How can there be a first cause if everything must have a cause?

Exactly. It is a concept. The universe is a physical entity, not a concept. All physical entities have beginnings

It may not be the "first" cause. It is merely the first cause we can know happened because the universe exists

what happened before the big bang

Particles do not just form into life. Life is created

I dunno, if you let food in the fridge for too long, matter mutates into something alive.

There was no before because time was created by the big bang.

"Outside" would be a more accurate term, and we have no clue what things look like outside of the time-space continuum.

undefined, but it's known that everything was still there

No spacetime, no happenings.

Time didn't exist before big bang so nothing happens before the big bang.

>what is bacteria?

>causality exist outside of spacetime- source: my ass

>Particles do not just form into life. Life is created- source: muh god and muh book

Don't have a "book" m8, I'm not religious just using some pretty simple reasoning that you seem to have no actual counter to

What if outside spacetime is the base dimension of consciousness where all things we imagine are real?

>life is created
>simple reasoning
Provide your simple reasonong anytime.

So there is a beginning?

all life obeys certain observable characteristics, no? One of these is that they are not merely phased into existence, but created
But please show me a life form NOT created and I'll concede
Keep in mind I'm not claiming knowledge of the exact source of being or life, just that since we know life/being NEEDS source, to presume one exists is rational

Its a necessity in the current/normal understanding of causality. Its a paradox in this case.

To solve this paradox you have to discard the current assumptions about causality.

>"From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived."

christcucks btfo

>are not merely phased into existence, but created
amino acids (produced in the environment and even found in space) -> polymers -> cells etc.

looks like a casual chain

>Attempting to use grammatical hair splitting to weasel out of the ramifications of causality.
Is this peak pilpul?

Everything is a deterministic chain leading to a single point. What's your point?

lol

I'm tryin to figure out if shit is all casual or not is all

>polymers -> cells
lol
I think you're skipping a few steps there bro.

>casual
It's causal, brainlet.

...

just a typo my man

You sure, my bruv?

>Philosopher of science David Albert has criticised the use of the term "nothing" in describing the quantum vacuum. In a review of Krauss's book, he states:

"Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields."[38]
Likewise, Craig also argued that the quantum vacuum, in containing quantifiable, measurable energy, cannot be described as "nothing", therefore, that phenomena originating from the quantum vacuum cannot be described as "uncaused". On the topic of virtual particles, he writes:

"For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum."[39]

pls respond

Lol
"B-theory of time" is hilarious unscientific nonsense that undermines the whole idea of modeling reality based off cause and effect, and therefore by extension the scientific method.

Riddle me this atheistfags;
How can evolution be real if the idea of temporal becoming is a subjective illusion and any perceived evolutionary connection between species is just a coincidental artifact of the tendency of our species to construct patterns in the random noise of the eternal and tenseless universe?

The First Cause is eternal, He didn't need a beginning

No, The Universe is eternal. It doesn't need a beginning.

B-theory of time is literally the dominant view among both physicists (see special relativity) and philosophers of time, you massive brainlet. It's painfully obvious you don't even know what it means

Basically on the quantum level, shit can just happen for literally no reason and with no external force.

>b-but teh sciencey man believes it too!
That's nice.
Now about you address the logical ramifications the B-theory of time has on the scientific method which I have brought up?

Combine B-theory + Mereological nihilism and it has no flaws

>shit can just happen for literally no reason and with no external force.

>Philosopher of science David Albert has criticised the use of the term "nothing" in describing the quantum vacuum. In a review of Krauss's book, he states:

>"Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields."[38]
>Likewise, Craig also argued that the quantum vacuum, in containing quantifiable, measurable energy, cannot be described as "nothing", therefore, that phenomena originating from the quantum vacuum cannot be described as "uncaused". On the topic of virtual particles, he writes:

>"For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum."[39]

>"In quantum physics, events do not necessarily have a cause, just some probability. As such, there is some probability for the universe to pop out of 'nothing.' You can find the relative probability for it to be this size or that size and have various properties, but there will not be a particular cause for any of it, just probabilities. I say 'nothing' in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing."

B-theory doesn't invalidate causality, your argument is wrong from the start

Funny enough, I had a philosophy professor who was somewhat frustrated about this subject for the very same reason, that you cannot say that nothing has properties since it means it's something.

>All physical entities have beginnings
It's not simply an entity, it is the sum of all entities. It is absolutely impossible for it to have a beginning because there is nothing outside of it that could interact with it.

It inherently does brainlet.
The whole idea of cause and effect is rooted in the linear progression of time. If time does not progress linearly then cause and effect objectively cannot exist how do you not realize that?

this all just looks absurd
i mean look at what we are and where we are in this universe
the fucks happening and why

>objectively

here we go with the objective vs subjective autism

Posting Pepes in a cosmological argument thread in which the pinnacles of human intellect have concluded that, using reason, the argument can best be summarized as "everything happened for no reason".

>All physical entities have beginnings
Do they?

"Given infinite non-sense eventually a pocket of non-existence will coalesce into a perception of non-existence probabilities that behave in a way in which unrelated, unconnected, and arbitrary phenomena create and manifest in a manner we call "logcal" in a probabilities area we call spacetime.

However, it is not that the phenomena actually follow cause and effect in this area; rather we are merely in an infinitesimal thread of chaotic quantum probabilities area in which the non-nonsensical quantum manifestions continue to manifestion in what seems like a logical manner."

The arrow of time still holds under B-theory. You're clueless

en anglais si vous plait

I read about this b theory first time tonight, but the way I understand is that tenseless just means that there is no past, present and future from the observers viewpoint, but events do have defined places in reference to each other on the timeline. So by looking at one point in time and then looking at another you can still deduct patterns telling you that if time x looks like that, then time y that is, in reference to x here and there, will look like this and that.

>The arrow of time still holds under B-theory.
No faggot you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If time is tenseless then time is tenseless, an arrow of time inherently applies tense and therefore contradicts the idea of time existing without tense.

Here is a fact there is no beginning of existence it was always here yes thats right I dont mean the universe though I mean whatever the fuck is outside the universe that allowed the universe to exist in the first place it was always here and always will be here.

The universe in general will basically exist forever since only matter will cease to be in the expansion while this empty void "something" continues on endlessly FOREVER.

In short, there isn't much difference in arguing that one big "coicidence" caused reality as phenomena of "causaility- cause and effect" as a beings existence in a reality being in the timeline which perceives cause and effect as a "coincidental" perception of unrelated quantum phenomena which give the perciever the illusion of causality and "cause and effect" being in existence.

In fact in the context of infinity, and "multiverse theory" the probability of an infinitesimal string of illusions created by completely unrelated quantum phenomena is no longer a infinitesimal probability; but rather a certainty; a certainty so certain that it must not only exist, but do so, simultaneously and indistinguishably, in overlap with a universe which actually does follow the laws of cause of effect.

Dude WEED lmao

philosophy was a mistake

>arrow of time inherently applies tense
Except that's wrong you dumbass. Go read what the arrow of time means in contemporary physics

>he thinks this is a meme
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe#Dark_Era_and_Photon_Age

No faggot we matters we will be only be here for a short while and this dark energy stuff will be here forever.

Tenselessness doesnt imply that points in time have no reference to each other. 2001 being 1 year after 2000 is a b statement, 2001 is the future is an a one.

The timeline is an arbitrary concept though. The fact time point X is positioned here relative to time point Y and you will through pass time point Z if you travel along this arbitrary axis doesn't imply that there is a connection between time points X, Y, and Z.

To put it another way, just because you can draw a line between three coordinates on a map does not mean that there is some kind of natural inherently valid progression between those three coordinate locations.

Just the way u typed that my dude

time a vs b is the most autistic shit ive ever read. I have a headache now

No u.
State your case or shut the fuck up.

You are right. I'll read up on that arrow thing now, but I'd be curious what you'd say to the other user precisely.

Kek this thread primed my autism so hard I cant sleep and just keep refreshing my phone

You were the one claiming B-theory undermines causality, burden of proof is on you.

What's the difference in arguing that existence is the result of one event that "somehow" happened perfectly and began at a single moment of accident; vs arguing that it's a string of unrelated coincidences in which timeline you happen to exist to observe a perfect string that mimics cause and effect?

The concept of probability loses all meaning when confronted with multiverse theory stating that infinitismals must occur and be expirenced in infinity.

>The arguments make as much sense as God spontaneously existing for no apparent reason; and ironically, indirectly support the idea of spontaneous generation of life- even if its over what we perceive as "geologic" timescales.

>There was no beginning
>There will be no end

>everything began at an infinitesimally small area known as the big bang
>existence has no point
>somehow everything from nothing
>Age of Reason

Let us suppose the universe had a beginning. This would imply that, since time began with the universe, there would be a time outside it. But this time would have no content, no space, since it necessarily occurred before space came into being, which would mean something had to come from absolutely nothing at all. This is impossible.

Further, this "time," since it has no determining space, is more properly called void time, i.e. a lack of time. This means, for the cosmological argument to function, no account may be taken of time strictly speaking; an given amount of time may or may not have elapsed prior to the universe's creation. That is, time is taken as it is meant to be absent direct human perception. But this violates the definition of phenomenal causality, since the only way to truly confirm the cause of something is to demonstrate a necessary empirical regress. The conditioned (the universe) must be shown to necessarily follow from its condition (God) within a determinate length of time. But, as was said above, the length between the non-existence of the universe (i.e. the existence of only God) and the ostensible creation of the universe is absolutely indeterminate, given the absence of spacetime. Therefore, no cosmological proof is possible.

t. Immanuel

Then...then what made the laws of physics!?!

Time is commonly thought of as rate of change; but that's not entirely accurate. It is, in part, defined by the observer and the rate of oberservation of rate of change; in organic beings this rate is, within a certain range, thought to be static. However, this isn't nesccarily the case for all sentient beings, espically beings which lack corporeal existence as we define it.

In other words, the rate of observation of rate of change can be changed; that means that an independent "standard" of time can exist so long as an observer exists to observe it. True, when you're observing void there is no tangible difference between observing a second of void vs a million years of void; however the rate of time does theortically pass- even if nothing happens (heh). Though for this to be true, the observer would have to be in a state of "thoughtlessness" or void/nirvana as even thoughts, even if completely non-corporeal, could be considered geometric constructs.

To observe void you would have to be in void, which is impossible, since your body takes up space, and exists in time.

I don't fucking get it, the idea of literally everything that exists just suddenly coming out of nowhere and taking away it's own nonexistence. Shit's baffling to me, but I'm not very smart (and also religiously biased, but that might be related to the intelligence issue).

King James Version

Genesis 1:2

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

...

>I don't fucking get it, the idea of literally everything that exists just suddenly coming out of nowhere and taking away it's own nonexistence

In a sense you just described your own birth.

Stop

>the past extends infinitely
>this is logical

Might as well go back to flipping burgers. Very easy and simple for your mind

You cannot have an infinite regress of causation or contingency of being or nothing would ever be.

What if what we call "Big Bang" was simply the death of another universe?
What if our universe cyclically restarts itself with a "Big Bang"?
What if this process has no beginning and no end?

But it does.

If time had no beginning, it would require an infinite amount of time to have already passed. It's a logical absurdity.

time could be like space. there could be many paths that extend infinitely forward and backward. our universe is one such linear path, among an infinite number of possible other timelines.

That only extrapolates the problem of an infinite past into one of an infinite number of infinite pasts.

time could also be multidirectional on some level. much like how the future is infinite, the past could also be infinite because it would be that perspective's future.

shit's trippy.

>space is infinite
lol

You take logic as far back as it goes until there's something that logic can't explain:
>everything has a cause
>go back to the cause of all things
>go back to its cause
>go back to its cause
>you have an infinite amount of things preceding one another
>however, no physical thing is truly infinite
>therefore, instead of infinite causes, you have one infinite cause for all other causes
>Aquinas considers this to be God

>quantum events are probabalistic and occur spontaneously, apparently without the need for a prior cause
>first causes don't exist at the most fundamental level of reality
God BTFO

Time can't begin in moment X because moments exist between past and future. Time is an open set, it is limited but have no beginning.

>There's a big wall at the end of the universe
Lol

>space started out as finite, then it expanded
>it went from finite to infinite somehow
ok my friend