An Infinite Past?

[shunyadragon]

Yes, the idea of "supernatural causation" which has been discussed in this thread is the idea which I was referencing as being non-cogent. As I've mentioned several times, if someone would like to present definitions for "supernatural" and "causation" which would make "supernatural causation" a cogent concept, I would love to discuss the notion.

I most strongly object the misuse of cosmogony arguments for the existence of God like those propose by Craig, seer, and others selectively misusing science and cosmology as a basis for justifying these arguments. Yes, the relationship with Methodological Naturalism is not a cogent concept, and these arguments are not cogent arguments.

The Baha'i view avoids these arguments today, and considers Creation not supernatural, but by natural processes we observe through Methodological Naturalism. In the Baha'i Faith Methodological Naturalism is a form of independent Revelation describing Creation from the human perspective, and ALL scripture including Baha'i scripture must conform to the evolving nature of scientific knowledge. One key difference between the Baha'i Faith and the view of ancient religions, is that the Baha'i view is spiritual and physical knowledge is temporal and changes evolving over time. Ancient religions classically believe that some religious beliefs are fixed and do not change, and as a result the constantly evolving changing knowledge of science is threatening in some way with the foundation of their beliefs. I have discussed the concepts and views of the Baha'i Faith in a thread in Comparative Religions and here in Philosophy, which you may read and comment. JimL has had strong objections to my arguments, because he considers the Baha'i view of the Nature of God and Creation illogical. I do not appeal to human logic in this particular argument, because regardless of whether you believe in God or not, human logic could not comprehend the Worlds of God regardless of whether they are real or not.

[shunyadragon]

So your argument, like I suggested, is based on ignorance. You don't know how that can be so it can't be. Our existence is spatio-temporal therefore all existence must be so.

The problem is likewise true for your arguments in that you propose that science has no physical evidence, therefore our physical existence must have a beginning, which you misuse to support your argument for the necessity of Creation by a Source outside our physical existence

I'm specifically asking what space is made of. You denied that it was made of quantum particles so I'm asking - is space nothingness?

Space is the dimensional nature of the physical existence that only exists in the space/time continuum.

But your only real objection was based on time. Is that all you have?

The real objection is the clinging to the argument that our physical existence must have a beginning (in time?), because science has no physical evidence for an infinite past. A classic argument from ignorance.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So your argument, like I suggested, is based on ignorance. You don't know how that can be so it can't be. Our existence is spatio-temporal therefore all existence must be so.

No. Existence is a spatio-temporal concept. In order to assert that it is possible for something which is not spatio-temporal to exist, one must first provide a definition for existence which is cogent in the absence of space-time.

I'm specifically asking what space is made of. You denied that it was made of quantum particles so I'm asking - is space nothingness?

And I told you that it is not a composite of component parts. It is nonsensical to ask what a thing is made of when it is not composed of other things.

But your only real objection was based on time. Is that all you have?

No, that was not my only real objection. Again, I explicitly addressed the idea of causation both on the view that time is real and on the view that it doesn't.

[seer]

No. Existence is a spatio-temporal concept. In order to assert that it is possible for something which is not spatio-temporal to exist, one must first provide a definition for existence which is cogent in the absence of space-time.

Again no. Existence as we know it is a spatio-temporal concept, but why is our limited understanding the standard for anything?

And I told you that it is not a composite of component parts. It is nonsensical to ask what a thing is made of when it is not composed of other things.

So again, is space nothingness?

No, that was not my only real objection. Again, I explicitly addressed the idea of causation both on the view that time is real and on the view that it doesn't.

What? Your whole argument was based on the idea that time was real. If time is an illusion then what exactly is the problem?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Again no. Existence as we know it is a spatio-temporal concept, but why is our limited understanding the standard for anything?

If you are going to propose that there is some way of existing which is not spatio-temporal, the onus is on you to provide a cogent definition for that concept.

So again, is space nothingness?

No. Space is space.

What? Your whole argument was based on the idea that time was real. If time is an illusion then what exactly is the problem?

No, it was not. My whole argument was that the idea that the universe could have been caused or created is not cogent. I explicitly stated that "causation" and "creation" are not cogent concepts in the absence of space and time. If time is wholly illusory, as in Barbour's model, then the universe is static and eternal, and could not possibly have been "caused" or "created." I have maintained this position from the first point at which you mentioned Barbour's illusory time theory.

[seer]

If you are going to propose that there is some way of existing which is not spatio-temporal, the onus is on you to provide a cogent definition for that concept.

What did I say about playing by your rules? I have no reason to assume that our severely limited knowledge and understanding is the standard for deciding what is possible or not possible - why should I? The supernatural by definition would not be explainable in materialistic terms, which is exactly what you are requiring me to do. So again, you stack the deck and claim victory.

No. Space is space.

What does that mean? You say it is not made of anything, so it must be nothingness, and if it is not nothingness then what? I mean really, talk about not being cogent.

No, it was not. My whole argument was that the idea that the universe could have been caused or created is not cogent. I explicitly stated that "causation" and "creation" are not cogent concepts in the absence of space and time. If time is wholly illusory, as in Barbour's model, then the universe is static and eternal, and could not possibly have been "caused" or "created." I have maintained this position from the first point at which you mentioned Barbour's illusory time theory.

No, I'm not depending on Barbour's model, I quoted and linked other physicists who basically said that either time is an illusion or that we really have no idea what it is. If that is the case then your argument, at this point, as little merit since we don't even know what time is.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

What did I say about playing by your rules? I have no reason to assume that our severely limited knowledge and understanding is the standard for deciding what is possible or not possible - why should I? The supernatural by definition would not be explainable in materialistic terms, which is exactly what you are requiring me to do. So again, you stack the deck and claim victory.

How is it stacking the deck? Again, if you want to have a rational discussion about a thing, we need to have some idea about what that thing is. If I made the claim that everything in the universe is explained perfectly by the floobergast, you wouldn't just accept that claim. You'd ask me to explain what I mean by "floobergast" and how that applies in reality. Once again, if you are attempting to persuade people of a view, you have the burden of explaining and supporting that view. If you are not attempting to persuade people of a view, your comments are irrelevant to the thread.

What does that mean? You say it is not made of anything, so it must be nothingness, and if it is not nothingness then what? I mean really, talk about not being cogent.

That's a preposterous non sequitur. Something does not become nothingness simply because it is not composite. In fact, I'm fairly sure that you don't even believe this-- after all, you don't think that God is made of anything, do you? Must God therefore be nothingness?

No, I'm not depending on Barbour's model, I quoted and linked other physicists who basically said that either time is an illusion or that we really have no idea what it is. If that is the case then your argument, at this point, as little merit since we don't even know what time is.

And, once again, I discussed this. It doesn't matter whether you are asking after Barbour's model, or Carroll's, or Greene's, or anyone else's. Supernatural creation of the universe remains a non-cogent concept. If time is illusory, supernatural causation is non cogent because the universe is static and eternal. If time is not illusory, supernatural causation is not cogent as there was literally never a time when time did not exist. I don't understand why you continue to ignore the fact that I have addressed this, several times.

[Tassman]

The point is Tass, that we still do not have a clue.

That is simply not the case. There are several working hypotheses under serious consideration which are based upon rational inference and supported by sound mathematics.

And even if quantum tunneling can get us past the present boundary problem how does that get us to an eternal past.

Nobody, even Vilenkin, explains how that gets us to a past eternal state.

He does in fact. Vilenkin provides several possible options that get us to a past-eternal state as does Guth with his fractal pattern of universes hypothesis. And there are others. This is a work at the cutting edge of science with a long way to go as yet. It is far too soon to draw definitive conclusions of the type you are attempting so as to sustain your assumption of Creatio Ex Nihilo.

[seer]

How is it stacking the deck? Again, if you want to have a rational discussion about a thing, we need to have some idea about what that thing is. If I made the claim that everything in the universe is explained perfectly by the floobergast, you wouldn't just accept that claim. You'd ask me to explain what I mean by "floobergast" and how that applies in reality. Once again, if you are attempting to persuade people of a view, you have the burden of explaining and supporting that view. If you are not attempting to persuade people of a view, your comments are irrelevant to the thread.

Boxing one more time. If the universe has a supernatural genesis how could I even begin to explain that in a way that would satisfy you? You are explicitly or implicitly requiring me to offer a naturalistic explanation, one that makes sense to you, which I decidedly can't do. And again, I have no reason to assume that our severely limited knowledge and understanding is the standard for deciding what is possible or not possible.

That's a preposterous non sequitur. Something does not become nothingness simply because it is not composite. In fact, I'm fairly sure that you don't even believe this-- after all, you don't think that God is made of anything, do you? Must God therefore be nothingness?

Oh good, so now you comparing space to a supernatural God! The fact is Boxing, like time, we really do not know what space is. So it is not cogent to suggest a supernatural source for properties that we are clueless about! Really Boxing?

And, once again, I discussed this. It doesn't matter whether you are asking after Barbour's model, or Carroll's, or Greene's, or anyone else's. Supernatural creation of the universe remains a non-cogent concept. If time is illusory, supernatural causation is non cogent because the universe is static and eternal. If time is not illusory, supernatural causation is not cogent as there was literally never a time when time did not exist. I don't understand why you continue to ignore the fact that I have addressed this, several times.

That is false Boxing, time being an illusion is not dependent on the universe being static. That is only Barbour's model. That was not necessary to the quotes in Greene's link. And Carroll, who thinks we will, in the future, find that time is real and fundamental, still says at this point that we are basically clueless. So again, you are basing your cogent, non-cogent argument on the creation of properties that we really do not understand. Like I said, that is both thin and premature.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Boxing one more time. If the universe has a supernatural genesis how could I even begin to explain that in a way that would satisfy you? You are explicitly or implicitly requiring me to offer a naturalistic explanation, one that makes sense to you, which I decidedly can't do. And again, I have no reason to assume that our severely limited knowledge and understanding is the standard for deciding what is possible or not possible.

I have no idea how to support the idea of supernatural genesis, which is why I do not support it. However, once again, you are the one who has been asking others to take supernatural genesis into account. That puts the burden of supporting that position on you.

Oh good, so now you comparing space to a supernatural God! The fact is Boxing, like time, we really do not know what space is. So it is not cogent to suggest a supernatural source for properties that we are clueless about! Really Boxing?

It is not true that we re clueless about either space or time. We are not certain about their natures, but we have a great many clues as to how they operate. This allows us to create models which make predictions, which in turn allow us to perform experiments in an attempt to disconfirm our models, thereby allowing us to refine our models and make them more accurate. So, while we are not certain that time or space works in one specific manner, we are certain of a great many ways in which time and space do not work. This is the nature of the physical sciences.

That is false Boxing, time being an illusion is not dependent on the universe being static. That is only Barbour's model. That was not necessary to the quotes in Greene's link. And Carroll, who thinks we will, in the future, find that time is real and fundamental, still says at this point that we are basically clueless. So again, you are basing your cogent, non-cogent argument on the creation of properties that we really do not understand. Like I said, that is both thin and premature.

Dynamism and staticness are logical opposites, and the only thing separating them is the reality of time. If time is illusory, the universe is static-- on all models which suggest illusory time, not just Barbour's. There is no way to have a dynamic universe without time, as dynamism is a function of time. Again, the fact that we do not wholly understand something does not mean that we are clueless about its operation.

[seer]

I have no idea how to support the idea of supernatural genesis, which is why I do not support it. However, once again, you are the one who has been asking others to take supernatural genesis into account. That puts the burden of supporting that position on you.

It is not true that we re clueless about either space or time. We are not certain about their natures, but we have a great many clues as to how they operate. This allows us to create models which make predictions, which in turn allow us to perform experiments in an attempt to disconfirm our models, thereby allowing us to refine our models and make them more accurate. So, while we are not certain that time or space works in one specific manner, we are certain of a great many ways in which time and space do not work. This is the nature of the physical sciences.

Dynamism and staticness are logical opposites, and the only thing separating them is the reality of time. If time is illusory, the universe is static-- on all models which suggest illusory time, not just Barbour's. There is no way to have a dynamic universe without time, as dynamism is a function of time. Again, the fact that we do not wholly understand something does not mean that we are clueless about its operation.

OK, I think we have been over this enough. Just one question which I think you have been avoiding. Why should our severely limited knowledge and understanding be the standard for deciding what is possible or not possible.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

OK, I think we have been over this enough. Just one question which I think you have been avoiding. Why should our severely limited knowledge and understanding be the standard for deciding what is possible or not possible.

It is the standard for demonstrating what is and is not possible. Once again, it's a matter of persuasive argument. You are free to make any decisions you so desire. However, if you ask other people to share that decision, it is unreasonable to expect that they would accept a concept without first understanding it.

[seer]

It is the standard for demonstrating what is and is not possible. Once again, it's a matter of persuasive argument. You are free to make any decisions you so desire. However, if you ask other people to share that decision, it is unreasonable to expect that they would accept a concept without first understanding it.

But that is the problem Boxing, your standard or requirement is arbitrary. As is what you will accept as cogent or non-cogent. This is why it is fruitless to attempt to persuade you. And why I'm a Presuppositionalist. And you have yet to offer a "cogent" reason to accept the idea that our limited experience and knowledge can be a standard for deciding such a question.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But that is the problem Boxing, your standard or requirement is arbitrary. As is what you will accept as cogent or non-cogent. This is why it is fruitless to attempt to persuade you.

I really don't think that it is unreasonable to ask someone to use clearly defined terms and consistent logic in order to support their claim. I'm not even asking for physical evidence, at this point. I'm just trying to understand what you mean when you use words like "supernatural," "exists," and "cause."

And you have yet to offer a "cogent" reason to accept the idea that our limited experience and knowledge can be a standard for deciding such a question.

Because that is a Straw Man. I'm not attempting to "decide" what is and is not possible. I'm trying to evaluate whether specific claims make sense. We haven't even gotten to the point of deciding whether or not the claim is possible, as we still haven't laid out exactly what is being claimed.

[seer]

I really don't think that it is unreasonable to ask someone to use clearly defined terms and consistent logic in order to support their claim. I'm not even asking for physical evidence, at this point. I'm just trying to understand what you mean when you use words like "supernatural," "exists," and "cause."

Please Boxing, I think we both know what I mean by supernatural, cause or exist. Standard dictionary definitions would do.

supernatural: Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature

cause: anything producing an effect or result

existence: the act of existing; state or fact of being

Because that is a Straw Man. I'm not attempting to "decide" what is and is not possible. I'm trying to evaluate whether specific claims make sense. We haven't even gotten to the point of deciding whether or not the claim is possible, as we still haven't laid out exactly what is being claimed.

You are correct, I still can't understand why our limited, finite experience is in a position to decide such questions. What justifies that claim?