Mr_Anony:

funny enough, step 1 does not mention a big bang. This is step 1.

Ok what "definite beginning" do you mean? The big b@ng or some other beginning?

Mr_Anony:

Kay17, I follow your logic, within the limits of time there cannot be a "before time". But if we say that time and space has an origin, then there must be a cause for time and space to exist. remember that time is a dimension like space as measured by light (reference einstein's theory of relativity). hence it is possible to have properties beyond this dimension. I dare say it is only for the sake of simplicity of language that we say "before time".
Time here is not necessarily a sequence but a dimension
However that's by the way.
I would still like you to state where you stand, does the universe have an origin? was the universe caused?

Is it possible for there to be a bigger box within a smaller box?

If causality explainable or workable within the confines of the universe as a principle, would it make any sense to apply it in the absence of the universe?

Kay 17:

Standing on a premise that everything has a cause and yet making a conclusion that your god is uncaused is invalid! It can't stand. If you find the premise absurd, because of an uncaused god, then dismiss it.

Please tackle step 1 first, I haven't yet come to whether God or not. I can't possibly debate with you if I don't know where you stand all.

I'm not aware of any scientific foundational assumption that everything has a cause!

for instance, to explain why "what goes up comes down", you have to assume that something causes it before trying to find out why and maybe you end up at the "law of gravity" that is how science progresses.

Martian:

Ok what "definite beginning" do you mean? The big b@ng or some other beginning?

Here you go again, without making a stand you go flying around. choose any beginning you like, the point is do you agree to a beginning or not?

Martian:

Before you call me delusional, look at what you wrote.



You definitely don't know enough to say that and the people you got the concept of the big b@ng from don't even make statements like that. So what's your explanation?

Clearly, you did not read the following sentences after that statement. This is basic logic;
. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause


This is actually one of the main arguments that Scientists use against the uncaused cause. Please, if you are ignorant about something ask questions and dont accuse others of being wrong

Mr_Anony:
Here you go again, without making a stand you go flying around. choose any beginning you like, the point is do you agree to a beginning or not?

How am I " flying around" if I'm only asking questions to make things clearer? But whatever you wish.

The beginning I agree with is the big b@ng and the cause or causes are currently unknown. I don't know more than that.

logicboy: No one really knows what happened before the big slam.

Following your statement, If this is true, It will also be equally wrong to say that there cannot possibly be anything before the big bang. do you agree?

Martian:

How am I " flying around" if I'm only asking questions to make things clearer? But whatever you wish.

The beginning I agree with is the big b@ng and the cause or causes are currently unknown. I don't know more than that.

hence you cannot possibly say that no such cause exists

logicboy:

The existence of the universe as a whole does not require a causal explanation.

It does.

logicboy: All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause.

Yes. Need I remind you that this simple axiom is the bedrock of logic & science.

logicboy: To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction:

No. For if that where the case science would also be a contradiction.

logicboy: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence;

Not necessarily because the cause exists in another plane. In the same plane things like love, justice & hate exist.

logicboy: if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause.

Unfortunately for you the cause exists.

@ Mr Anony

cyrexx:
i like to think clearly and logically without confustion so i will list your first two steps here.

Step 1
Every effect has a cause, our reality can be described as a series of causes and effects. We know, the Universe has a definite beginning hence it must have been caused.

Step 2:
Since everything has a cause including the universe, if we trace back through a line of subsequent causes and effects, we must come to a point where we must acknowledge a first member of the series i.e. a first cause. To qualify as first cause, the first cause must be (1)uncaused (2)infinite*


now your second step has this fallacy: who said you must all of a sudden come to a convenient stopping point where we must acknowledge a first cause that is uncaused and infinite. on what premise is that based on. Logically, the same premise that proposes that an effect must have a cause also logically proposes by extension that the cause must have another cause on and on and on till infinity. you cannot just pick a religiouslyconvenient spot to terminate the cause-effect reasoning. if there must be a cause for every effect, then THERE MUST ALWAYS BE A CAUSE FOR EVERY EFFECT NON-STOP.

logicboy:
Clearly, you did not read the following sentences after that statement. This is basic logic;
To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause

There is no contradiction in demanding a cause for all existence. If the cause exists, we dont know, yet. No need to say, "if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause" because nature doesn't have to jibe with your bias.

Mr_Anony:
hence you cannot possibly say that no such cause exists

What cause? Please be clear.

Kay 17:

Is it possible for there to be a bigger box within a smaller box?

Of course ! There can be a very small box which is enclosed by a bigger box.

Kay 17: If causality explainable or workable within the confines of the universe as a principle, would it make any sense to apply it in the absence of the universe?

You forget that causality itself doesn't physically exist. That's why there are forms of it. In the absence of the universe causality would exist because it is an intangible concept, not a physical object.

Martian:

There is no contradiction in demanding a cause for all existence. If the cause exists, we dont know, yet. No need to say, "if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause" because nature doesn't have to jibe with your bias.

the primordial cause of all existence is existing, right?

Uyi Iredia:

Of course ! There can be a very small box which is enclosed by a bigger box.



You forget that causality itself doesn't physically exist. That's why there are forms of it. In the absence of the universe causality would exist because it is an intangible concept, not a physical object.

It does exist as a physical principle and a concept.

Kay 17: the primordial cause of all existence is existing, right?

Tell me how to find out and I will.

^^ it is more or less an interaction.

Kay 17: ^^ it is more or less an interaction.

sure

Martian:

Tell me how to find out and I will.

I'm just trying to point out the absurdity. Cos if there is a cause for existence, then there would be a point where there is no existence but cause which is not existing!

Martian:

There is no contradiction in demanding a cause for all existence. If the cause exists, we dont know, yet. No need to say, "if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause" because nature doesn't have to jibe with your bias.

Stop grasping at straws. If the cause exists it is an existence therefore it itself can not be a cuase for all existence since it is an existence itself.

cyrexx: @ anony
i like to think clearly and logically without confustion so i will list your first two steps here.

Step 1
Every effect has a cause, our reality can be described as a series of causes and effects. We know, the Universe has a definite beginning hence it must have been caused.

Step 2:
Since everything has a cause including the universe, if we trace back through a line of subsequent causes and effects, we must come to a point where we must acknowledge a first member of the series i.e. a first cause. To qualify as first cause, the first cause must be (1)uncaused (2)infinite*


now your second step has this fallacy: who said you must all of a sudden come to a convenient stopping point where we must acknowledge a first cause that is uncaused and infinite. on what premise is that based on. Logically, the same premise that proposes that an effect must have a cause also logically proposes by extension that the cause must have another cause on and on and on till infinity. you cannot just pick a religiouslyconvenient spot to terminate the cause-effect reasoning. if there must be a cause for every effect, then THERE MUST ALWAYS BE A CAUSE FOR EVERY EFFECT NON-STOP.

Thanks for at least following logically, I agree with you hat I cannot just pick a religiously-convenient spot to cut short the cause-effect series. Besides, I have not automatically said that this first cause is any god. I have only describe what it's attributes must be for it to qualify as a "first cause". For instance when counting numbers backwards in sequence, we come to a point where we use the term "infinity" to denote the first number. Infinity is not really a number but it is used to explain that you've reached the end of the line. So for now the first cause may as well be an abstract idea but the point is that it must be there in order to make sense of the sequence at all. Do you agree?

Kay 17:
I'm just trying to point out the absurdity. Cos if there is a cause for existence, then there would be a point where there is no existence but cause which is not existing!

Then the cause has to come into existence then bring existence into existence.......................................lol

Uyi Iredia: It does. Yes. Need I remind you that this simple axiom is the bedrock of logic & science. No. For if that where the case science would also be a contradiction. Not necessarily because the cause exists in another plane. In the same plane things like love, justice & hate exist. Unfortunately for you the cause exists.

Ode, read comments again. This confidence in ignorance is getting to my nerves!!!

Yes, there is causality within the universe. However, when it comes to the totality of the universe, it is a different matter. If there is a cause to existence, it becomes a paradoxical impossibility because that cause itself is an existence since it exists

logicboy:
Stop grasping at straws. If the cause exists it is an existence therefore it itself can not be a cuase for all existence since it is an existence itself.

All I said was that you don't know and no matter what you say, it still wouldn't be different from anony's position. Both are based on your biases. Maybe the big bang itself is the first "causeless cause"

If the cause exists, then it must have a cause, which also must have a cause ad infinitum............ Everyone is just going in circles instead of sayting they have no idea.

Mr_Anony:

Thanks for at least following logically, I agree with you hat I cannot just pick a religiously-convenient spot to cut short the cause-effect series. Besides, I have not automatically said that this first cause is any god. I have only describe what it's attributes must be for it to qualify as a "first cause". For instance when counting numbers backwards in sequence, we come to a point where we use the term "infinity" to denote the first number. Infinity is not really a number but it is used to explain that you've reached the end of the line. So for now the first cause may as well be an abstract idea but the point is that it must be there in order to make sense of the sequence at all. Do you agree?

i disagree
who says it must be there (bolded). its like trying to give a value to infinity, which is logically impossible

are you not trying to forcefully insert what is not there in the first place i.e.stopping point in the cause-effect reasoning

if you agree that your logic in the second step is prone to error and fallacy, then let us carefully examine the first step again

logicboy:

Ode, read comments again. This confidence in ignorance is getting to my nerves!!!

Yes, there is causality within the universe. However, when it comes to the totality of the universe, it is a different matter. If there is a cause to existence, it becomes a paradoxical impossibility because that cause itself is an existence since it exists

The militant atheist is at it again. calm down abeg, just because someone disagrees with you does not make the other person ignorant automatically. besides it is "cause-effect" not "cause-existence" (existence is different from effect, creating the "existence" strawman is not good logic my friend)

Uyi Iredia: It does. Yes. Need I remind you that this simple axiom is the bedrock of logic & science. No. For if that where the case science would also be a contradiction. Not necessarily because the cause exists in another plane. In the same plane things like love, justice & hate exist. Unfortunately for you the cause exists.

Uyi Thanks!

cyrexx:

i disagree
who says it must be there (bolded)

are you not trying to forcefully insert what is not there in the first place i.e.stopping point in the cause-effect reasoning

if you agree that your logic in the second step is prone to error and fallacy, then let us carefully examine the first step again

I agree that I am imperfect and hence I can err, please show me

Uyi Iredia: Not necessarily because the cause exists in another plane. In the same plane things like[b] love, justice & hate exist.[/b].

Inside your skull?

Mr_Anony:
Uyi Thanks!

'

lol, you finally agree with a christian and his mysterious "plane of love, hate and justice". That's that "extraphysical" stuff right there.

Martian:

All I said was that you don't know and no matter what you say, it still wouldn't be different from anony's position. Both are based on your biases. Maybe the big bang itself is the first "causeless cause"

If the cause exists, then it must have a cause, which also must have a cause ad infinitum............ Everyone is just going in circles instead of sayting they have no idea.

I have never claimed to know what the first cause is. So, stop trying to equate me with Anony. You were wrong, admit it. There is no shame in acknowledging a superior atheist.

Martian: '

lol, you finally agree with a christian and his mysterious "plane of love, hate and justice". That's that "extraphysical" stuff right there.

Lol, martian when you are ready to debate logically, take a stance and then we will proceed. Sitting on the fence and looking for loopholes isn't how I roll. If you say you don't know, then there is no use debating you

logicboy:

I have never claimed to know what the first cause is. So, stop trying to equate me with Anony. You were wrong, admit it. There is no shame in acknowledging a superior atheist.

Wow, I didn't know there was an atheist ranking system. LOL