VVilliam wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 3:35 am
Here are the details of that.
Supernaturalist: You aren’t even sure there is “spatio-temporal energy/matter”?
Me: You wanted clarification on what premise 2 "The Universe" meant. I gave a concise explanation re that, based on what you offered.
I gave my own view in answer, which was (in context) to say that I disagreed with your interpretation that "The Universe" was "all of the spatio-temporal matter/energy that has ever existed in whatever forms and cycles it has gone through."
Supernaturalist: Do you mean it might be an illusion or simulation some other 'stuff' is having? Because you couldn't be having this conversation if what we call spatio-temporal energy/matter didn't exist because you have a human body and are typing on some type of computer and all of that, which are things that are made of spatio-temporal energy/matter, even if that is an illusion or simulation some other 'stuff' is having.
Me: So what you really mean is that "The Universe" is made up of temporary functional objects? If so, that aligns with how I see it too - as I wrote in my last post - we can agree that "The Universe" only refers to what is temporal and is known to have had a beginning, rather than what is eternal and since we do not know whether matter and energy are temporal or eternal, we would have to agree to exclude these.
To clarify, not to exclude matter and energy as being responsible for the existence of The Universe made up of temporary functional objects, but to exclude the idea that matter and energy itself is temporary.
Thus,
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The Universe began to exist
In that, "The Universe" is "all of the temporal functional objects that exist in whatever forms and cycles these go through."
(Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?)
Supernaturalist: No, that is not what I mean. We can’t beg the question by our definition of ‘universe’. And we are currently talking about the term, not what the premise says about that term. By 'universe' I’m talking about those things you think are temporary, functional objects, but I’m not saying they are temporary, functional or not temporary, functional objects. That question, answered either way, cannot be a part of the definition or we are begging the question, which is irrational. The focus right now is just on agreeing on the term, not what we think about the things that make up that term.
Me: In considering the definition of 'The Universe,' I find your caution against including specific characteristics within the definition understandable. However, it's worth noting that seeking clarification on what 'The Universe' entails is not an attempt to impose specific characteristics but rather a means to ensure a common ground for our discussion.
Moreover, I understand that drawing on the insights provided by scientific knowledge is rational and that allowing such to be a part of the definition is not “begging the question”, and thus is not an irrational thing to do, but rather – a necessary (rational) thing to include and re definition -would not cause one to fall into the trap of circular reasoning.
Scientific discoveries about the nature of spatio-temporal objects, (various forms), and cycles (beginnings, beings and endings) can inform our understanding without being deemed as 'begging the question.' In doing so, we can create a more nuanced and comprehensive framework for our discussion that incorporates both philosophical considerations and empirical knowledge.
The Universe does have characteristics and these should be included in any definition of The Universe.
Supernaturalist: It is not scientific knowledge that spatio-temporal matter/energy is "temporary, functional objects". There is scientific debate over whether spatio-temporal energy is eternal or temporal. So, our definition of spatio-temporal matter/energy should not include an answer to whether it is eternal or temporal.
Me: Agreed.
Any definition of "The Universe" which is not scientific knowledge - including the one you are using/wanting to use, should thus be placed aside because of that rule-set.
The definition "spatio-temporal matter/energy" is breach of rule-set as it has within it's phrasing the word "temporal" which is an answer to whether The Universe is "eternal" or "temporal" - (in this case the answer being "temporal".)
Since it is the case that such is not scientific knowledge, "The Universe" cannot be further clarified in its meaning, (re the rule-set) and therefore can only be taken at face value (simply referred to as "The Universe") re the 3 premises being discussed.
This being the case, the second premise (2. The Universe began to exist) having not yet been established, is a false premise and thus, the third premise (3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.) cannot be determined as a logical conclusion.
NOTE to you here Veritas Aequitas. I think this is what you may be saying re your "final nail"? That Premise 2 is false/based upon false/misinformation/assumption?
Me: I would say that what is going on here are two distinct philosophical arguments.
On the one hand, the supernaturalist premises;
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
And on the other hand, the following.
1. The Universe exists
2. It is unknown that The Universe began to exist.
3: It is unknown if an uncaused being caused The Universe to exist.
4: Therefore, The Universe can be regarded as The Uncaused Being.
Given that these are philosophical musings, they should hold equally to the same rule-set and therein neither should be granted a double standard pass.
This is to acknowledge that the rule-set should apply to both philosophical positions, rather than favor the one over the other.
Supernaturalist: You are correct that we should be more exact with the terms, since ‘temporal’ has different meanings.
Me: Temporary simply means Temporal/Temporal simply means Temporary.
Supernaturalist: The “temporal” of spatio-temporal matter/energy is only meant to refer to the nature of matter/energy to change and how it has extension in space.
Me: In what way do we observe this phenomena?
Supernaturalist: It does not refer to whether it had a beginning or is beginningless (maybe those should be the terms used instead of eternal/temporal in the question we are not trying to beg).
Me: Indeed - it could be argued that the phenomena observed (whatever these might be) consist of beginnings and ends.
For example, we could agree that the phenomena of stars being observed beginning, existing, or ending might be acceptable examples but do we observe the matter or energy associated with that process, as also beginning, existing and then ending?
1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.
That is so far where we are at.
Not sure where your "final nail" is situated re the bit after my note to you above...