It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So you disagree?
Most of this wasn't an argument.
For the little part that perhaps was, i say this. I'm certinly not arging that the pre-universe cause is temporal.
Your "rebuttals," weren't rebuttals.
The first cause doens't have to have been before time, it could have been the beginning of time itself.
I agree completely. But there's a catch. The universe, in the model Hawking favours, is finite but boundariless. That means it's about 15bn years old, but also that it has existed 'forever'. See my third point earlier.
I wasn't arguing that the beginning of time was the cause, only that it was included with the cause.
It is a deductive argument because the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
We know that matter couldn't have always been here because matter is never quiescent.
So this by definition wouldn't be a material cause of the universe, as the universe already existed as the material itself.
there must be an actual infinite amount of past events if the universe has always existed, and it's impossible to have an actual infinite.
I'm not aruging for the existence of a god here.
Now lets take a look at your rebuttals.
Rebuttal to premise one- Surely, what you mean to say is, "There seem to be examples of things happening without a cause." Is this an accepted fact? Not at all, I direct you to David Bohm's interpretation.
Furthermore, doesn't it seem more probable that we just simply don't have instruments to measure particles that small correctly yet? Besides, as people debating about this before us have said. Extrapolating that there are no causes for these things just because we haven't found any yet , decisevely, is like extrapolating that due to our inability to detect alien life, there is no alien life in the universe.
I'll leave you with a quote by John Jefferson Davis.
"Quantum-mechanical events may not have classically deterministic causes, but they are not thereby uncaused or a causal. The decay of a nucleus takes place in view of physical actualities and potentialities internal to itself, in relation to a spatiotemporal nexus governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. The fact that uranium atoms consistently decay into atoms of lead and other elements--and not into rabbits or frogs--shows that such events are not causal but take place within a causal nexus and lawlike structures."
originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: spygeek
I'll adress your refutation to premise two now.
It is not an assumption but a notion very much grounded in general concensus among scientists, it is also the only logical probablility in an inductive sense. The multiverse hypothisis is irrelevant since that would be incudled in the definiton we are using for universe.
As for this "pre big bang universe," how could it be static when energy isn't quiescnet? Also, this raises the highly interesting question, if it was eternally static beforehand, what was the cause of it's change? For example,(and actually I think this is Craig's example.) If a pool is frozen for eternity and then melts, what made it melt?