[luke warm]

the universe had a cause, or

the universe has always existed

[matmat]

luke warm, on Feb 15 2009, 09:52 AM, said:

the universe had a cause, or

the universe has always existed

uhmm...

not another one of these.

if it did have a cause, did it have to have a spiritual cause? can it just be a physical cause?

are the two questions really mutually exclusive?

anyway. have fun with another science vs. religion thread.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Feb 15 2009, 09:52 AM, said:

the universe had a cause, or

the universe has always existed

Hmmm. What is the connection between those two statements?

You could reasonably ask whether:

1. the universe had a cause or
2. the universe did not have a cause

or whether:

1. the universe has always existed or
2. the universe has not always existed.

But the questions you did ask don't have that same relationship.

[Winstonm]

This looks like the beginning of a 32-page debate on the definition of the word "cause".

[Fluffy]

PassedOut, on Feb 15 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

You could reasonably ask whether:

1. the universe had a cause or
2. the universe did not have a cause

or whether:

1. the universe has always existed or
2. the universe has not always existed.

But the questions you did ask don't have that same relationship.

I Strogly believe it had a cause, but if it did not, my second best guess will be that it always existed (kinda boring, isn't it?, who wants to live forever?, at least in this world hehe)

[PassedOut]

Fluffy, on Feb 15 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

I Strogly believe it had a cause, but if it did not, my second best guess will be that it always existed (kinda boring, isn't it?, who wants to live forever?, at least in this world hehe)

Before the big bang, no information is available. Fun to speculate about, maybe, but what does it really matter?

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Feb 15 2009, 05:34 PM, said:

This looks like the beginning of a 32-page debate on the definition of the word "cause".

Hey Winston you are ruining the game, it's supposed to be 31 pages of discussion about an obscure issue, and only at page 32 we are supposed to discover that the crux of the matter is different uses of the word "cause".

[kenberg]

This reminds me of a story. Most things do. It's age.


When I was in college we were reading St. Thomas Aquinas. The assignment was to read his four, or was it five, proofs of the existence of God and to be prepared to discuss the one we found most convincing. Me being me, I raised my hand and asked what we should do if we did not find any of them convincing. I was told I should then be prepared to discuss the one that I found least convincing. Naturally I was called upon the next class period to present my thoughts. After giving what I regarded as a devastating criticism of the argument from cause, the instructor asked "Did you notice that Aquinas said efficient cause?". I had not. "That's the whole point, sit down".

I think he didn't like me. And me such a nice guy.

But I learned something. Apparently Aristotle listed four types of causation.
The efficient cause
The teleological cause
The ontological cause
Some other sort of cause.


I have always wanted to make use of this when a student asks why he failed:


The efficient cause is that you got too many of the answers wrong. The teleological cause is that you are stupid. The ontological cause is to prevent idiots from getting college degrees. I would have to look up the other cause.

But I'm a gentle soul so I never did this.

Probably one could find applications of these different causes in hand analysis as well.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Feb 15 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

1. the universe has always existed or
2. the universe has not always existed.

very well, let's take this one

[Winstonm]

Quote

I would have to look up the other cause

You are most likely thinking about that cause which comes after "A". You know, the B-Cause.

[skjaeran]

luke warm, on Feb 15 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 15 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

1. the universe has always existed or
2. the universe has not always existed.

very well, let's take this one

What would be the purpose of such a futile discussion?

We've got absolutely no information about anything prior to the big bang. And we won't have in our lifetime, most probably not in the lifetime of humankind.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Apparently Aristotle listed four types of causation.
The efficient cause
The teleological cause
The ontological cause
Some other sort of cause. (Winton's edit: the B-Cause)

Question:

So, how did Aristotle know about these four types of causation? Did somebody tell him or where they written on two small stone tablets? Or did he make them up himself. Did Aristotle's cause cause cause?

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on Feb 15 2009, 01:14 PM, said:

Quote

I would have to look up the other cause

You are most likely thinking about that cause which comes after "A". You know, the B-Cause.

Now I remember, it was the Santa Cause

[Elianna]

kenberg, on Feb 15 2009, 10:06 AM, said:

This reminds me of a story. Most things do. It's age.


When I was in college we were reading St. Thomas Aquinas. The assignment was to read his four, or was it five, proofs of the existence of God and to be prepared to discuss the one we found most convincing. Me being me, I raised my hand and asked what we should do if we did not find any of them convincing. I was told I should then be prepared to discuss the one that I found least convincing. Naturally I was called upon the next class period to present my thoughts. After giving what I regarded as a devastating criticism of the argument from cause, the instructor asked "Did you notice that Aquinas said efficient cause?". I had not. "That's the whole point, sit down".

I think he didn't like me. And me such a nice guy.

But I learned something. Apparently Aristotle listed four types of causation.
The efficient cause
The teleological cause
The ontological cause
Some other sort of cause.


I have always wanted to make use of this when a student asks why he failed:


The efficient cause is that you got too many of the answers wrong. The teleological cause is that you are stupid. The ontological cause is to prevent idiots from getting college degrees. I would have to look up the other cause.

But I'm a gentle soul so I never did this.

Probably one could find applications of these different causes in hand analysis as well.

This website: Philosophy Professor lists four causes, but it uses less fussy terms than you.

It seems that the one you're missing is what this guy calls the material cause, but it's hard to tell.

[helene_t]

Ken, I think you messed it up. The teleological cause it to prevent idiots from getting a degree,

Skjaeran said:

What would be the purpose of such a futile discussion?

It must be futile to discuss the purpose of a futile discussion, but maybe we can discuss its cause

[Wackojack]

The big bang happened, for us, about 14 billion years ago. Before that there was no time, no space and no space-time. Thats another way of saying that there was no "before". So the universe has always existed.

[mikeh]

helene_t, on Feb 15 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

Ken, I think you messed it up. The teleological cause it to prevent idiots from getting a degree,

Skjaeran said:

What would be the purpose of such a futile discussion?

It must be futile to discuss the purpose of a futile discussion, but maybe we can discuss its cause

Based on the watercooler, I think we can accept that the futile discussion has always existed.

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on Feb 15 2009, 03:11 PM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 15 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

Ken, I think you messed it up. The teleological cause it to prevent idiots from getting a degree,

Skjaeran said:

What would be the purpose of such a futile discussion?

It must be futile to discuss the purpose of a futile discussion, but maybe we can discuss its cause

Based on the watercooler, I think we can accept that the futile discussion has always existed.

Clarify, please. Do you mean futile discussion has always existed or do you mean to say only that futility as a subject of discussion has always existed?

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Feb 15 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 15 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

1. the universe has always existed or
2. the universe has not always existed.

very well, let's take this one

I don't know why everyone is complaining about this question, it's just asking what people think with the understanding it's a total guess based on feelings and that no one has anything to back up their guess. I would say it has always existed.

He was right of course that your original post was not an 'or' type question. It's like asking am I good at bridge or bad at chess? Hmm, maybe both, maybe neither.

[kenberg]

helene_t, on Feb 15 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

Ken, I think you messed it up. The teleological cause it to prevent idiots from getting a degree,

All of these different causes caused me great confusion. A physics major (I had not yet switched to mathematics) in a humanities class reading Aquinas is actually a pretty sorry sight. To quote that great philosopher H. Belafonte: It was clear as mud but it covered the ground/ And the confusion made my brain go 'round.