2
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + − == Always necessary == − With One Exception: [[God]]. Any [[science|scientist]] is familiar with ''fundamental properties of nature'' that neither he nor any of his colleagues can possibly explain--except to say, "That's the way [[God]] made them." − − But an ''action'', or a ''process'' (which is a series of actions), ''never'' occurs without cause. Sometimes the cause is another, similar action that eventually provoked it. Such a thing is similar to a term in a [[mathematics|mathematical]] [[sequence]]. To illustrate, the set of counting numbers is a sequence. Every number N<sub>i</sub> after the number 1 is equal to N<sub>(i-1)</sub> + 1. But--''the set of counting numbers, as a sequence, had to have a definite first number.'' In this case, that number is 1. (The set of non-directed whole numbers behaves similarly, but its first number is 0, not 1.) − − But, you ask, what about the set of [[integer]]s, which is directed? That has neither beginning nor end. True--but the set of integers is not a sequence. Sequences, by definition, have beginnings, though they do not necessarily have ends. − − ::::This is a flawed appeal to causality. On a quantum level, events need not have a cause.-Barnes − − Number theory: Integers can be counted by re-ordering them (eg, 0, 1, -1, 2, -2...). Real (ie, rational + irrational) numbers cannot be counted & are a higher level of infinity. How would they have a beginning?[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT) − :I already said that integers are not a sequence. By definition, a sequence has a first term.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 21:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT) − − ''Any process in nature must be a sequence.'' The beating of your heart is a sequence. And the descent of human beings from generation to generation is a sequence. But that, too, had to have a beginning. That beginning must have been the first couple--or, to an [[atheist]], it is simply the first species, and ultimately, the first cell. − − And where did that first cell come from? Even [[Charles Darwin]] frankly admitted that, if that first cell could not have assembled itself from simpler raw materials, then the mechanism of the origin of life would become impossible to imagine. − − ::::Misquoting Darwin are we? -Barnes − − ''Something'' had to make that first cell. Even if you assume, like [[Francis Crick]], that the first cell on [[earth]] came from another [[planet]], you then have to ask whence came the first cell on that planet. Did that first cell come from yet another planet? − − Even that sort of process would have to have a first planet--because once upon a time, no such things as planets existed. Anywhere. Unless you somehow want to assume that the universe is in a steady state. Does any [[astronomy|astronomer]] accept that proposition? I doubt it. − − Those of you who maintain that the "first cause" creates problems of its own, should present those problems here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:14, 8 March 2007 (EST) − − :A few questions- − #WHY is a diety exempted from first causes? − #How does your reasoning square itself with many aspects of quantum theory, where Effects can occur spontaneously and without Cause. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT) − ::In answer: [[God]] ''is'' the ultimate First Cause of everything. He is Eternal. If He were not, then He wouldn't be God. − ::The creation of the universe is a quantum-level event. − − #You have not explained why a diety is exempt from needing a cause, you have simply asserted that you believe it is. − #All physicists consider the creation of the universe a quantum level event − #Do you disagree that non-causality is present in quantum physics? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:43, 13 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::Indeed, if the Universe had a creation at all, it would ''have'' to be a quantum event. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT) − − :::You have just suggested an explanation for [[God]]--that He ''is'' a Quantum Entity. − − :::::Why is such a complex being a necessity in a field that we have already established is exempt from causality? -Barnes − − :::I'm not sure that I accept that, however--because ours is a remarkably ''ordered'' universe. Can quantum processes produce order? And such order as we still see? I doubt it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::::"ours is a remarkably ''ordered'' universe"-- Compared to what? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 12:43, 18 March 2008 (EDT) − − :::::Our universe is ordered by any reasonable standard whatsoever. The closest we can come to the "standard of comparison" you demand above is the reasonable expectation of order from the laws of probability, and in particular the Law of Averages. Specifically, value after value after value, among what physicists today call the "defined constants" of the universe, lies within a ''very'' narrow tolerance for life even to exist. An honest statistician could accept maybe one such value falling within such a narrow tolerance--but hundreds? The odds against that are nothing short of astronomical. That's what I mean by an ordered universe--ordered to allow life to exist and to thrive.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:48, 18 March 2008 (EDT) − − :::::The standard for life is not a standard which is free from personal bias. Symmetrically, our universe is inferior to the complete high energy symmetries which existed within the first milliseconds of the big bang.[[User:Barnes|Barnes]] − − ::::''God'' is subject to the rules of quantum physics? − − ::::As to 'order' - leaving aside for now the question of precise definition - there's one example that leaps to mind; quantum fluctuations during inflation lead to density perturbations in the early Universe, which seed the formation of large-scale structure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT) − − How would quantum fluctuations cause an inflation? Surely the vacuum energy would be the same as it is now and thus cause infinitely more expansions than simply the one bang. − − :::::And BTW: what you put in sounds like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT) − − === A creator? === − <reduce indent> − − I think we're talking at cross purposes. I never mentioned God. I think you were thrown by my use of the word 'creation.' I simply meant it as shorthand for the beginning of the Universe; it wasn't intended to imply the act of a creator. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:14, 13 March 2007 (EDT) − − :Well, maybe you weren't. But I was, and am.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::Ah; so when you said "The creation of the universe is not a quantum-level event," you weren't referring to naturalistic models, but to divine creation? That sounds suspiciously like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]] to me. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT) − :::If you want to suggest that the First Moment in the universe--whatever you wish to call it--was a quantum-level event, and that your theory predicts that, that's fine. But then your theory has to account for the striking amount of order that we still see in the universe today. − :::And it has to account for a large number of findings that simply are not consistent with "spontaneous generation" of planets. Many of these findings are right here in our solar system--some on the earth itself, but others on the other planets.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::::A quantum origin is one possibility; a past-eternal Universe is another. I already gave an example of one process which leads naturally to order. This is getting a bit off-topic, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT) − − Theological subarguments and TerryH's disagreements with inflation aside, two glaring questions haven't been answered- − #''Why'' would a diety be exempt from first causes? It is not sufficient to simply say that any diety would be exempt because they are a diety, that's circular logic. I want an explaination as to exactly why a diety would exist without a cause. − #Does TerryH accept that quantum mechanics contain non-causalities? He doesn't have to accept them as the cause of the universe, simply state whether or not he acepts their existance. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::Since the debate seems to have ended, I'd like to propose a close with the answers '''No''','''Indeterminable''' and '''Indeterminable'''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT) − − ==Indeterminable== − − We won't know until we understand all of physics completely, and we may never get there. − − [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]] − − Seconded. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:32, 12 November 2007 (EST) − − ==Causation itself is unnecessary== − Causation isn't even a part of modern physics. Physics, at least when it is being precise, speaks of the relations between physical objects, not of causes with effects. These attempts to prove the existence of God are ultimately just sophistry and they will convince no one. Read Matthew 13. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:18, 17 November 2007 (EST)
Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible? (view source)
Revision as of 22:12, December 15, 2008
, 22:12, December 15, 2008Replacing page with '{{debate}} You have two cows.'
{{debate}}
{{debate}}
You have two cows.