Who's Calling, Please?

[El Cid]

Nevertheless, most cosmologists agree that space, time, and matter did have a beginning.

Most cosmologists don't think God was responsible.

Yes, but many times in the history of science the majority view has been wrong.

Down thru history when we had doubts whether logic would apply in some unusual situations, we just assumed that logic would be valid and 9 times out 10 it did.

I'm not saying logic is invalid, I'm saying that if information isn't known logic can't take it into account.

But as I stated above there have been situations in the past where we didnt have much information at all about a situation and we didnt even know if logic would be valid but when we assumed that logic was valid, everything fell into place and we made great discoveries.

Nevertheless there is evidence for it.

Not enough to establish it as true.

That is true of many scientific theories, but there is also evidence that time may not even be needed for causality.

 

[Whatsisface]

Yes, but many times in the history of science the majority view has been wrong.

You said this earlier ... "Nevertheless, most cosmologists agree that space, time, and matter did have a beginning".

Many times in the history of science the majority view has been wrong, right?

But as I stated above there have been situations in the past where we didnt have much information at all about a situation and we didnt even know if logic would be valid but when we assumed that logic was valid, everything fell into place and we made great discoveries.

Such as?

 

[El Cid]

Zeno’s paradox is as actual an infinity as the the one you are attempting to imply. You know nothing about how either a collapsing or an expanding infinite function applies in reality. Nothing. This is just a philosophical game to you - as infinities are also categorized in actual mathematical situations whether collapsing or expanding.

Christians really need to drop these “infinity” arguments. They are meaningless.

No, we know that "slicing' the micro-distance between two objects an infinite number of times is not an actual/real infinite distance because when we measure at the macro level, the distance is easily measurable and not infinite. So an infinite number of cause and effect events at the macro level would be an actual/real infinite.

 

[5wize]

No, we know that "slicing' the micro-distance between two objects an infinite number of times is not an actual/real infinite distance because when we measure at the macro level, the distance is easily measurable and not infinite. So an infinite number of cause and effect events at the macro level would be an actual/real infinite.

You like making stuff up, don’t you. Oh well. When the basis of one’s life is make believe, there is no stopping it from there. All reality is allowed to suffer.

I’ll go tell my math professor he was wrong. An evangelical on Carm said so.

 

[El Cid]

That is one possible interpretation, but it could also mean that the extreme conditions themselves point toward the supernatural so that natural laws breakdown.

Okay, your claim "the laws of physics break down, thereby pointing toward a cause that transcends nature, ie a supernatural Cause" is neverheless refuted. All you can now claim is that the breakdown of the laws of science might indicate a a cause that transcends nature

No, my interpretation is just as possible as yours. It is not refuted.

And there is other evidence that point in that direction. A cause cannot be part of the effect, ie the universe. The cause must be "outside' the universe which has all the characteristics of an effect. The cause must transcend Nature, ie supernatural.

Transcend nature in the sense of being outside the universe, sure, but no reason to suppose it has the other properties of God.

Yes, there is evidence that the cause DOES have the properties of God. Scientists study the characteristics of the effect to determine the characteristics of the cause. For example, the universe has purposes in it, ie eyes for seeing and ears for hearing. Only a personal intelligent being can create purposes for things.

Or the universe could be uncaused; it appeared spotaneous. Or it is cyclic. Or an infinite regress. Or something even more bizarre. We just do not know.

Most of the evidence points to it being an effect and therefore needing a cause. Right now it appears there is too much dark matter for it to be cyclic. And there is unlikely to be an infinite regress because we would never reach the present, but obviously we have reached the present so that means that the past is finite.

 

[The Pixie]

No, my interpretation is just as possible as yours. It is not refuted.

Your claim was that "The cause must be "outside' the universe which has all the characteristics of an effect. The cause must transcend Nature, ie supernatural." That claim that it "must" has been refuted.

Now you have moved the goalposts, and made the rather weaker claim that COULD BE supernatural. In fact, you are now agreeing with me that "We just do not know."

Yes, there is evidence that the cause DOES have the properties of God. Scientists study the characteristics of the effect to determine the characteristics of the cause. For example, the universe has purposes in it, ie eyes for seeing and ears for hearing.

This sees very ad hoc. Why should we suppose eyes serve a purpose to the universe? Or a purpose to anything outside that organism?

Can you show me a cosmologist who says the universe has a purpose for eyes?

Only a personal intelligent being can create purposes for things.

Then you need to show that eyes serve some purpose for the supposed creator.

Most of the evidence points to it being an effect and therefore needing a cause. Right now it appears there is too much dark matter for it to be cyclic. And there is unlikely to be an infinite regress because we would never reach the present, but obviously we have reached the present so that means that the past is finite.

Personally I find cyclic and infinite regress intuitively unlikely, but we really do not understand it enough to rule either out. Spontaneous creation or generated from some non-intelligent cause seem more likely.

But again: We just do not know.