wiegraf: @mr anony, what does supernatural mean in this context?

@avi,

A realm beyond the natural

Mr_Anony:
Continuing.......if it is true that this cause of the universe transcends the natural, we can deduce that there must be a realm beyond the natural from which it is possible to bring natural events to be. This tells us that a supernatural realm must exist. Do you agree? If not, give your contentions.

(Note: It doesn't prove God, or the exact nature of the supernatural all it tells us for now is that a supernatural realm exists)

Now, now, Mr Anony. Supernatural is your own description. What you think it may be.

You are also making an assumption that a pre-beginning of this universe is still existing. It is not as far as we know.
It also doesn't tell us a supernatural must exist. It just tells us something MAY have existed. Maybe another universe with a different set of natural laws. Maybe another dimension. Maybe a lot of things.

Avicenna:
Now, now, Mr Anony. Supernatural is your own description. What you think it may be.

You are also making an assumption that a pre-beginning of this universe is still existing. It is not as far as we know.
It also doesn't tell us a supernatural must exist. It just tells us something MAY have existed. Maybe another universe with a different set of natural laws. Maybe another dimension. Maybe a lot of things.

I am not proposing a maybe. Perhaps you don't like the word supernatural. . .by supernatural, I mean something beyond the natural - forget all the fantasy stuff you may associate as part of the "supernatural" for now.
All I am saying is that if it is true that space and time have a cause, then the cause cannot be subject to space and time therefore something exists that is not subject to space and time.
I call it supernatural, if you like you can call it an alternate universe, it doesn't make that much difference what you call it really.

Mr_Anony:
A realm beyond the natural

Does this mean it is unreachable to us, thus all we could do is speculate? If we can reach it or it can influence us etc, is there any evidence of this?
Does this mean it's rules have to be different as far as physics is concerned?

Bear in mind I don't think cause and effect have to work intuitively, even in this universe

Mr_Anony:
I am not proposing a maybe. Perhaps you don't like the word supernatural. . .by supernatural, I mean something beyond the natural - forget all the fantasy stuff you may associate as part of the "supernatural" for now.
All I am saying is that if it is true that space and time have a cause, then the cause cannot be subject to space and time therefore something exists that is not subject to space and time.
I call it supernatural, if you like you can call it an alternate universe, it doesn't make that much difference what you call it really.

OK

wiegraf:

Does this mean it is unreachable to us, thus all we could do is speculate? If we can reach it or it can influence us etc, is there any evidence of this?
Does this mean it's rules have to be different as far as physics is concerned?

If the universe has a 'supernatural' cause, then it means that the supernatural can influence the natural.
What rules does it have? We don't know at this stage however we know what rules it does not have i.e. spaceless and timeless or at least not as we know space and time.

Bear in mind I don't think cause and effect have to work intuitively, even in this universe

I don't understand what you mean here when you use the word "intuitively"

Avicenna:
OK

If it is true that a realm not subject to space, time and natural laws exists, Then there is a possibility that a being which is timeless and spaceless can exist in this realm i.e. an eternal being. Do you agree?

(Note: this is not proof yet that God exists but that God can exist)

Mr_Anony:
If it is true that a realm not subject to space, time and natural laws exists, Then there is a possibility that a being which is timeless and spaceless can exist in this realm i.e. an eternal being. Do you agree?

(Note: this is not proof yet that God exists but that God can exist)

Yes.

Let me remind you. This is speculation. We are piling unproven scenarios on topp each other. Reality may be very different.

Mr_Anony:
If the universe has a 'supernatural' cause, then it means that the supernatural can influence the natural.
What rules does it have? We don't know at this stage however we know what rules it does not have i.e. spaceless and timeless or at least not as we know space and time.


I don't understand what you mean here when you use the word "intuitively"

What if the supernatural cause only existed at that point. It's also possible it could only affect our universe at that point, ie, at conception. From then on out it becomes impossible for either side to access each other. Anyways this is redundant because @avi already points these out, as well as points out it's all speculation (which you do as well). A few would say impractical even as another universe probably mean we can't access it, if we could than we'd be part of said universe (assuming it's a super set). It may have different laws and such. Who knows, you might be bigger than this entire universe. There might be no such thing as small even, it probably is silly to even compare sizes, it may not support matter etc...

By intuitive I mean what would come to one's mind first because of his day to day observations. For instance, you'd expect a cause to always occur before an effect. I'm not entirely sure this is always the case. Even special relativity puts a dent on that(edit: nothing major, just events taking place at different times/speed depending on your frame of reference), but the limit of information being able to travel only at c makes it all good for us.

Avicenna:

Yes.

Let me remind you. This is speculation. We are piling unproven scenarios on topp each other. Reality may be very different.

No speculation. I have proven that a supernatural (i.e. a realm not subject to space and time) must exist. Within this realm, the cause for spacetime must exist. The point is that if these are true then an eternal being is very plausible. I will still go further but I want us to reach a consensus with each step.

Mr_Anony:
No speculation. I have proven that a supernatural (i.e. a realm not subject to space and time) must exist. Within this realm, the cause for spacetime must exist. The point is that if these are true then an eternal being is very plausible. I will still go further but I want us to reach a consensus with each step.

No.
You have not proven a supernatural must exist, you proved a supernatural realm MAY exist.
(note-supernatural as defined by you earlier)
That's different.

I may also conceive a multi-verses. With logical backups.
It doesn't necessarily mean they exist.

Speculations with little information is very bad. It usually lead to wrong answers.

As @Wie pointed out, if the cause of our universe is present in that realm, then that realm becomes part of our universe. As far as we are concerned, there's been no sign of a supernatural realm.

We just do not Know.

wiegraf:

What if the supernatural cause only existed at that point. It's also possible it could only affect our universe at that point, ie, at conception. From then on out it becomes impossible for either side to access each other. Anyways this is redundant because @avi already points these out, as well as points out it's all speculation (which you do as well). A few would say impractical even as another universe probably mean we can't access it, if we could than we'd be part of said universe (assuming it's a super set). It may have different laws and such. Who knows, you might be bigger than this entire universe. There might be no such thing as small even, it probably is silly to even compare sizes, it may not support matter etc...

By intuitive I mean what would come to one's mind first because of his day to day observations. For instance, you'd expect a cause to always occur before an effect. I'm not entirely sure this is always the case. Even special relativity puts a dent on that(edit: nothing major, just events taking place at different times/speed depending on your frame of reference), but the limit of information being able to travel only at c makes it all good for us.

If you notice, so far we have only agreed that a supernatural must exist and it must not be subject to natural laws and spacetime. The second thing we have talked about is that in such a realm, an eternal being can very well exist i.e a being i.e. infinite with regards to space and time. Also, we have demonstrated that if a supernatural cause brought about the cosmos, then it follows that elements from the supernatural can affect the natural though not necessarily vice-versa for now.

About the issue of relativity, elements within the universe still remain finite and still cause things to happen as the communication c is such that time moves only in one direction. therefore even though the rates may differ depending on the observer, the events remain the same.

Mr_Anony:
I am only arguing that logically, a first uncaused cause must exist.

this is special pleading therefore it is untrue..its an infinite maze..what caused the first cause?

I will also keep pointing out. There are layers of unproven assumptions I accepted for us to move forward.

Do not mistake and conclude all your assumptions were facts. They are not.

Speculations. From the point where the cosmological argument ended.

Avicenna:

No.
You have not proven a supernatural must exist, you proved a supernatural realm MAY exist.
(note-supernatural as defined by you earlier)
That's different.

I may also conceive a multi-verses. With logical backups.
It doesn't necessarily mean they exist.

Speculations with little information is very bad. It usually lead to wrong answers.

As @Wie pointed out, if the cause of our universe is present in that realm, then that realm becomes part of our universe. As far as we are concerned, there's been no sign of a supernatural realm.

We just do not Know.

Lol, conceiving a multiverse only pushes it back a step. The logic is very simple: If the origin of space and time has a cause, then the cause cannot also be subject to space and time.
Even if there are more universes, we must eventually come to the point where we ask "what caused them?" unless you want to tell me that these universes are uncaused then I will have to ask you to explain how you arrived at this.

mkmyers45: this is special pleading therefore it is untrue..its an infinite maze..what caused the first cause?

What part of uncaused don't you understand? Without an uncaused cause, we fall into infinite regress

mkmyers45: and what grounds did you come to the fact that the First cause is not subject to another cause..

perhaps you should read my initial premises again:
"Everything that comes into being has a cause". The premise suggests that it begins to exist.
A first cause by definition does not begin to exist

Avicenna: I will also keep pointing out. There are layers of unproven assumptions I accepted for us to move forward.

Do not mistake and conclude all your assumptions were facts. They are not.

Speculations. From the point where the cosmological argument ended.

What I see here is someone who is simply refusing to follow and argument to it's logical end.
If the universe has a cause, then we must be able to say what this cause is (or isn't) else there is no cause at all.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, conceiving a multiverse only pushes it back a step. The logic is very simple: If the origin of space and time has a cause, then the cause cannot also be subject to space and time.
Even if there are more universes, we must eventually come to the point where we ask "what caused them?" unless you want to tell me that these universes are uncaused then I will have to ask you to explain how you arrived at this.

and what grounds did you come to the fact that the First cause is not subject to another cause..

Mr_Anony:
What part of uncaused don't you understand? Without an uncaused cause, we fall into infinite regress

Can something/an event be a cause and effect at the same time? how arent we in a regress?

mkmyers45: Can something/an event be a cause and effect at the same time? how arent we in a regress?

perhaps you should read my initial premises again:

"Everything that comes into being has a cause". The premise suggests that it begins to exist.

A first cause by definition does not begin to exist

Mr_Anony:
Lol, conceiving a multiverse only pushes it back a step. The logic is very simple: If the origin of space and time has a cause, then the cause cannot also be subject to space and time.
Even if there are more universes, we must eventually come to the point where we ask "what caused them?" unless you want to tell me that these universes are uncaused then I will have to ask you to explain how you arrived at this.

Why do you do that? Twisting it to seem I support a multi-verse theory. I pointed that out to you NOT to assume things.

When things seems to follow logic, we need to test it out to see if reality supports it. Reality doesn't support your supernatural realm hypothesis.

Infiinite regression affects your first cause theory.

Spacetime MAY be present in any realm that caused this universe. your logic is not as ironcast as you seem to think of it.

Mr_Anony:
What part of uncaused don't you understand? Without an uncaused cause, we fall into infinite regress
perhaps you should read my initial premises again:
"Everything that comes into being has a cause". The premise suggests that it begins to exist.
A first cause by definition does not begin to exist

A first cause therefore does not follow logic as we know it.

Mr_Anony:
What I see here is someone who is simply refusing to follow and argument to it's logical end.
If the universe has a cause, then we must be able to say what this cause is (or isn't) else there is no cause at all.

You cannot say what caused it simply because you DO NOT know it!

I should have disabuse you of the notion from the beginning.
I thought you fully understood we were moving into a realm of speculations. Don't turn them to facts. You are trying to do that. We are honest debaters here.

Mr_Anony:
perhaps you should read my initial premises again:

"Everything that comes into being has a cause". The premise suggests that it begins to exist.

A first cause by definition does not begin to exist

So first cause does not exist..ok

Avicenna:

Why do you do that? Twisting it to seem I support a multi-verse theory. I pointed that out to you NOT to assume things.

When things seems to follow logic, we need to test it out to see if reality supports it. Reality doesn't support your supernatural realm hypothesis.

Infiinite regression affects your first cause theory.

Spacetime MAY be present in any realm that caused this universe. your logic is not as ironcast as you seem to think of it.

What?
It seems you haven't really been paying attention or we have reached the point where your bias won't let you progress further so you are mounting up a resistance.

Your bias appears to me to be naturalist hence you reject anything that is beyond the universe even though you agree that the universe is finite. Your stance contradicts itself.
There is a difference between "we don't know" and "we cannot know" It seems to me that you are rejecting any attempt at knowing. I have only made logical deductions which you cannot disprove.

About spacetime being present in the "other realm" yes maybe it is possible, however it's contents such as the "cause" cannot be subject to it if it can create it.

mkmyers45: So first cause does not exist..ok

"..........does not [b]begin [/b]to exist". How do you read? or do you hold that anything that exists must begin to exist?

Avicenna:
You cannot say what caused it simply because you DO NOT know it!

I should have disabuse you of the notion from the beginning.
I thought you fully understood we were moving into a realm of speculations. Don't turn them to facts. You are trying to do that. We are honest debaters here.

My friend, no one is speculating. All you have to do is look at my logic and tell me why it cannot be true. Don't just throw up a bunch of "maybes".
If I say the cause of the universe cannot logically be subject to spacetime, you have to show me why I am wrong not simply say "You don't know". That is willful ignorance.

To all the atheist in the house. I'll ask you a questio: How did the world come to be? I'm sure u would quote Charles Darwin evolution theory:

If you really want to know whether God exists, you should be a good student of history. The Bible is historically and scientifically acurate.
I'm sure you all know that Jesus came to earth. It was prophesied many thousands of years before h came by prophet Isaiah, Ezekiel and the likes. These prophesies are in the ancient manuscript.
If you still question the existence of God, I'm suppose that you know devil exists.
If you don't, why don't you visit a shrine in Togo or Ijebu and eat the sacrifice.
They say experience is the best teacher. I also advise you to go to a crusade and see live miracles.

You atheists have not seen any of these because all you do is to sit at home and watch BBC. Its laziness on your part. You live in Africa and there are lots of proofs to show that there's supernatural event.
I can narrate to you how I witnessed a supernatural healing. Not once, not twice.

I've experienced several miracles in my short stay on earth.

Mr_Anony:
"..........does not [b]begin [/b]to exist". How do you read? or do you hold that anything that exists must begin to exist?

You know something? Let me ask you some questions to clear up stuff 1. Can cause and effect happen simultaneously or at the same time? 2. How is the uncaused cause logically plausible?

mkmyers45: You know something? Let me ask you some questions to clear up stuff 1. Can cause and effect happen simultaneously or at the same time? 2. How is the uncaused cause logically plausible?

1. I don't know of any geniune examples of such
2. how is it not? what is illogical about an uncaused cause?

Mr_Anony:
If you notice, so far we have only agreed that a supernatural must exist and it must not be subject to natural laws and spacetime. The second thing we have talked about is that in such a realm, an eternal being can very well exist i.e a being i.e. infinite with regards to space and time. Also, we have demonstrated that if a supernatural cause brought about the cosmos, then it follows that elements from the supernatural can affect the natural though not necessarily vice-versa for now.

About the issue of relativity, elements within the universe still remain finite and still cause things to happen as the communication c is such that time moves only in one direction. therefore even though the rates may differ depending on the observer, the events remain the same.

I do not agree with the notion that a supernatural most exist. Uncertainty is mind boggling. Until we fully understand it, believe or not, we cannot say for certain that something cannot come from nothing. Imo existence is a trick of numbers, the only concept that must exist, but this is now pseudo-science.

Next, elements from the parent universe need not be able to influence the child. Simple example, black holes.

I was using that to explain 'intuition' as well. Casuality still applies on the macroscopic level, yes. But the sequence of events, if you could overcome c and observe from another frame, will not work intuitively. While an event may appear simultaneous in one frame, for an observer on a different reference plane moving at high speeds in relation to the event's frame the event would not actually be simultaneous. That is counter intuitive, as you'd expect the event to be simultaneous to all observers. As for cause and effect, my first paragraph.