Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:It's just one definition. But it's one I find useful.

Okay, but I think it's wrong per what time really is ontologically.

Nothing originates without a cause.

I don't think that's clear at all. And maybe things originate without a cause all the time. I don't think we have any idea whether that's the case or not, and I don't think we really have any way of finding this out, either.

Oh, it has to.

?? The idea of it is incoherent.

We know that time is a contingent property.

??? How the heck would we know that?

Actually, this is far from evident. In fact, something akin to the opposite must be true.

It's evident if you're not wrong about what time is. The opposite is false.

Take the origin of the universe: something must have "moved" in order for the universe to commence.

Per what? The "nothing happens without a cause" credo? But that's just a saying with zero empirical support, and it's just arbitrary logically. Also, if you keep positing prior causes, you necessarily have inifinitely-extending backwards time.

If the universe had, prior to the Big Bang, been in a state of , say, absolute eternal motionlessness, then how could anything ever have happened at all?

There's no reason to suppose that something can't pop into existence spontaneously where there was previously nothing.

bahman wrote:I am not talking about created God. The problem is that there is no before the act of creation since there is no time so the only way to skip the problem is to accept that God existence and the act of creation lay in the same point.

Well, since we know scientifically that Creation did not always exist, if Creation and God commenced at the same point, then you could only be talking about a created God -- if your explanation is right.

So it seems inescapable that your explanation isn't right.

Terrapin Station wrote:Okay, but I think it's wrong per what time really is ontologically.

Interesting. What do you mean?

Terrapin Station wrote:

Nothing originates without a cause.

I don't think that's clear at all. And maybe things originate without a cause all the time.

That would be magic, not science. That is, if things "just happen" without a cause.

And then you'd have to explain why today things don't just keep happening without any cause -- on other words, why science works now, if the start of all things is just magic.

Terrapin Station wrote:

We know that time is a contingent property.

??? How the heck would we know that?

Because "time" is a property of the material universe, and the material universe had an origin (the Big Bang). This has been confirmed by the "red shift" observations, among other things, and isn't any longer in dispute.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Take the origin of the universe: something must have "moved" in order for the universe to commence.

Per what? The "nothing happens without a cause" credo? But that's just a saying with zero empirical support, and it's just arbitrary logically.

Untrue. See above.

Terrapin Station wrote: Also, if you keep positing prior causes, you necessarily have inifinitely-extending backwards time.

Yes! Yes, yes, yes.

And if so, then whether you regress by science or by faith, you're going to end up with having to attribute the origin or the universe to a "causeless Cause" of some kind -- either an impersonal one or a Personal One. But science and faith converge on this agreement: a causeless Cause is all we can rationally posit as the creative power behind our universe. Interesting, no?

There's no reason to suppose that something can't pop into existence spontaneously where there was previously nothing.

Only if one believes in magic. Science has no explanations of things coming into existence "spontaneously" out of a genuine "nothing." Even things like the Multiverse Hypothesis have to hypothesize the pre-existence of some kind of "universe generator." And that itself lacks a causal explanation.

Immanuel Can wrote:That would be magic, not science.

If things just happen without a cause, then they just happen without a cause. That would be a brute fact about what the world is like. Just because it isn't conventionally accepted as an assumption in the sciences, that doesn't have any impact on whether it's what the world is like. It's not as if the world says, "Oh, well, humans' model of the world doesn't include such and such, so I'd better not do that. I need to follow their scientific model."

We can't scientifically show that all events must have a cause. We can't even scientifically show that any event really did have a cause. (Read your Hume after all.) What we show is that y had cause x per how we think about what happened.

And then you'd have to explain why today things don't just keep happening without any cause

They might. We don't know that they do not. I had said this already. We don't really have any idea whether things happen per causes or not. What we do is talk about how we think about them, given the assumptions we make, given our perspectives, etc.

or other words, why science works now, if the start of all things is just magic.

I don't know how you're defining "magic" contra science really. You'd need to make that explicit. You're stating that as if there's a well-acepted demarcation criterion, by the way, as if there isn't still a demarcation criterion problem in phil of science.

Because "time" is a property of the material universe, and the material universe had an origin (the Big Bang).This has been confirmed by the "red shift" observations, among other things, and isn't any longer in dispute.

. . . which has absolutely nothing to do with whether time is a contingent or necessary property. I was asking how we'd know that it's a contingent property.

Also, aside from that, one thing that definitely would be a hallmark of science--although it's not sufficient to be all there is to a demarcation criterion, is that science is always revisable. So there isn't anything beyond dispute.

Untrue. See above.

True. See above.

And if so, then whether you regress by science or by faith, you're going to end up with having to attribute the origin or the universe to a "causeless Cause" of some kind -- either an impersonal one or a Personal One.

No, you can't get to a "causeless cause" if you need a cause for everything. You have to not need a cause for everything, or you're stuck with going back in time infinitely. Those are the only coherent choices.

Science has no explanations of things coming into existence "spontaneously" out of a genuine "nothing."

The world in no way depends on received views in the sciences.

By the way, I don't know if you're thinking I might be religious or something. I'm not at all. I'm an atheist.

I also reject the religion of scientism just as much as I reject religions like Christianity.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:That would be magic, not science.

If things just happen without a cause, then they just happen without a cause. That would be a brute fact about what the world is like. Just because it isn't conventionally accepted as an assumption in the sciences, that doesn't have any impact on whether it's what the world is like. It's not as if the world says, "Oh, well, humans' model of the world doesn't include such and such, so I'd better not do that. I need to follow their scientific model."

True enough. But about things that "just happen" we can't know anything. Science presumes causality. Absent any causality, there's no science; and you're right to point out that the belief that things don't "just happen" is not itself scientific. After all, science cannot prove it's so, when in point of fact it needs that assumption before it can prove anything.

But it's an assumption we need to take if we're to know more. Absent that assumption, we're at a loss to discover anything about the world in empirical terms. We'd have to wait for a sudden revelation or illumination from the Divine, because we'd be all out of tricks.

I don't know how you're defining "magic" contra science really. You'd need to make that explicit.

Okay. Let's indulge in a little myth to illustrate.

I have two friends: Zack and Og. Zack was sitting under a tree one day, when an apple fell on his head.

"What the...? How did THAT happen," he exclaimed? He mused for a second. "Waitaminit. What if there's a thing called 'gravity' that pulls things down...?"

Suddenly Og interrupted. "No true. Apple just fall. Zack think too much."

"No, no..." Zack was getting excited, "I really think that something MADE that happen...stress on the stem...caused by a force we cannot see, but perhaps we can measure..."

"Ha," said Og. "Things just happen. No reason. No cause. Just because. Now give me apple."

As Og munched the apple, Zack was thinking of further hypotheses, evidences and proofs. True, neither knew why the apple fell...yet. But whereas Zack had a method for going forward, Og had denied the possibility of such methods, and so was left at the level of what we might call "magic." And while we could not prove that Zack's take was more justified than Og's right now, eventually, if Zack's search proved fruitful, we might arrive at the point of regarding his explanation as vastly superior to Og's. It might even lead us to additional discoveries and increased practical powers. In any case, Og's thinking had gone as far as his method would ever allow. He had accepted the causelessness of apple-falling, and so had no further incentive to inquire.

Because "time" is a property of the material universe, and the material universe had an origin (the Big Bang).This has been confirmed by the "red shift" observations, among other things, and isn't any longer in dispute.

. . . which has absolutely nothing to do with whether time is a contingent or necessary property. I was asking how we'd know that it's a contingent property.

Everything that is bounded strictly within this universe is contingent. Time, by definition, is bounded within this universe. Hence, it is a contingent property.

No, you can't get to a "causeless cause" if you need a cause for everything. You have to not need a cause for everything, or you're stuck with going back in time infinitely.

But you cannot do that because we know now that the universe itself is caused at a definite point in the past. I think we could settle this if you had time and interest to read up on the death of Aristotelian scientism in the mid twentieth century, as a result of discoveries like the "red shift" effect and the outward mobility of the galaxies. You'll see that if we began with a "Big Bang," then it is very easy to reverse the timeline and discover the origin point of everything in the known universe. It's like running a film backwards.

Now, there are other reasons -- mathematical and rational, like Hilbert's work -- that show that an infinite regress is impossible, and any causal sequence must have an original cause. But this original cause can only be causeless itself, or it simply moves the problem back one step and begs the question. Since we know our universe is not infinite, and since we have zero data for the existence of any other universe (note: "universe" means "all that is," not just "galaxy" or "star system"), such as the mythical "parallel universes" or "folded time universes," our best hypothesis and the testimony of all our evidence is of a linear universe with a definite starting point.

Hence the need for a causeless cause.

By the way, I don't know if you're thinking I might be religious or something. I'm not at all. I'm an atheist.

I was making no such assumption. I was just talking about science.

I also reject the religion of scientism just as much as I reject religions like Christianity.

Fair enough: but on what basis do you found your rejection? On evidence, or just on a personal sense of not knowing? It it data or personal perplexity that inclines you to reject these things?

We'll probably go on forever with an increasing number of topics per post, so I'm going to do one per time, then we can go back and take up the others.

Immanuel Can wrote:True enough. But about things that "just happen" we can't know anything. Science presumes causality. Absent any causality, there's no science; and you're right to point out that the belief that things don't "just happen" is not itself scientific. After all, science cannot prove it's so, when in point of fact it needs that assumption before it can prove anything.

First, it's "Science Methodology 101" that science doesn't prove anything. At best, it provisionally verifies things in lieu of falsification.

Presumably, science's task is to observe the world and tell us what it's really like, in natural terms.

So if what the world is really like is that some things happen acausally, science can--and should--tell us that.

That science assumes that everything is causal is part of my point. There's no justification for assuming that everything is causal, and especially not for assuming that nothing can be acausal.

And of course science doesn't only talk about causality. It talks about properties and "behavior" in general. So science can still do that with acausal events insofar as they might obtain.

Terrapin Station wrote:First, it's "Science Methodology 101" that science doesn't prove anything. At best, it provisionally verifies things in lieu of falsification.

Falsificationism is a 1930s theory that has also been disproven. It was Popper who proposed it as an alternative to Verificationism. We now that science does neither, actually. It's probabilistic, not absolute either in positive or negative terms.

But probabilities are still terrific things. I'd rather run my life on something that's 99.999% probable than on something that's 1% probable, wouldn't you? So if science can increase the probability we're guessing right, even if it cannot give us certainty, I think we'd agree it's doing something pretty valuable.

So if what the world is really like is that some things happen acausally, science can--and should--tell us that.

Not if it presumes cause...which it does. A methodology designed only to exposit causes can have nothing to say about non-caused events, if such occur. But I think we're wise to think they don't. After all, what's one example of a known non-caused event?

We don't have one. Absent even one example, I think we're justified in being skeptical that such entities even exist. It's inestimably low in probability that they do.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:First, it's "Science Methodology 101" that science doesn't prove anything. At best, it provisionally verifies things in lieu of falsification.

Falsificationism is a 1930s theory that has also been disproven. It was Popper who proposed it as an alternative to Verificationism. We now that science does neither, actually. It's probabilistic, not absolute either in positive or negative terms.

Whether you're aware of it or not, falsificationism is still standard science methodology. Re "disproven," are you talking about Duhem-Quine? That hasn't made falsificationism not standard science methdology.

Terrapin Station wrote:Whether you're aware of it or not, falsificationism is still standard science methodology.

For some, I suppose it might still be -- provided they're naive about epistemology, that is. And I have no trouble believing you if you say they are; in fact,I have met scientists who still think Verificationism works too. It seems the self-congratulation mechanisms within the scientific community are still performing their usual function. I conclude that being a practicing scientist does not apparently automatically equate to being possessed of a sound grasp of the Philosophy of Science. And I think that's a fair claim.

On the other side, I wouldn't merely point to Quine. The critiques of Verification-Falsification are many. Some would point to Feyerabend, Kuhn, Foucault or Derrida, perhaps. But I think the decisive moment is Polanyi. He was, after all, a master scientist himself; but clearly no fool in Philosophy. If you haven't read "Personal Knowledge," I highly recommend it. You won't be disappointed.

Immanuel Can wrote: Because Westerners do not believe that God cannot "change" in the sense you want them to believe it. So they deny your first premise.

Then I invite you to read this (section Medieval Thought).

Immanuel Can wrote: No, you're missing the point. You're saying "God doesn't change," in the sense that He is not modified and does not become different. But in Western thought, WE ARE NOT PART OF GOD. So if we change, God does not. He is distinct from His Creation.

God is perfect hence He cannot change. Please read the previous link.

Immanuel Can wrote: No, things can be both IN time, OUTSIDE time, or both INSIDE AND OUTSIDE of time. Time is not the decider of where God is, in Western thought. Time is a created property, not an ultimate one.

You didn't answer what beyond time means. We just have timeless the time and temporal the time. We don't have inside and outside time since time is a measure of changes.

Immanuel Can wrote: In fact, scientifically we know that is correct. Time itself came into being at the original singularity that produced the universe.

So you agree that time is a part of creation?

Immanuel Can wrote: Yes, yes it is. Now you've got it.

I knew it.

Immanuel Can wrote: Incorrect. I can build a house, and I can enter my house. There is no problem there. Surely if God is the creator of time, He can also choose to enter time, if He wishes.

But time is part of creation. God cannot create time an then enter into the time to create universe. Even if we accept that time can be create separate from universe then we still have a problem, namely God has to create time in order to create time, which lead into infinite regress.

Moreover time is measure of changes hence the concept of outside of time is lame.

Immanuel Can wrote: You seem to think that time limits Him. As you say, you think that He cannot enter time.

Again, time is measure of changes so inside and outside time is meaningless.

Immanuel Can wrote: What would those be?

He cannot do logical impossible things.

Immanuel Can wrote: Yes. I understand that. But the Western God is a personal God. So your OP is not relevant to the Western thinker. Whether it works for Easterners, I'll let them say.

Western thought says God is beyond time: that is, He is not subject to time, but He can choose to act within time as well. Time does not, in Western thought, limit God.

No, Western God dwells in timeless state hence he cannot decide and act. He can only perform one eternal act.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: I am not talking about created God. The problem is that there is no before the act of creation since there is no time so the only way to skip the problem is to accept that God existence and the act of creation lay in the same point.

Well, since we know scientifically that Creation did not always exist, if Creation and God commenced at the same point, then you could only be talking about a created God -- if your explanation is right.

So it seems inescapable that your explanation isn't right.

No, you don't pay any heed to what I say. There is no before creation since time is a part of creation. So the only way that we can resolve the problem is to accept that the existence of God and act of creation lay in the same point.

bahman wrote: No, Western God dwells in timeless state hence he cannot decide and act. He can only perform one eternal act.

This would be what we call "Deism." Deism is really a minor tradition in Western thought, and not one very many people believe today.

I can see you're devoted to your OP, and uninterested in explanations of what is contrary to your assumptions. I suppose it's giving you some comfort, or maybe you're finding it an assurance, as if you have a defeater for Theism: I don't know. However, since you're unwilling to entertain options, I'm not sure what more I can offer to your position.

I think it's wrong, and I'm absolutely certain you've got the Western characterization of God wrong. Moreover, you seem persistently unable to see that relational change is not the same as a personal change. Those should be treated as distinct concepts: they are. I've tried to make that clear, but all explanations appear at the moment to slide off, again for some reason unknown to me.

Absent the important conceptual distinctions, though, I can see that we're not able to make further progress. This is shown by your inclination to recycle the OP in the same old unimproved form. I've shown you that it's not sound as it stands, because it contains an amphiboly. But you seem to feel it is sound, or need to feel that it is sound, for some reason. What that reason is, I cannot guess.

So I guess we'll leave it there, and move on. I can't make you let go of it.

bahman wrote:
He cannot do logical impossible things.

So your concept of God is that God is bound by human logic, that seems a bit limiting, and I don't accept those limits for God.

thedoc wrote:So your concept of God is that God is bound by human logic, that seems a bit limiting, and I don't accept those limits for God.

Hi, Thedoc:

No, I could join him on that one.

It might be not that God is "limited" by logic, far less "human logic," but rather the inverse: that God is a God of reason, order and logic, and "human logic" is merely a (flawed) reflection of that. So in abiding by that which was logical, reasonable and rational, God would be acting in keeping with His own inherent nature, not bowing to logic as an external standard, far less a merely human one.

It could be understood as being like that.

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:So your concept of God is that God is bound by human logic, that seems a bit limiting, and I don't accept those limits for God.

Hi, Thedoc:

No, I could join him on that one.

It might be not that God is "limited" by logic, far less "human logic," but rather the inverse: that God is a God of reason, order and logic, and "human logic" is merely a (flawed) reflection of that. So in abiding by that which was logical, reasonable and rational, God would be acting in keeping with His own inherent nature, not bowing to logic as an external standard, far less a merely human one.

It could be understood as being like that.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you believe that God is acting according to a logic and reason that is (for lack of a better word) superior to human logic and reason. I could go along with that, and it is in accord with what I posted, that I don't accept the limits of human logic for God. Also we could consider that God has a much greater base of knowledge on which to base his logical actions, if we assume that God created the universe and understands everything about it. So the actions of God, based on this greater knowledge, might not make logical sense to humans, with their limited understanding.