No random variation in my view. No stochastic processes. Its all cause and effect. — Devans99

In that case, you must believe that this entire conversation--along with everything else that ever has happened and ever will happen--could not have played out any differently. In fact, you believe that it has happened infinitely many times in the past, and will happen again infinitely many times in the future, as the universe continues its endless (and meaningless) cycles. We are all mere cogs in a vast machine. Nothing that we observe demands an explanation; everything is just a brute fact.

How exactly do you implement transmigration of the soul? — Devans99

I see no reason why this should be problematic for the One who created the soul and the body (and put them together) in the first place, especially if we understand Him to be omniscient and omnipotent. Immense complexity does not entail logical impossibility.

In fact, you believe that it has happened infinitely many times in the past, and will happen again infinitely many times in the future — aletheist

Potentially infinitely many times would be nice. Believe is too strong a word. Hope is more appropriate at this stage. Science needs to provide more empirical evidence. Its an old idea and its occupied many minds down the years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Why then does science not take it seriously? I'm not sure. I think they are too atheist to take it seriously.

I see no reason why this should be problematic for the One who created the soul and the body — aletheist

I think we will have to agree to disagree. I am a materialist. I see no evidence of the non-material whatsoever. I admit that is just induction so I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong too.

Science needs to provide more empirical evidence. — Devans99

What would qualify as "empirical evidence" that the universe is cyclical, repeating the exact same sequence of events over and over? Why would we expect to find any such evidence at all?

Why then does science not take it seriously? — Devans99

Because science is causally determined not to take it seriously. In any case, a cyclical and causally determinate universe does not call for an explanation of anything, scientific or otherwise; everything is a brute fact.

I am a materialist. I see no evidence of the non-material whatsoever. — Devans99

Then why worry about finding a place for God in the picture?

What would qualify as "empirical evidence" that the universe is cyclical, repeating the exact same sequence of events over and over? Why would we expect to find any such evidence at all? — aletheist

Well we have the Big Bang - which is one half of the story. What we really need is more evidence for the Big Crunch - the other half of the cyclical time story.

It seems obvious to me that nothing apart from the Crunch could of caused the Bang - exactly the right amount of matter/energy. So more investigations into the current expansion rate of the universe would be good (there are disagreements depending on who you listen too). More investigation into the topology of spacetime would be nice too.

Then why worry about finding a place for God in the picture? — aletheist

He seems to fit in logically - I'm also a fan of the argument from design. The atom for example is a minor miracle of design in my view. So we need a God to explain the evidence of design away.

So we need a God to explain the evidence of design away. — Devans99

Design implies intention and choice from among multiple viable options, but causal determinism rules both of those out. Somehow excluding God from causal determinism would be just as "inconsistent" (according to your own assessment) as excluding an unmoved mover from being an effect. In other words, your updated axiom that all events are caused by other events entails that there is no God.

Besides, under materialism, "God" would have to be something entirely material, and thus not suitable for the name as commonly employed.

I think cause and effect only applying to things in time makes sense. Without time there is no before or after. Maybe there is another dimension of time for God only and that is circular too. But these are tricky things to reason about:

- Is timeless possible?
- Does cause and effect apply to timeless beings?
- Why is there something rather than nothing?

These questions might be beyond our reasoning capability as creatures of time.

There are a finite number of total events on a circle of time: say a circle with 4 events A,B,C,D. Event A you could say 'occurs again', but it's the same event A as before. In the 4D spacetime view, events don't really occur, they just exist perpetually in spacetime at a particular co-ordinate. — Devans99

Is there always a prior event? Yes or no?

Any point on a circle has a prior point/event.

Is singularity any more a proven scientific theory than God ?? — Rank Amateur

Lolwut? God doesn't really have a place in this discussion. There is more of a scientific basis in support of an initial singularity than God. You can look up the former if you're interested. There is zero scientific basis for God.

Prior to the big bang, the common argument against the CA was " who created the creator" or said another way, an infinite regression. Post big bang this argument became outside scientific consensus. — Rank Amateur

It's outside the consensus because we don't know, because of physics breaking down. An infinite regress is still logically possible, and the notion of an uncaused cause would still require justification as an exception to the principle of cause and effect.

A finite universe supports CA - happy to agree is does not support CA to the exclusion of all other arguments - but it most clearly supports CA. — Rank Amateur

My point was about the Big Bang. If you're asserting that the Big Bang most clearly supports the cosmological argument, then I would like to see you put your money where your mouth is.

Repeating your as yet unsupported assertion in stronger language does not really achieve anything. Go ahead and back it up, otherwise it can just be dismissed. — S

interesting that this come after this

Lolwut? God doesn't really have a place in this discussion. There is more of scientific basis in support of an initial singularity than God. There is zero scientific basis for God. — S

Never mind S - forget I engaged

But I don't understand. You can look up the scientific basis for an initial singularity. I just briefly looked into it myself a moment ago. For example, I know that it relates to General Relativity and the Big Bang theory. That shouldn't be up for debate, really.

Yet I wouldn't even know where to begin looking into your extraordinary claim about the Big Bang theory supporting the cosmological argument. What reputable source would make such a claim? It's just a misinterpretation of science, isn't it?

Any point on a circle has a prior point/event. — Devans99

Then that's an infinite regress. It regresses from an event to a prior event infinitely.

Then that's an infinite regress. It regresses from an event to a prior event infinitely. — S

No because these are the same points. A circle only has one set of points. Try not to think of time as flowing... think of it as like a spacial dimension. So in a 4d spacetime view our universe forms a torus shape with time being the loop shape. Nothing flows, everything is completely still in the 4d spacetime view of the universe. Just one set of events.

No because these are the same points. A circle only has one set of points. Try not to think of time as flowing... think of it as like a spacial dimension. So in a 4d spacetime view our universe forms a torus shape with time being the loop shape. Nothing flows, everything is completely still in the 4d spacetime view of the universe. Just one set of events. — Devans99

Whaaaat? :confused:

Everything is completely still? That has perhaps puzzled me the most in what you just typed.

But anyway, same points or not, doughnut universe or not, logically, it seems to me that if there's always a prior event, then that's an infinite regress, and there's no possible way around that. If the motion of travel is forever going backwards, or anticlockwise if you prefer to imagine it as a circle, then that's an infinite regress.

I think cause and effect only applying to things in time makes sense. — Devans99

In that case, your previous objections to the unmoved mover dissolve, since it is outside of time and therefore not subject to cause and effect.

But I don't understand. — S

The concept of a singularity is no more proven than the concept of "God" or let's say a necessary being.

Both are possible answers to what is before the big bang. They are both faith based claims. One is faith in science ( or better said - faith in our ability to answer all questions) and the other is a faith in God.

Singularity - defined as

In the center of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. As the eminent American physicist Kip Thorne describes it, it is "the point where all laws of physics break down"

has no real scientific evidence to support it at this point, at least not the last time I looked. It is an idea, a possible explanation, at best a logical guess. It is not a scientific theory in the way gravity is.

I didn't look any of this up - if my understanding is outdated - happy to admit it if it is shown to be.

Everything is completely still? That's perhaps stumped me the most in what you just typed. — S

Well I admit that is a problem with the spacetime/eternalist model. Seems to be something different about 'now' compared to 'past' and 'future' else we would not be able to tell the difference between them. So some sort of 'now' cursor spinning around the loop of time? That gives a problem of where did it start and why... plus there should be no motion in the 4d space-time view. Maybe time is not quite like a space dimension but some sort of hybrid dimension that allows a time cursor to flow around? Or maybe 'now' is purely a product of consciousness somehow?

An infinite regress that looks like a circle and in which the points reoccur is still an infinite regress. — S

A circle is not an infinite regress. Draw a circle. There are a finite number of points on the paper as a result. There is nothing infinite about it.

If the last event is before the first event, the Big Crunch before the Big Bang it all adds up nicely.

There is a start of time, so time must be real like Einstein said, it can't be infinite, so time must have an end too. Has to be somewhere for all the matter and energy to go at the end of time - must be back to the start of time.

A circle is not an infinite regress. Draw a circle. There are a finite number of points on the paper as a result. There is nothing infinite about it. — Devans99

just for some mathematical clarity - between any two points- whether it is on a circle or a line are an infinite number of points.

"I think cause and effect only applying to things in time makes sense.
— Devans99
In that case, your previous objections to the unmoved mover dissolve, since it is outside of time and therefore not subject to cause and effect. — aletheist

We can agree on this point I think: a timeless unmoved mover is a possibility.

But my axiom 'events are caused by events' rules out an unmoved mover in time.

As I recall the church was somewhat split on the issue of whether God was inside or outside of time.

I think you're just looking at it the wrong way. It's not about what is or isn't proven, and it's not about faith. That's jumping between extremes. It's about which theory is better in terms of explanatory power or in terms of its links to related theories. The singularity has a relation to General Relativity and the Big Bang theory. Applying General Relativity leads to a singularity as you defined it. This is what actual physicists have found out. There are alternative theories, such as Quantum Loop Theory, but how can you lump a necessary being in the same category on the same basis as I've just outlined? You can't get from General Relativity or the Big Bang to a necessary being. I'd think that you must be doing something wrong, misinterpreting the science or throwing in a god of the gaps somewhere along the line.

Ok - got it

Draw a circle. There are a finite number of points on the paper as a result. There is nothing infinite about it. — Devans99

What we can draw on paper is a representation of a circle, and we can mark as many points on it as we like--up to any finite number. However, a real circle--note, not an actual circle, since there is no such thing--does not consist of any number of discrete points, finite or infinite; it is a continuous curve, infinitely divisible into smaller and smaller arcs.

just for some mathematical clarity - between any two points- whether it is on a circle or a line are an infinite number of points. — Rank Amateur

There are potential points beyond all multitude between any two actual points that we mark, but a truly continuous circle or line does not consist of points at all.

As I recall the church was somewhat split on the issue of whether God was inside or outside of time. — Devans99

Any classical theist who embraces unmoved mover arguments would "locate" God outside of time, since time would be an aspect of the universe that He created.

What we can draw on paper is a representation of a circle, and we can mark as many points on it as we like--up to any finite number. However, a real circle--note, not an actual circle, since there is no such thing--does not consist of any number of discrete points, finite or infinite; it is a continuous curve, infinitely divisible into smaller and smaller arcs — aletheist

A continuous circle is only possible in the mind. In reality circles are made of molecules of material which are discrete all the way down.

There are potential points beyond all multitude between any two actual points that we mark, but a truly continuous circle or line does not consist of points at all. — aletheist

been a long time for me - but I have a memory of the formula for a line is

y = mx+b where (x,y) is a point, and m is the change in any two points on the line (x1, y1 to x2, y2) , and b is a point where the line where x = 0 - seems a lot of points in that formula

just for some mathematical clarity - between any two points- whether it is on a circle or a line are an infinite number of points. — Rank Amateur

I would dispute that. I mathematical point is defined to have length=0. How many points in an interval length 1? 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED.

Any sensible definition of a point requires a non zero length... things with zero length just don't exist.

A circle is not an infinite regress. Draw a circle. There are a finite number of points on the paper as a result. There is nothing infinite about it. — Devans99

We're not just talking about a circle though. I can only make sense of an event preceding another event preceding another event with a sort of backwards motion. This backwards motion can be circular, kind of like a point on a circle moving around the perimeter in an anticlockwise direction. And it would perpetually be moving in that direction if we were to trace back in time the preceding events. And it would regress in that way infinitely.

If the last event is before the first event, the Big Crunch before the Big Bang it all adds up nicely. — Devans99

But there is no last event! There's always one which preceded it!

I would dispute that. I mathematical point is defined to have length=0. How many points in an interval length 1? 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED. — Devans99

agree - i said between any 2 points there are an infinite number of points - we are arguing facts now

a point is a specific place in space, it has no size. Between any 2 points there is only one distinct line. between any 2 points on the same line there are an infinite number of points.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1799125/how-many-points-in-a-line-segment

Well I can understand not wanting to depart from the Presentist view point; it is after all our gut feeling for the way the world works. But presentism is logically impossible by the reasonable axiom 'events are caused by events'. And it causes paradoxes, some of which I pointed out earlier. It is fair to say I can't make my mind up between the two.

And it would regress in that way infinitely. — S

But on a fixed set of finite co-ordinates. So it could depending on how time works perhaps be a potential rather than actual infinity. It would also be more logically consistent that a linear infinite regress (which fails mathematically).

a point is a specific place in space, it has no size — Rank Amateur

So it would not exist, how can something have no size and exist?. A point is purely in our minds. How many things do you know that exist and have length zero?