Are we now agreed?

[torridon]

Global warming may be true, but nevertheless, some places will get excessively cold also.  Such opposites are part of the pendulum swing.  Cyclical variations....  which provides the necessary balance.

That's nonsense.  Global warming means average temperature rise across the whole planet, and the current spike in temperatures is nothing to do with natural cyclical variations and everything to do with the fact the humans have been digging carbon out of the ground and putting it in the air for the last two hundred years and chopping down the forests that provided a natural regulation mechanism for atmospheric carbon for last ten thousand years.  On current trends we will have 3 to 4 degrees of warming by the end of the century which will render large swathes of equatorial Africa and Asia uninhabitable and many large coastal cities will be lost to sea level rise.  There is no balance in this scenario as far as the human population is concerned.  Some species will do better in a warmer climate, some will die out. But for humans there is no upside to this.

[Sriram]

That's nonsense.  Global warming means average temperature rise across the whole planet, and the current spike in temperatures is nothing to do with natural cyclical variations and everything to do with the fact the humans have been digging carbon out of the ground and putting it in the air for the last two hundred years and chopping down the forests that provided a natural regulation mechanism for atmospheric carbon for last ten thousand years.  On current trends we will have 3 to 4 degrees of warming by the end of the century which will render large swathes of equatorial Africa and Asia uninhabitable and many large coastal cities will be lost to sea level rise.  There is no balance in this scenario as far as the human population is concerned.  Some species will do better in a warmer climate, some will die out. But for humans there is no upside to this.

Oh my goodness!!  How microscopically you think.

All I was trying to say is that trends are one thing and cyclical variations are another thing. Even though there could be a long term trend in a specific direction cyclical variations could seem to buck the trend even though they are generally short term.

I talked of balance with regard to social changes.  Social changes often seem to proceed in one specific direction but will get balanced by opposing forces that pull in the opposite direction.  The right wing forces are important to balance the left wing forces that have been active for a long time now.  This was bound to happen.

[torridon]

Oh my goodness!!  How microscopically you think.

All I was trying to say is that trends are one thing and cyclical variations are another thing. Even though there could be a long term trend in a specific direction cyclical variations could seem to buck the trend even though they are generally short term.

I talked of balance with regard to social changes.  Social changes often seem to proceed in one specific direction but will get balanced by opposing forces that pull in the opposite direction.  The right wing forces are important to balance the left wing forces that have been active for a long time now.  This was bound to happen.

Pendulum swings are one thing; although they don't map very well to your notion of an arc of increasing civilisedness over time we could perhaps agree that short term political mood swings sit on top of deeper underlying trends, sometimes obscuring them.  I don't see any evidence for the underlying trend being a result of anything other than environmental factors such as better education and general well being however, and if/when these things start to go into steep irreversible decline later this century so too will the underlying trend of human 'civilisedness'.

[torridon]

Well, of course human nature isn't changing fundamentally - it's fixed by our genes. The fact remains that, for external reasons such as increased health, wealth, education, etc. we are getting morally better, albeit with some serious downward blips, such as the Nazis, and not everywhere at the same rate.

Yes I think that is basically right, and therein lie our deepest problems. We evolved to be effective members of a tribe, not to be global citizens, which is what we are now. Although people like Jesus countered our tribal instincts, our regard for out-groups remains one of high minded intellectual principal rather than fundamental passion. We care about children dying in Yemen, but we don't care enough to stop it.

[Roses]

Some would argue that a god must exist because the universe couldn't come into being any other way. But it is possible that one day science discovers how it came about, without the help of a deity.

[torridon]

Some would argue that a god must exist because the universe couldn't come into being any other way. But it is possible that one day science discover a how it came about, without the help of a deity.

I don't think it makes sense to talk about 'how the universe came about'.  That implies a time frame, and yet time is a property of the universe.   Any notion that the universe is a property of itself is clearly circular.

[Roses]

I don't think it makes sense to talk about 'how the universe came about'.  That implies a time frame, and yet time is a property of the universe.   Any notion that the universe is a property of itself is clearly circular.

You are probably right.

[Enki]

I don't think it makes sense to talk about 'how the universe came about'.  That implies a time frame, and yet time is a property of the universe.   Any notion that the universe is a property of itself is clearly circular.

which is basically how Stephen Hawking describes it.

You can't get to a time before the Big Bang because there was no time before the Big bang.

P.37 'Brief Answers to the Big Questions'.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think it makes sense to talk about 'how the universe came about'.  That implies a time frame, and yet time is a property of the universe.   Any notion that the universe is a property of itself is clearly circular.

Indeed. Cause and effect, at best questionable, break down in any idea of something that is the first cause existing. So the Kalam is built on an argument that it then contradicts. It is a logical Indian rope trick. I am not sure that we can get beyond the statement ' There is something'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think it makes sense to talk about 'how the universe came about'.  That implies a time frame, and yet time is a property of the universe.

Not sure it does imply time and space but it does imply an explanation. This might lead into the question of is the universe contingent or necessary.

   Any notion that the universe is a property of itself is clearly circular.

That might be covered by the universe being necessary?

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure it does imply time and space but it does imply an explanation. This might lead into the question of is the universe contingent or necessary.

That might be covered by the universe being necessary?

in what way is cause and effect, as we talk about it, not imply a time frame? Or indeed, 'explanation'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed. Cause and effect, at best questionable, break down in any idea of something that is the first cause existing. So the Kalam is built on an argument that it then contradicts. It is a logical Indian rope trick. I am not sure that we can get beyond the statement ' There is something'.

Your view of Kalam here seems to be that anything that exists has a cause. Isn't that taken care of by the caveat that any thing that begins to exist has a cause. And Torridon is talking about a universe that began to exist.

Your notion of all that can be said is "there is something" can't stand if you have already agreed limits on it and I'm not sure Torridon hasn't.

The North Pole argument doesn't work because the world of course exists in something larger.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

in what way is cause and effect, as we talk about it, not imply a time frame? Or indeed, 'explanation'?

Cause and effect necessarily involve time? Why?

[Nearly Sane]

Your view of Kalam here seems to be that anything that exists has a cause. Isn't that taken care of by the caveat that any thing that begins to exist has a cause. And Torridon is talking about a universe that began to exist.

Your notion of all that can be said is "there is something" can't stand if you have already agreed limits on it and I'm not sure Torridon hasn't.

The North Pole argument doesn't work because the world of course exists in something larger.

That's the point. If you 'specially plead' that there is something that exists that doesn't have a beginning, then all comments on 'beginning' make no sense. Indeed the idea of time as in cause and effect becomes entirely meaningless, so you end up getting rid of cause, time and effect, and when you do that your argument then disappears. It is self contradictory.

[Nearly Sane]

Cause and effect necessarily involve time? Why?

Because they assume time's arrow. Effect follows cause. That's the basis of the classic Kalam, and Lane Craig's fatuous rephrasing.if you remove that they don't even reach the level of idiocy they try to achieve.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's the point. If you 'specially plead' that there is something that exists that doesn't have a beginning, then all comments on 'beginning' make no sense. Indeed the idea of time as in cause and effect becomes entirely meaningless, so you end up getting rid of cause, time and effect, and when you do that your argument then disappears. It is self contradictory.

Sorry, If you are saying that all causes must have a beginning then you are saying that the universe is infinitely old.

If that is the case where does time come in? and if it doesn't where does change come in? And if that doesn't how does the universe come in?

Effectively you've disproved the universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because they assume time's arrow. Effect follows cause. That's the basis of the classic Kalam, and Lane Craig's fatuous rephrasing.if you remove that they don't even reach the level of idiocy they try to achieve.

Your just ranting now and assuming but no demonstration.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the universe has no explanation it is then necessary and self explanatory....the end of science.

[Nearly Sane]

Your just ranting now and assuming but no demonstration.

No, I made some points, you're just evading dealing with then by an incorrect and pountless , in terms of argument, accusation.

[Nearly Sane]

If the universe has no explanation it is then necessary and self explanatory....the end of science.

Contradictory gibberish. No explanation does not equal self exolanatory.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry, If you are saying that all causes must have a beginning then you are saying that the universe is infinitely old.

If that is the case where does time come in? and if it doesn't where does change come in? And if that doesn't how does the universe come in?

Effectively you've disproved the universe.

I'm not saying anything about causes. The Kalam, in its original, and Lane Craig's witless reformulation, do. Your post just argues against both formulations. You may not realize that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because they assume time's arrow. Effect follows cause. That's the basis of the classic Kalam, and Lane Craig's fatuous rephrasing.if you remove that they don't even reach the level of idiocy they try to achieve.

In this article Michio Kaku states that quantum entanglement is instantaneous so presumably times arrow does not have to be assumed in cause and effect.

https://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/what-travels-faster-than-the-speed-of-light

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Contradictory gibberish. No explanation does not equal self exolanatory.

Demonstrate.

[SteveH]

Contradictory gibberish. No explanation does not equal self exolanatory.

You're doing it again! The first two words are aggressive, confrontational, and completely unnecessary.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not saying anything about causes. The Kalam, in its original, and Lane Craig's witless reformulation, do. Your post just argues against both formulations. You may not realize that.

There you go again rant...and no demonstration.

Demonstrate how I am contradicting myself. In other words show that everything has a beginning.

I ought to tell you that I'm not married to the universe having a beginning because philosophy has envisaged Other cosmological formulations which budget for a Hoyle type universe.

Given that times arrow looks for the moment unnecessary for cause and effect.....from both quantum entanglement and a seeming inability to make the case against.....it looks like Kalam Craig Lane is back on the table.