ATTN PORKENBEANS

[mpjh]

Not really. I think you can use logic and existing knowledge to postulate hypothesis, which is what I think you are doing. The next step is evidentiary exploration. Whether there was a beginning or not is a question for scientific exploration, and not something beyond such exploration (which is the OP position).

[Artimis]

I wanted to respond last night but I didn't have time as I had to go to work instead.

(1) What happened before time began?

There can be no "before" time, by definition.

That question is not necessarily as ridiculous as you might think, time is the 4th dimension of existence and is an emergent property of our universe after expansion. We're still struggling to understand what propels time from past to future(times arrow), no doubt an interesting answer awaits us. I'm glad I'm not a theoretical physicist who has to think about this sort of thing everyday, I'd go flipping bonkers otherwise!

For every beginning there is an end and visa versa. An aspect of existence defines it's own opposite and cannot exist without said opposite. Examples: Beginning & End, Light & Dark, Hot & Cold, Life & Death, Fast & Slow, etc and so forth...... The cosmic law of two is an immutable truth. The universe came from somewhere.

[CrazyAnglican]

In any case, mpjh, from what I can gather of that rather wordy bit of quotation, I think that as far as you are concerned I am set to move on to point 2.

Simply waiting on Jones and then we'll be set

No no no.
"logic" allows us to examine the question of whether causality is absolute.
I contend that logic tells us it is not. As stated before, logic tells us that things either began or did not. in either case the logical conclusion is that cuasality (not logic) fails. If time never began, causality is never breached, it just goes back and back.

This is your most compelling statement. Certainly, if we can conceive of a Universe without a beginning, one might say that it's logical. I think that we might be confusing what we mean by "the Universe"? If it's merely space that goes on forever, then sure how could we demand to know what caused that space. It's just there and as far as I know emptiness is the apparent absence of matter. I think though that we are speaking of "the Universe" as the space and everything in it. In that case it's perfectly logical to ask "where did all this stuff come from". How is it perfectly logical to think of an apparently infinite space with an apparently finite quantity of matter bouncing around in it changing forms, without the obvious question "How did this particular quantity of matter get here and how did the process of bouncing around changing forms get started". Under your definition the "things" in the Universe have been doing just that. As far as I know matter can't be destroyed or created merely changed. One is certainly tempted to ask where it came from in the first place.

If time did begin, logic tells us that there must have been a single first nanosecond, a first event, with no "before" and no cause.
This does not defy logic, it is determined by logic.

Logic doesn't say that exactly. What it says is that something must have caused the first event. Otherwise it's a bit like saying there's an almost infinite line of dominos set up and the first one is just going to decide to fall for us.

The disagreement here is that, as OA stated, Christians put forth one illogical (in violation of causality) idea. As he stated the opposition have put forth various theories not commiting to any of them as the absolute logical way to go, because they all violate causality. In general, causality looks pretty good even though we all agree it can't touch the idea of the ultimate beginning of the Universe (infinite space and everything it contains).

Not really. I think you can use logic and existing knowledge to postulate hypothesis, which is what I think you are doing.

Hence the step one, that OA quite simply put forth. Nobody is putting forth their own opinon as the more credible at this point. It's merely a statement that whatever beginning the Universe might have had, it would defy causation and therefore logic as we currently understand it.

The next step is evidentiary exploration. Whether there was a beginning or not is a question for scientific exploration, and not something beyond such exploration (which is the OP position).

With causation being an integral part of scientific experimentation and exploration? Good luck with that.

[mpjh]

I wanted to respond last night but I didn't have time as I had to go to work instead.

(1) What happened before time began?

There can be no "before" time, by definition.

That question is not necessarily as ridiculous as you might think, time is the 4th dimension of existence and is an emergent property of our universe after expansion. We're still struggling to understand what propels time from past to future(times arrow), no doubt an interesting answer awaits us. I'm glad I'm not a theoretical physicist who has to think about this sort of thing everyday, I'd go flipping bonkers otherwise!

For every beginning there is an end and visa versa. An aspect of existence defines it's own opposite and cannot exist without said opposite. Examples: Beginning & End, Light & Dark, Hot & Cold, Life & Death, Fast & Slow, etc and so forth...... The cosmic law of two is an immutable truth. The universe came from somewhere.

The dialectic then supports the big bounce theory with no beginning nor end to the process, just bouncing from one universe to another.

[CrazyAnglican]

For every beginning there is an end and visa versa. An aspect of existence defines it's own opposite and cannot exist without said opposite. Examples: Beginning & End, Light & Dark, Hot & Cold, Life & Death, Fast & Slow, etc and so forth...... The cosmic law of two is an immutable truth. The universe came from somewhere.

I'd certainly concur that for every middle there is a beginning. That's kind of where we are, does the same matter go bouncing around the same space infinitely and if so where did that matter come from in the first place? We can imagine on wider scales and we can extend the timeline, but not escape the question.

[mpjh]

The big bounce does answer the question. goggle it.

[CrazyAnglican]

Perhaps you could enlighten us. Research it.

[mpjh]

Did the research, gave several explanation on forum, your turn.

[jonesthecurl]

For every beginning there is an end and visa versa. An aspect of existence defines it's own opposite and cannot exist without said opposite. Examples: Beginning & End, Light & Dark, Hot & Cold, Life & Death, Fast & Slow, etc and so forth...... The cosmic law of two is an immutable truth. The universe came from somewhere.

Do you not see that you have just contradicted yourself?

[jonesthecurl]

I think though that we are speaking of "the Universe" as the space and everything in it. In that case it's perfectly logical to ask "where did all this stuff come from". How is it perfectly logical to think of an apparently infinite space with an apparently finite quantity of matter bouncing around in it changing forms, without the obvious question "How did this particular quantity of matter get here and how did the process of bouncing around changing forms get started". Under your definition the "things" in the Universe have been doing just that. As far as I know matter can't be destroyed or created merely changed. One is certainly tempted to ask where it came from in the first place.

If time did begin, logic tells us that there must have been a single first nanosecond, a first event, with no "before" and no cause.
This does not defy logic, it is determined by logic.

Logic doesn't say that exactly. What it says is that something must have caused the first event.

NO it doesn't. Logic says that the first event was the first event. In fact, even the words themselves say that it was the first event. That's the meaning of the word first. If it helps, forget the event and think of the moment. It was the first moment. ther were no prior moments. Without any time for causation to occur, there can have been no "prior" moment "in the first place" - because we've just said so. This is, quite literally, the logical conclusion.

Now, I don't know which of the two possibilities are real (infinite regression in time, no start ever) or time had a beginning. In either case, the conclusion is the simple logical outcome of the answer to that question. Time either never began ( no "first" ) or it did (Yes, a "first", but nothign before.)

[CrazyAnglican]

What you mean this uncited source? It would be really nice if we could go a read the rest to get more a gist of it.

The conclusion is that nothing can be caused by there being no true contradictions, any more than it is possible to suppose that, were there true contradictions, any given situation would not have arisen from the fact. It is impossible to cogitate a situation where there are true contradictions to begin with; hence, if P is a necessary truth, it is not merely untrue, but utter nonsense, to do thinking along the lines of: "If not for P, such and such would not have followed."

Hence, both from an epistemic and ontological perspective, causality is never a logically necessary relation.

Basically all that implies is since everything that is, is, then it's nonsense to go about imagining what would be if it weren't. True contradictions are not a part of the OP's argument nor have they been mentioned very often. This is no "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument. If you truly believe that causation is not a necessary element of logic, perhaps you could agree that it's reliable enough to build the scientific method upon?

[porkenbeans]

Both of you are still falsifying the definition of "logic".When you say, logic states this, and logic states that, This is a misnomer. Logic is only, in itself, - The gathering of available evidence, and then postulating the truth from that evidence. There may be evidence that you are not able to see, or uncover. This does not make your logic flawed. With this hidden evidence reviled, your logic will change, and may postulate a different truth. In other words, where your logic takes you, can turn out to be a false or incorrect postulation. Logic in itself can never be false. because it is made up of evidence that is factual. The more evidence that you have, The more reliable your logical postulation becomes.
The reason that I keep stressing this point is because, The equations that are being offered are miss defining the word logic. Your math is suffering as a result.

[Artimis]

Both of you are still falsifying the definition of "logic".When you say, logic states this, and logic states that, This is a misnomer. Logic is only, in itself, - The gathering of available evidence, and then postulating the truth from that evidence. There may be evidence that you are not able to see, or uncover. This does not make your logic flawed. With this hidden evidence reviled, your logic will change, and may postulate a different truth. In other words, where your logic takes you, can turn out to be a false or incorrect postulation. Logic in itself can never be false. because it is made up of evidence that is factual. The more evidence that you have, The more reliable your logical postulation becomes.
The reason that I keep stressing this point is because, The equations that are being offered are miss defining the word logic. Your math is suffering as a result.

Agreed! Under the cosmic law of two, if the universe did indeed have a beginning it must therefore have an end, logic prevails! - I personally am not too fussed about this as I have an estimated life span of 77 years, What happens in the billions of years to come isn't going to affect me much in the overall scheme of things, my molecules would have been recycled many, many times by then.

However if the universe has no beginning, then it is logical to conclude that it has no end, logic prevails! - Personally I think this is bonkers, but I can't prove it so it's just my opinion, but I'll eat my words if someone gathers some scientifically replicable evidence to prove that it is so.

Do you not see that you have just contradicted yourself?

I haven't, I'm of the opinion that the universe emerged from somewhere else, also that the universe will go to somewhere else. There must be a cause for this, otherwise how is it that this universe is in the state that it now resides in? Why not remain a near infinitely hot and dense speck many times smaller than an electron?

[OnlyAmbrose]

You guys are going to have to pardon my absence (or at least relative inactivity) for the next few days... school starts again in about a week so I have all sorts of packing, enrolling, bill-paying, and family stuff to do.

[Artimis]

No problem Ambrose, first things first.