The All-Powerful Creator

[LuftWaffle]

Hi Viola,

OldEnglishSheepdog beat me to a point that I'd like to reiterate because it seems you don't realise that your position is self-defeating.

You expect empirical proof that the law of causation would be in effect pre-matter(time-space)

But if the law of causation doesn't exist or works differently pre-matter, how do you know that empiricism would work pre-matter, since empiricism relies on the idea that we can trust what we observe and that what we observe is reality. If one law of logic falls then why would you trust any? And if you can't trust logic where does that leave empiricism?

It seems rather dishonest that you'd deny the law of causation in servitude of the philosphical concept of materialism, while at the same time demanding empirical evidence which in order to be accepted or rejected requires the very same logic that you deny.

And I'm not entirely sure why you believe that in the absence of time the law of causation would degrade? Causation, although it often involves the passage of time isn't necesarily contingent upon time. You're basically just assuming that time precedes causation yet you've offered no proof for this. In fact, I think the opposite is more logical, that causation precedes time, and that time itself nothing more than the flow of events. In a universe where nothing happens there'd be no time. So rather than causation being contingent upon time, causation becomes a sufficient condition for time.

If time precedes causation as you're implying, then travelling back in time would reverse causation as well. The tail would wag the dog. The rooster would cause the sun to come up. The mouse, springing into life would set the mousetrap and the mousetrap would manipulate the exterminator.

That is quite unfathomable.

Edited March 4, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[LuftWaffle]

LuftWaffle, in our everyday experience we feel as if causes precede effects and that time is directional. However, neither is necessarily the case. For example, when we observe the photons that originated in a star thousands of light years away we have determined the path the photons have taken long after they traveled across time to us.Before our observation, the path the photons took had not been determined. (Actually, we would say the photons took all possible paths from the star to our eye.) To use your words, the tail has wagged the dog.

It seems you're saying that observation of an effect makes the effect into the cause. If this is so then please clarify. Observation itself doesn't stand in a causal relationship to that which is observed, and neither can mere observation switch causality.

Further, at very small levels, it appears that the arrow of time can be symmetric (i.e., can go in either direction). If there was a very early state of the observable universe where time did not exist, then I don't see a place for causation since in such a state since there are no causes or effects.

Why do you say so?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

LuftWaffle, in our everyday experience we feel as if causes precede effects and that time is directional. However, neither is necessarily the case. For example, when we observe the photons that originated in a star thousands of light years away we have determined the path the photons have taken long after they traveled across time to us. Before our observation, the path the photons took had not been determined. (Actually, we would say the photons took all possible paths from the star to our eye.) To use your words, the tail has wagged the dog. Further, at very small levels, it appears that the arrow of time can be symmetric (i.e., can go in either direction). If there was a very early state of the observable universe where time did not exist, then I don't see a place for causation since in such a state since there are no causes or effects.

OK, then explain to me why evolutionists insist the universe is 14 billion years old.

If we grant this then upon what grounds could anyone possibly suggest that the earth wasn't created some thousand years ago in six literal 24 hour periods and time didn't just ebb and flow around us in such a way as to allow for the conditions that evolutionists interpret to be the appearance of 14 billion years?

In order for what you propose to be the case, we'd have to dismiss the laws of motion, and the laws of thermodynamics, but in addition, I really don't see how if we're allowing time, and thereby cause and effect, to be so elastic, what possible physical objection could anyone point to regarding a recent literal creation?

Edited March 4, 2011 by OldEnglishSheepdog

[nebula]

Which one is ignoring you Nebula, the Swede or the other?

Viole

Oh no Nebula! Sorry, sorry, sorry. I am not ignoring you! I know you are a good person and prayed for me and trying to help. And I do not forget...

But I am very stressed at the moment, lots of travels and meetings. I have not listened to your songs yet :-(

I will do it ASAP and come back to you. Promised

OK!

[LuftWaffle]

The photons travelling from a star do not have a definite path until they are measured/observed. Once they are observed, then all the possible paths collapse into the one that is observed. Weird, but correct to the best of my knowledge.

You're talking about certainty and possibility, here. This is Berkeley's (or atleast based on), "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody's there to observe it, did it really fall.", or the Shrodinger's Cat thought experiment. Neither of which prove that observation stands in a causal relationship to anything, and doesn't affect causality in anyway.

So it isn't that photons are really everywhere until they're observed to be somewhere. I don't believe that reality is subjective.

Indeed as OldEnglishSheepDog rightly pointed out, if causality can so easily be brought into question, then most of the evolutionary timescales must be doubted.

Oops, I mis-wrote (spoke?). In theory the physical math models indicate that time is symmetric, but apparently, for our universe the arrow of time is always directional. Sorry for the confusion, and bad memory on my part.

You haven't really answered the question. You said, " If there was a very early state of the observable universe where time did not exist, then I don't see a place for causation since in such a state since there are no causes or effects."

I want to know why you believe there is no place for causation in an earlier state where time didn't exist. Claiming that theoretically time is bidirectional in other universes isn't relevant.

It reminds me of a joke: How do you know our universe is unique?

Because it's the only one that string-theory can't explain.

I think the joke applies just as well to most of the ridiculous multidimentional/multiversal ideas that theorical physicists come up with nowadays. There's always some universe far far away where their models work, but interestingly is hardly ever the one we actually know exists.

So unless you can prove to me that causality is contingent upon the existence of time, then lets not waste further time (hehe) meandering in the speculative world of theoretical physics. Fact is, that if scientists can find a cause for the universe, other than God, they'll grab it with open arms, which is why they're searching for it, which clearly shows that none of this speculative and casual doubting of causality has any basis whatsoever other than an ideological one.

[LuftWaffle]

The photons do take every possible path. Feyman worked out the equations. It is not about reality being subject, but about it not matching with our common sense notions that are based on our experiencing the universe in a very limited manner.

Right, and equations make realities...

I think the real burden is on you in this case. Show me how there can be causation when there is no cause or effect.

You beg the question....Who says there is no cause or effect?

I think it's senseless to talk about causality without time.

Be sure to let all those cosmologists who are desperately scratching for a godless ultimate cause know that you think it's a senseless endeavour. Like I said, it's only a senseless notion now because atheism cannot really answer it. As soon as someone invents a marketable theory (unlike than Hawkings latest attempt at burdening poor old gravity with the job of creating space and time), we'll be told materialism predicted it all along.

Edited March 5, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[LuftWaffle]

OK, then explain to me why evolutionists insist the universe is 14 billion years old.

Basically, three bits of evidence: (1) the distance to stars, (2) Hubble's constant, and (3) the cosmic background radiation.

Since when are constants considered 'evidence'?

Eitherway, OES isn't asking you *how* the age is calculated, but rather why the calculation should be regarded as accurate given the plasticity of your beliefs regarding causality.

[MorningGlory]

OK, then explain to me why evolutionists insist the universe is 14 billion years old.

Basically, three bits of evidence: (1) the distance to stars, (2) Hubble's constant, and (3) the cosmic background radiation.

Since when are constants considered 'evidence'?

Eitherway, OES isn't asking you *how* the age is calculated, but rather why the calculation should be regarded as accurate given the plasticity of your beliefs regarding causality.

Good point.

[LuftWaffle]

Asking me why and how are really the same thing in this case. Hubble's constant is a measure of the expansion of the universe. It is essentially based on the speed of light. A rough estimate of the age of the universe can be made by simply taking the inverse of Hubble's constant (there's actually a bit more to it, but that's the basic idea).

Sam, let me ask you something. Why is it that you ramble off textbook definitions of terms instead of actually addressing issues? The question wasn't, "Sam, please tell us what the Hubble constant is", but rather, how can you claim that an unverified and derived constant such as the Hubble constant consitutes as a piece of evidence?

One might begin to think that a major goal or your posts is to demonstrate your knowledge rather than having a discourse on a particular topic. Do you feel the need to impress with knowledge, Sam?

This ofcourse is a side-track to OES's point of how the age of the universe can be determined given (as you claim) that time itself isn't necessarily unidirectional.

In the case of a photon taking all possible paths (Feyman's path integral), there are strict "rules" on how probabilistic functions collapse. It's not a willy-nilly process as you seem to think.

This is theorical physics, which is a) unverifiable and b) irrelevant to the claims that causality will break down in the absence of time.

Think about it. The claim is that object O is in state A as long as it's unobserved. As soon as an observation is made object O is in state B. How would one ever prove state A, since any verification of state A, would cause state B.

It's like saying, there's a pixie living in my refrigerator that disappears when you try to look at it.

Oh, but there are calculations, you'll say. But how can the calculations verified to be true since verification ruins the experiment.

So basically the best objection you have against premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological argument is an unverifiable idea that you take on faith and while it may- or may not be true, really doesn't actually speak to the issue at hand. But hey, atleast you got to drop a few terms and names which is sure to impress somebody, yes?

I do have an interesting quote from Feynman though, where he comments on how ideology governs much of science and the theories that scientists come up with.

In his book "Feynman lectures on gravitation", he writes "

Edited March 6, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[LuftWaffle]

I directly address the question. Your lack of understanding in not my problem.

See, this is the problem, you parrot what you hear and read, without thinking and without questioning and dismiss those that do, as lacking understanding. This tendency to dismiss with claims of ignorance all those who oppose is ofcourse is in itself part of the materialism playbook, so you can't even claim that as your own.

It is for this reason that I generally prefer chatting to actual scientists instead of science fanboys. Most honest scientists that aren't pushing an agenda are aware of the explanatory limitations as well as the assumptions they make, whereas the fanclub thinks it's all cold objective data gathered in the field. Also I find seasoned scientists are less hung up with the fact that they are knowledgable in a particular science field so there's less pretense and more straightforward dialogue.

OES has also questioned your ability to distinguish between proof, evidence, theories, research and interpretation and frankly, it's clear as day. Seriously, friend, I don't say this to be rude, but you've got to get over the pretenses and start using your head. Learn from 808state. Although I believe her criteria for looking at the evidence is unreasonable she at the very least makes her own points.

If this is the best you can do I see no reason to continue.

Whether you continue or not means little to me. It's obvious what you're doing here and I was actually addressing Viole's points before you jumped in, so do as you please.

Edited March 6, 2011 by LuftWaffle