning, it is limited in scope.

Laws are not unbreakable rules. Only those with little to no experience with science have difficulty understanding that Laws are generalized descriptions of what we observe. Assertions that things are or were a certain way because of this Law needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

As per your arguments, that was the result of a "stream of thought" response. I am aware you submitted a proof for why the universe began, however, my rebuttal still stands.

--Allow me to explain. Anything with a beginning must have a cause. This is always true. Why? Because the word beginning implies a change of some sort. And every change has a cause. If there is no change then there is no cause. The logical chain which you attempted to derive from my posts goes something like this:

A. The universe had a beginning
B. If it had a beginning then a change took place
C. If there was a change then there must have been a cause for said change
D. The result of a cause is an effect
E. Therefore the universe is an effect

--I would appriciate it if you were to point out the fallacy is and state an argument for why it is a fallacy.

You've just said a whole bunch of nothing. My whole point was that in trying to assert the Law of Causality, you cite the Law of Causality.

Now, after modifying your argument, the fallacy is in C. Explain why all changes necessarily have a cause, without appealing to the Law of Causality.

--Wow, for someone who strongly advocates the limitations of our knowledge of what is outside the universe, you sure do know a lot about where time does and doesn't exist. I would like to know where you found the proof of time's nonexistance outside of our universe.

A. The universe is defined as everything that is.
B. Only things that are can change
C. Change is limited to the universe
D. Time is only real when change exists.
E. Therefore, time cannot exist without the universe.

The problem with your second statement is this: The universe could not have come into existance without a cause. Therefore there would be no example ofsomething coming into being uncaused. I challenge you to find ONE, yes, ONE not five, not ten, but ONE actual example that was confirmed to happen withou a cause. The only "example" you attempted to provide has never been confirmed to happen, and in fact would literally defy logic IF it did happen.

Logical Fallacy: Argumentum ad ignorantiam. The Law of Causality is best described as "Currently, all observed phenomena is known to have a cause". You are suggesting a modified version: "All phenomena that ever was and ever will be, had or will have a cause". You have the duty to prove your claim. The validity of your statement has nothing to do with whether or not I can disprove it.

--This is laughable. The only counter that you have to my argument is that the law of causality is wrong!

Not at all. I never said that the law of causality was wrong, I merely said that you were using it, defining it, and interpreting it incorrectly, and that in doing so, your proof becomes riddled with fallacies.

Note again the difference between "Everything we have observed so far has a cause" and "Everything that ever was and ever will be has a cause". The former is based on evidence, the latter is based on assumption. The former is a scientific law, the latter is something you made up.

-- I have shown that, by the very definitions of the words involved, everything that has a beginning must be caused. If you wish to disprove my argument for this then you must provide at least one valid counterexample.

You did no such thing. You just expanded a fallacious argument into a more detailed, but just as fallacious argument. And as for disproving it, see Argumentum ad ignorantiam again. As of right now, you have not proven that all things which begin must have been caused, because it is nothing but a derived statement from the overarching assumption "All things that ever were and ever will be, have a cause". This is what you seek to prove, and this is not the Law of Causality.

--Well put, however, there is no valid reason to say that logic does not operate outside of this universe. There is no evidence for its nonexistance outside of the universe. It exists everywhere so far as we know. If it did not, then even concepts of existance are invalid. And, yes, we can extend the knowledge we have with reasoning and logic. In the same way that we can assume that 3+3 will never equal 35, even if we were on Pluto. Even if we have never calculated the addition of 3+3 on Pluto, I assure you that it will not equal 35.

Not my post, but it is still something addressed in our discussion. The Law of Causality was derived in order to explain observed phenomena. Observations --> Logic --> Law. Logic, if we assume an infinite scope, is not the factor that narrows the scope. The issue is not logic. Logic is not the factor that narrows the scope. The issue is the observations. The scope of our ability to observe is finite because we are not omniscient, perfect beings.

THEREFORE

With OBSERVATIONS that are limited in scope to our known universe, How can we justify using the product of those limited observations to make statements beyond that scope, outside the known universe?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 7:27:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/29/2009 4:36:05 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Incorrect. Your interpretation is nonsensical as laws would obviously be speaking about what they are speaking about. The addendum arises because scientific law is derived from inductive proof and thus, has a naturally finite scope. It is to prevent people like you from doing exactly what you did: assuming that a scientific law must be true for all cases, never to be contradicted, based purely on the act of defining something as scientific law.

--Here is the same definition from a different source which is stated slightly differently:

Scientific Law: a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions

--I am not arguing that it is applicable outside of such given conditions. Rather, I am arguing that 'before this universe began' is not one of the given exceptions.

Then you have ceded your argument. Humans have a finite scope because their method of receiving data is finite. Logic is merely the process of analyzing that data. Even if I were to grant you the assumption that the scope of logic is infinite, the data we derive that logic analyzes is finite. Thus, humans have a limited scope in their conclusions, logically derived or otherwise.


--What your argument is saying is not that my argument concerning the origins of this universe is flawed but that we as humans can't prove anything because of the limitations of our knowledge.

--So here is a question for you: Is my argument as valid as the scientific laws it is based on? Namely the concept that every event has a cause.

--I do not see how I misused a correct description.

Semantics argument. You're straying from the point. Your definition of "absolute truth", which I have accepted, is "always true, without exception". Scientific laws NEVER state that they are always true without exception, as they always state exceptions. As I detailed above, your interpretation is incorrect. Conservation of Mass extends such that it is in a closed system, without regard to quantum mechanics, and without regard to special relativity. Meaning, it is limited in scope.


--I'm "Stryaing from the point" you brought up this issue in the argument. Scientific laws do state that they are always true without exception. Did you read the definition of scientific Law?

--Scientific Law: a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met.

--Definition of invariably: always; without exception

--"proven to invariably occur" = 'proven to occur always or without exception'

--That doesn't sound like your statement... actually, the definition of scientific law directly contradicts your statement...

"Scientific laws NEVER state that they are always true without exception"

--Actually, they all, by definition, are proven to occur without exception.

--As for the Law of conservation of mass: It does always apply to matter. If a theory relies on it not appying, then it is a false theory with illogical grounds.

Now, after modifying your argument, the fallacy is in C. Explain why all changes necessarily have a cause, without appealing to the Law of Causality.


--Of course I can't prove that! It is a basic postulate for the way everything happens. Prove to me that 1+1=2 in a way that doesn't use inductive reasoning in any way. A postulate is defined as a statement that is assumed true without proof. Yet all human knowledge is based upon such postulates. At some point we have to accept inductive reasoning as proof. Otherwise, we are left without being able to "prove" anything, no matter how basic or obvious.

A. The universe is defined as everything that is.
B. Only things that are can change
C. Change is limited to the universe
D. Time is only real when change exists.
E. Therefore, time cannot exist without the universe.


--I will analyze this in the same manner that you would... Statement (A.) cannot be proven; it is based on the assumption that just because the definition was as you stated it, then it must still apply. You used inductive reasoning to "prove" that the universe is defined as "everything that is". That is to say that you observed what the definition was. There is no way to conclusively "prove" that it was the actual definition. Now for statement (B.) [this is where the true fallacy arises]; There is no way to show that this is true(even using inductive reasoning). This is because we cannot, by definition, directly view things that do not exist, therefore, we cannot even begin predict what things that do not exist "can" and "can't" do. It is simply beyond the scope of human knowledge. Statement (C.) is a logical conclusion based on two false assumptions and is therefore false. Wow, statement (D.) really caught me off guard. There is no way to show that this is true at all. If an object sits perfectly still and doesn't change at all (because of the lack of energy present) does time still exist where that object is?

--Now, that is the way you are analyzing my argument. It has gone from: Is this argument using faulty logic? to: Does logic apply to this argument?

--One problem of understanding is this: We have been using two different definitions of universe in this argument.
-The universe= everything that exists
-The universe= All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

--The second definition--the one I've been using-- would not include anything "outside" of this local universe of matter and energy. It is logical that something exist outside of it. You appear to be using both of them sometimes in the same post.

You: "With OBSERVATIONS that are limited in scope to our known universe"

--Obviously, if the universe is defined as 'everything that is', then this would contradict itself by assuming there could be an "outside" to an all-encompasing universe.

--I hope that you were using the second definition in this case to avoid such contradiction.

You: "The universe is defined as everything that is."

--I think this statement speaks for itself as far as what definition of the universe you were using.

--To clear this up... I am going to tell you that I have only intended to use the second definition. From now on, lets use the big (U) for the first definition and little (u) for the other. When I argue for something "before" this universe, I mean something that existed not apart of this 'local' proportion of the bigger Universe casually prior to the big bang. I would assume that every part of the larger Universe (If there were to be other parts of said Universe) followed the same laws as our proportion of the Universe. This cannot be conclusively "proven". But in the same respect, neither can the laws of gravity, motion, or the basic postulates of deduction themselves.

--Your argument: That we cannot extend our knowledge further than we have directly observed. This argument(If completely true) could also be used against a statement such as this: A=A applies in interstellar space. According to your argument there is no way to show this is true. Humans have only tested our laws of logic within our solar system (in this case the reflexive property that everything has). You would say that the statement was using laws, proven only by inductive reasoning, which have only been observed working within this solar system's limits. You would say that applying said laws could not be extended beyond the limits of where we have tested them.

--Your argument is ridiculously unreasonable. Basic postulates such as those concerning causality and logic must, by definition of postulate, be assumed true. Otherwise, we have nothing.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 7:55:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'll respond to the rest of this later, but I'll defend my argument now, and perhaps you will need to readjust your response.

I will analyze this in the same manner that you would... Statement (A.) cannot be proven; it is based on the assumption that just because the definition was as you stated it, then it must still apply. You used inductive reasoning to "prove" that the universe is defined as "everything that is". That is to say that you observed what the definition was. There is no way to conclusively "prove" that it was the actual definition."

Incorrect. You are correct in saying that deductive proofs in their nature, deal with knowledge derived from definitions themselves. However, your attempt to argue that my looking up the definition is an inductive act is absurd, seeing as how both words and definitions are manmade and only serve to label concepts, not conclude facts. So no, your rebuttal fails there. If you want to pursue this, I will simply take extra steps to rephrase my argument in such a way that you can't complain about semantics, but I find that to be an unnecessary and immature way to continue this discussion.

Now for statement (B.) [this is where the true fallacy arises]; There is no way to show that this is true(even using inductive reasoning). This is because we cannot, by definition, directly view things that do not exist, therefore, we cannot even begin predict what things that do not exist "can" and "can't" do. It is simply beyond the scope of human knowledge.

Also incorrect. It is not surprising that you label it a fallacy and yet, have no idea what type of fallacy it is. This is a deductive statement, because it deals ONLY with definitions. First, existence is not a predicate. Properties of a thing may not be logically discussed until existence is specified. If something does not exist, it has no properties. Change is the alteration of properties from one state to another. Since a thing that doesn't exist HAS no properties, then by definition and by deductive proof, it cannot change. So no, it is not beyond the scope of human knowledge, it is pure, definitive, deductive proof.

Statement (C.) is a logical conclusion based on two false assumptions and is therefore false.

And since your rebuttals failed, this statement can be similarly rejected.

Wow, statement (D.) really caught me off guard. There is no way to show that this is true at all. If an object sits perfectly still and doesn't change at all (because of the lack of energy present) does time still exist where that object is?

To say that something exists is for a concept to have manifestation in reality. Time exists as a concept, but it can only manifest itself in reality when things change. Imagine a situation in which all mass and energy in the universe just decided to randomly stop for a period of 1 hour (which is absurd since hours are determined by change of physical things anyway). After that hour is up, there is no manifestation of that change in reality whatsoever. Realistically, that 1 hour time freeze never happened. All definitions and measurements of time are based on change. Therefore, without change, the concept of time has no connection to reality.

Each and every single one of these arguments are examples of deductive proofs, proofs which do not rely on conclusions drawn from derived data. They are derived only from the definitions of the actual words.

A simple request: If you don't understand something that I said, please don't hesitate to ask. I don't want this to drag out into a 10 page squabble over a misconception over something as simple as terminology.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 8:06:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
And here's a general overview of what's going on. I won't respond point by point yet because I have 4 finals this week.

Your argument reduces down to:

1. All things have a cause
2. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

You break it down into many little sub-proofs, but this is the gist of it.

You are essentially saying that since the Law of Causality is true, then #1 is true. This is where the problem is. It isn't the Law of Causality, its your application. The Law of Causality is an assertion made based on data.

I have two coins here. Both two-sided, heads and tails. I flipped coin A once, heads. I flip coin B once, heads. Under the conditions of the experiment, I conclude that when coins are flipped, they will land on heads.

Law of Coin = Coins will land on heads when flipped.

There is a debate about coin flipping. John will die if he flips tails and will live if he flips heads.

1. Law of Coin
2. Therefore, John will live.

Is this a valid proof? No. We have assumed that the premise is true, we assume that it is, but this doesn't make the conclusion valid.

I am not saying that the Law is false, nor am I saying that the Law is true, merely that the application of it as something that is always true is unwarranted. The Law of Coin was only tested with two coins, the Law of Causality is only based on thing occurring in this natural universe after it has come into existence.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 10:46:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't feel like sifting through all the garbage here, but I'll give my response to the original argument.

I'll accept the first main premise that the universe cannot have caused its own existence.

I have plenty of problems with the second, though.

** Prove: The Universe did not come into being, uncaused, from absolute nothingness.
This premise attempts to show that the universe could not have been uncaused, but it would fail to do so even if true. It is possible that the universe is uncaused but never "came into existence." But let me address the argument you put forward for this.

Premise 1: At any two points, given perfectly identical circumstances, the exact same events will occur with the exact same results.*
This statement has questionable validity due to quantum randomness, but it's not a major enough point that I feel the need to press it.

Premise 2: In absolute nothingness any two points are perfectly identical both in and of themselves and their circumstances.
In "absolute nothingness," there ARE NO POINTS. Since time merely a fabric of the universe, I can safely say that there is no point in time when the universe did not exist. Your "two points" are indeed the same - they are both undefined and nonexistent. However, neither of your points can possibly be "before" the universe, since "before" requires existing within the fabric of time.

Premise 3: In absolute nothingness there is no outside force that could possibly act upon any given point.
As I've said, absolute nothingness is also completely undefined. At no time did absolute nothingness exist, so you're going on about a false hypothetical.

Premise 4: There are at least two points in all of existence that are not perfectly identical.
Yes, but with the actual important premises having been refuted, this has no implications.

1. The universe has a finite age. [implication of physics, also an assumption we share]
2. Time is a part of the universe, and therefore does not predate the universe.
3. Something cannot have existed "before" time. ["before" only has meaning within the fabric of time]
4. Something cannot have existed "before" the universe. [2, 3]
5. Time and the universe share the same finite age. [1, 3, 4]
6. The universe has existed for all of time. There has never been a time when the universe has not existed. [5]
7. Absolute nothingness has never existed. [6]

Note how that just destroyed all implications of your argument. Sure, absolute nothingness can't change into stuff, but that means nothing if stuff has always existed and there wasn't ever absolute nothingness.

I could go on about how causation is a function of time and therefore it would be impossible for the universe to have a cause, or I could go on about how causation is a process that like all other processes works in the forward direction of time rather than the backward direction and therefore a beginning would not require a cause, but I feel I've made my point strongly enough.
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 11:32:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 8:06:56 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I am not saying that the Law is false, nor am I saying that the Law is true, merely that the application of it as something that is always true is unwarranted. The Law of Coin was only tested with two coins, the Law of Causality is only based on thing occurring in this natural universe after it has come into existence.
I would say that the "law of causality" is absolutely true, insofar as it's just the combination of all physics. Physics is what changes one state to another state with the passage of time, and that's really all that causality is. Given the evidence, I would be willing to assert very strongly that things will indeed change in accordance with physics with the passage of time; in other words, the current state of the universe will cause a later state that is different.

It is also possible to apply this "law" in the opposite direction, since the vast majority of physics is mathematically reversible (excepting the possibility of quantum randomness). This is extremely common, and it is not wrong (since physics is reversible), but it still requires that from the previous state and the current state there is a passage of time. That isn't true for points "outside" the universe compared to points inside the universe, so the idea of physics happening between those points, and therefore the idea of causality, becomes completely meaningless.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2009 3:48:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 11:32:35 PM, omelet wrote:
At 11/30/2009 8:06:56 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I am not saying that the Law is false, nor am I saying that the Law is true, merely that the application of it as something that is always true is unwarranted. The Law of Coin was only tested with two coins, the Law of Causality is only based on thing occurring in this natural universe after it has come into existence.
I would say that the "law of causality" is absolutely true, insofar as it's just the combination of all physics. Physics is what changes one state to another state with the passage of time, and that's really all that causality is. Given the evidence, I would be willing to assert very strongly that things will indeed change in accordance with physics with the passage of time; in other words, the current state of the universe will cause a later state that is different.

It is also possible to apply this "law" in the opposite direction, since the vast majority of physics is mathematically reversible (excepting the possibility of quantum randomness). This is extremely common, and it is not wrong (since physics is reversible), but it still requires that from the previous state and the current state there is a passage of time. That isn't true for points "outside" the universe compared to points inside the universe, so the idea of physics happening between those points, and therefore the idea of causality, becomes completely meaningless.

I like the way this is put. I've grown weary of posting in this topic and Omelet made some very good points. The end point, no matter how you spin it, is that the logical argument set forth by OP is invalid. In fact, OP should have known it was invalid simply based on the fact that it is 2009 A.D. Cosmological proof has existed for thousands of years, and this is simply a recycled and rehashed version of old proofs. If it didn't work then, it won't work now, despite how many bells and whistles OP decides to hang on it. The question shouldn't be "Is this wrong?" The question should be "How is this wrong?" And that question has been answered, despite the irrational resistance that OP has put into defending an argument that has been debunked by people across centuries.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2009 4:59:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Kleptin: "Incorrect. You are correct in saying that deductive proofs in their nature, deal with knowledge derived from definitions themselves. However, your attempt to argue that my looking up the definition is an inductive act is absurd, seeing as how both words and definitions are manmade and only serve to label concepts, not conclude facts. So no, your rebuttal fails there. If you want to pursue this, I will simply take extra steps to rephrase my argument in such a way that you can't complain about semantics, but I find that to be an unnecessary and immature way to continue this discussion."

--I would agree that it would be immature. I also agree that your definition is correct and that it is unreasonable to question it on the ground which I did. However, my purpose here is not that of a rebuttal. I was merely trying to show that you were attacking my argument in a similar way. Here is an example:

Kleptin: "As of right now, you have not proven that all things which begin must have been caused, because it is nothing but a derived statement from the overarching assumption "All things that ever were and ever will be, have a cause"."

--This seems to be in the same fashion as my 'rebuttal'. See my defence below.

--First, although it only makes a minimal difference, I only said effects have a cause. That is my assumption. I also "assume" that all events are effects. (i.e. truely random and spontaneous events do not occur) All of this, like every other scientific law, has been reasonably demonstrated to be true within our scope of observations, that is, the entire known Universe that has so far been observed.

--I would ask whether you agree with the following statement: Within our scope of observations, this "assumption" that I have made reguarding causality has been reasonably proven.

Kleptin: "So no, it is not beyond the scope of human knowledge, it is pure, definitive, deductive proof."

--I will agree that your argument which argues that time exists only within our universe. Once again, my rebuttal was more of a mockery of your arguments against the laws which govern cause and effect. It was attempting to show that even though your argument was correct, that using your argument against inductive reasoning would show it to be unverifiable. Apparently, I must have misunderstood your argument.

--My true thoughts on your argument: It was correct. However, using the definition of Universe which you provided, most of your argument was unnecessary. See below:

A. The Universe is defined as containing everything that exists
B. Time exists
C. Therefore time exists only within the Universe

--Much more simple. But none the less we agree. The post in which I appear to disagree is no more than a confusion of semantics. I was saying that time could exist outside of this local universe. By "local universe" I mean all of that which resulted from our 'big bang'. I am saying that time could have existed ouside of this area in which the big bang took place. This is not inconcievable and is not addressed by your argument. It would, however, be absurd to argue that time could exist outside of the entire Universe(all-encompasing definition). Which is why I do not argue for it.

Kleptin: "I don't want this to drag out into a 10 page squabble over a misconception over something as simple as terminology."

--Nor do I. I wish only to debate the actual argument which I submitted and all which is relevant.

Kleptin :
"Your argument reduces down to:

1. All things have a cause
2. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

You break it down into many little sub-proofs, but this is the gist of it."

--I will (to avoid any more of the confusion which seems to have manifested itself in both our arguments) state my arguments and definitions.

universe = all which resulted from the big bang

A. All changes have a cause
B. A beginning is a change
C. Every beginning has a cause
D.The universe had a beginning
E. The universe had a cause

--It is important to note the difference in your interpretation of the argument as "everything has a cause" and my actual argument "All changes have a cause", which is that mine is more specific.

-- When I refer to the beginning of the universe(little u) I am refering to the big bang.

Kleptin: "I am not saying that the Law is false, nor am I saying that the Law is true, merely that the application of it as something that is always true is unwarranted. The Law of Coin was only tested with two coins, the Law of Causality is only based on thing occurring in this natural universe after it has come into existence."

--I wish to know what definition of universe you are using. My response will depend on it.

--While I will agree that it is, at this point, impossible to know whether or not it is absolutely true. It (the law) could be described as something which, through inductive proof and observation, has been true in every instance observed. (save quantum mechanics which it is important to note is still being debated on)

--Therefore it is "reasonable" to suggest that it applied to things which existed before the big bang. Which is within our "Universe"(big U). AlthoughI will concede that it does not conclusively prove beyond a doubt that it applied; Even if it is more than overwellmingly probable.

--I believe that you may be mistaking my argument that this local universe(little u) had a cause for an argument that everything in existance(including everything outside this universe) had a cause.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2009 7:23:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Omelet: "In "absolute nothingness," there ARE NO POINTS. Since time merely a fabric of the universe, I can safely say that there is no point in time when the universe did not exist. Your "two points" are indeed the same - they are both undefined and nonexistent. However, neither of your points can possibly be "before" the universe, since "before" requires existing within the fabric of time."

--If you are using this definition of Universe: (everything that exists) then your argument, while not terribly flawed, does not apply to my argument which is using the definition: (everything which resulted from the big bang).

--If you are using the same definition of universe as I am then you are incorrect in your assumptions. First off, you assume that points cannot exist without time. This is false. A point can exist atemporaly. Time is just a measure af change. If I have a point which contains nothing and ten miniutes later(by the standards of an on-looker) still contains nothing, then no change has occured and time did not affect that point. Yet it still exists.

-- You assert that time didn't exist before this local universe existed. This is also impossible. See my argument showing this below:

A. The universe had a beginning
B. A beginning is a change
C. Change can only exist where time exists
D. Therefore the universe began where time existed

Omelet: "As I've said, absolute nothingness is also completely undefined. At no time did absolute nothingness exist, so you're going on about a false hypothetical."

--This is based purely on the definition of absolute nothingness.

Absolute nothingness = state of nothing which is free from imperfection

--If nothing existed everywhere then there could not be any forces what so ever. Also, as you can see by the definition of absolute nothingness... it is defined. Therefore my premise stands.

Omelet:

"1. The universe has a finite age. [implication of physics, also an assumption we share]
2. Time is a part of the universe, and therefore does not predate the universe.
3. Something cannot have existed "before" time. ["before" only has meaning within the fabric of time]
4. Something cannot have existed "before" the universe. [2, 3]
5. Time and the universe share the same finite age. [1, 3, 4]
6. The universe has existed for all of time. There has never been a time when the universe has not existed. [5]
7. Absolute nothingness has never existed. [6]"

--IF you are using the "all-encompasing" definition of universe, then your argument is flawed in lines 1,5,6, and 7. Basicly because the Universe in this larger sense could not have had a beginning (see my argument below). This means that premise 1 and all of the premises based on it are false.

A. A beginning requires a change to take place
B. Change cannot exist without time
C. If the Universe began, then it would require the existance of time [A,B]
D. Time only exists within the Universe
E. Time could not have existed before the Universe existed [D]
F. Therefore the Universe could not have had a beginning [C,E]

--IF you used the local (big bang) definition of universe, then statements 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are flawed. This is because time is not limited to the local universe and must have existed before it did. See my first argument at the top of my post. Therefore statements 2, 5 and all of the premises relying on them are false.

Omelet: "Note how that just destroyed all implications of your argument. Sure, absolute nothingness can't change into stuff, but that means nothing if stuff has always existed and there wasn't ever absolute nothingness."

--Note how that didn't affect any of my premises, or argument, or its implications. As for absolute nothingness never existing, that's why the universe couldn't have come from it. Its in the last line of my argument before the conclusion in the second premise's argument.

Omelet: "I could go on about how causation is a function of time and therefore it would be impossible for the universe to have a cause,"

-- You could, and I could refer back to my rebuttal of your rebuttal and how the Universe(all-encompasing) could not have even had a beginning, and therefore, obviously it could not have been caused. But then I would point out that the Universe(all-encompasing) was not the topic of my argument and is therefore irrelevant.

Omelet: "I could go on about how causation is a process that like all other processes works in the forward direction of time rather than the backward direction and therefore a beginning would not require a cause,"

--Once again, you could do that, but it would be futile. This is because there was no beginning of the Universe(all-encompasing) and therefore no beginning of time. If time didn't have a beginning then that nonexistant beginning would not need a cause.

Omelet: "but I feel I've made my point strongly enough."

--My response... "Hahahahahahaha... this is hilarious." You didn't make any valid points against my argument in your entire post.

Omelet: "That isn't true for points "outside" the universe compared to points inside the universe, so the idea of physics happening between those points, and therefore the idea of causality, becomes completely meaningless."

--Points "outside" the Universe(everything that exists) by definition don't exist.

--Points "outside" the universe(everything resulting from the big bang) would still exist within the framework of time and therefore would still follow causality. (as long as they are still within the Universe[everything that exists].)

--I hope this cleared up some of the misunderstandings in the interpretations of my argument.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.