--------------E3D08F89C8911234B02DE395 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Austin Cline wrote:
> NUSBAUM
>
> >>1) Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.
> >>2) The universe began to exist.
> >>3) Therefore the universe had a cause.
> >>
> >>If I recall, you proposed the eternal nature of the universe...that's how
> >you got out of number two, however, what did you do with number one?
>
> AUSTIN
> Farell doesn't want to be bothered with this, but I'll bite.
>
> Number one is simply incorrect. It is not true that whatever begins to
> exist has a cause. Particles and anti-particles appear and disappear
> through quantum flucations, but are not caused.
The problem is that quantum fluctuations are in an imperfect vacuum, a condition that probably would not have existed at the singularity of the "Big Bang". There are, however, other problems with this premise.
> Number two is simply non-sensical. For something to "begin," there must be
> a time before during which it wasn't and a time after during which it
> is/was. However, time is inherent in our universe. Time, as we understand,
> does not "exist" outside the universe. Thus, it did not exist before the
> universe. Thus, thre cannot be a "time before." Speaking of "before" the
> universe is like trying to speak of "north" of the universe. It is an
> incoherent statement.
True. Though it is trickier than this. Stephen Hawking has proposed i time (imaginary time).More to the point though, is that "universe" is not one thing. So this argument is based partially on an equivocation about the meaning of universe.
> Since both premises are invalid, the conclusion fails.
I think the argument deserves more than this short discussion. --------------E3D08F89C8911234B02DE395 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bitAustin Cline wrote:
NUSBAUMThe problem is that quantum fluctuations are in an imperfect vacuum, a condition that probably would not have existed at the singularity of the "Big Bang". There are, however, other problems with this premise.>>1) Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.
>>2) The universe began to exist.
>>3) Therefore the universe had a cause.
>>
>>If I recall, you proposed the eternal nature of the universe...that's how
>you got out of number two, however, what did you do with number one?AUSTIN
Farell doesn't want to be bothered with this, but I'll bite.Number one is simply incorrect. It is not true that whatever begins to
exist has a cause. Particles and anti-particles appear and disappear
through quantum flucations, but are not caused.Number two is simply non-sensical. For something to "begin," there must beTrue. Though it is trickier than this. Stephen Hawking has proposed i time (imaginary time).More to the point though, is that "universe" is not one thing. So this argument is based partially on an equivocation about the meaning of universe.
a time before during which it wasn't and a time after during which it
is/was. However, time is inherent in our universe. Time, as we understand,
does not "exist" outside the universe. Thus, it did not exist before the
universe. Thus, thre cannot be a "time before." Speaking of "before" the
universe is like trying to speak of "north" of the universe. It is an
incoherent statement.Since both premises are invalid, the conclusion fails.I think the argument deserves more than this short discussion.