"@Luca,

Hi, thanks for the post. I must admit that I loved the way you have made your case. Your questions are thought provoking. Here is how I look at them."

I thank you for your replies indeed! :)

"You Said: “So what makes you think that the expression "out of time and space" is even meaningful or has a reference? To me, it is akin to saying that it is out of reality.”

You are right. The phrase ‘out of time and space’ is meaningless. But why? Because our brains can never make any sense of that phrase. That’s more a limitation of our brain, because we can only think in terms of time and space. Imagine we were living in a huge bubble where there is no time. Then, there would be no way we can fathom the idea of time, because that would be wholly outside our experience. We might then say that it’s meaningless to ask what is there outside the bubble. Although there would be time outside of the bubble, we would never be able to observe it."

Technically the example is problematic, since if we could think, then we would have the notion of time, because thoughts take time, so I am afraid that such a situation is impossible, which, indirectly, makes my case against the meaningfulness of the notion of "before/outside space and time". Moreover: from the fact that we cannot assign a meaning to an expression does not follow that the reason is a limit in our brain or concepts. it could well be that it is a logical impossibility. Who knows. In fact, then we are stuck with some extra problems, aka how a non physical cause can produce, from nothing, something physical. But let us go step by step.

"That’s the reason we can’t even construct the question “what’s outside time and space’ properly. Because the moment you say ‘is’ there is the notion of time, and the moment you say ‘outside’ there is the notion of space in it. Even at a conceptual level, it’s impossible to suspend ourselves from time and space."

Agreed, indeed.

"My basic point is that the expression ‘out of time and space’ is meaningless because of the limitation of our brain."
Brain intended in its biology or conceptual abilities? Just to understand.

"Just have a look at this link, and it will shed some light on epistemological humility… that we may have an inbuilt limitation to understand even the universe in totality, leave alone realities outside of it, whatever that means!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1286257/Limitations-human..."

Sounds interesting, thanks. Incidentally, I am not presuming my argument to be airtight, this is why I wanted to submit it to strong critics :)I am thankful for this.

"You Said: “If it is subject to other laws, it simply means that what I call the physical space of nature is simply broader than we thought, and not limited to our dimension. Or else, you would need to explain what it means that something is out of time and space, and how is this something different from things which are inside time and space.”

The answer is the same as the one given above."

Would it then be the same, in your conceptual framework, to claim that the cause for all which is the case (god or otherwise) is something out of reality? What is the difference between claiming that something is out of time and space and something is out of reality? And, if there is a reality out of time and space how would we account for the differences between those two realities?

"You Said: “However, you will have to agree that we are still talking about matter, before and after the big bang. No other metaphysical entities. Therefore, it seems to me that such a notion of non physical cause is unwarranted. What is the difference between something physical and something non physical? How do those things interact? This is so far not explained, unless you wish to openly appeal to magic.:

I gave the example of Stephen Hawkins’ matter before Big Bang just to show that physics laws are not valid outside of big bang (sorry once again to use ‘outside’ – it’s a limitation of our language, for how else can we refer to that instance (oops) before big bang).

But what I am trying to say is that if that reality before big bang is immeasurable, then it can be anything… how can you insist that it aught to be matter? It can be anything….let’s call it X and we have no way to know if it is matter, non-physical, spirit, energy or something that is totally outside our ability to grasp – much like ‘time’ for the people living in the timeless bubble."

The problem is indeed in the distance between semantics and ontology: whatever it is, if it is something beyond our ability to grasp we need to distinguish whether this impossibility is a matter of empirical limitations or of absolute principle. One strong inductive argument towards reality before the big bang being physical stems from the fact that

a) the universe is physical;
b) so far, ALL explained physical phenomena have been explained via a physical cause, therefore
c) it is wise to infer with a reasonably high level of certainty that also the big bang's cause is natural.

This is not a 1005 certain argument, but it is very compelling.

Then from a logical point of view, it seems to me that, even if this cause was something beyond our grasp as a matter of principle, even if we had super great technology able to see before the big bang, then this cause would still need to have some qualities, properties, attributes, such to make it something else than physical reality.

Perhaps such traits and properties would be forever beyond our grasp, however, to a fictional observer they would have to be somehow real. if this is the case, this means simply that such cause, unless we are postulating magic, would need to be qualified by some quanta or qualia, elements, a frequency, an energy, a force, an input, something which should somehow be characterisable, for, if not, we would have to conclude that something made of nothing caused the universe.

Therefore the moment we grant that this cause has a nature, an essence, some degree of reality, all we are doing we are simply expanding the definition of nature, and we are admitting that nature is simply broader than we imagined. This one allows an external cause but blocks the path to god, as we will see later. I think this argument is key against a non physical cause.

"You Said: "Please read the comment above: how would you describe something no physical, and how would you account, logically and empirically, for it to relate to the physical?”

Let me correct you once again… I am not insisting that that the reality outside of the universe is essentially non-physical. I am saying that there is no way we can measure it or gain any knowledge about it."

This is interesting, because this claim seems to me unwarranted. First of all, we do not know whether the universe or multiverse has an outside or not. Second, we might well detect and analyse background radiation more and more and actually know what was before the big bang. Thus, it seems to me that, perhaps, you are being a bit hasty in dismissing our possibility to find out. Is it a limitation of our technical means, or are you saying that finding out what was before the universe is impossible no matter what?

"You Said: “Well, in fact if we consider the universe or multiverse as a all which is the case, then the notion of causality makes sense within this universe. To ask for a cause outside of it simply makes no sense, conceptually, since causality indeed is a notion about transformation, which makes sense within the closed system that we call universe. Whereas you clearly postulate, in an unwarranted fashion, a creation ex nihilo, which is not justified, neither logically nor empirically. Can you see the problem?”

This is a great point you have raised. You have agreed that “notion of causality makes sense within the universe.” That’s the most important point. Let’s say the universe began at point A. It means that starting from point A all the laws of physics comes into play."

If the universe was NOT created ex nihilo, then the mass and energy of the universe were already there, thus the notion of causality was already at work. Remember, beginning does not mean creation from nothing.

"Including, the laws of thermodynamics. Therefore the question “What did A come from?” becomes valid, but we know that there is no prequel to A in the universe, because A is the starting point. That’s why the ‘necessary cause’ argument figures. A has to have a causation. But if that causation precedes A, then the cause obviously has to be outside of time-space (sorry once again, there is no other way I can express it without using ‘outside’). And for the same reason – that it is outside of time space – the question of ‘what caused it’ becomes irrelevant, because the laws don’t hold in that realm."

I think this is perhaps where we disagree: if the universe was already there, albeit in a different form, its beginning was NOT a creation, but just a stage of its, perhaps eternal, transformation. Tell me please: what need would you have, in such a model, for an external cause, and what would be an argument to suppose such a cause is non physical? those would be two unwarranted assumptions. would you look for an external, non physical cause, if you find an apple in the garden? No. Same with the universe, since the universe, like the apple, is a physical event.

"You Said: “Thermodynamics is valid withing the physical space of nature; appealing to it to justify the existence of a non physical being producing a creation ex nihilo is plain absurd.”

If thermodynamics is valid within the physical space of nature, then you will have to explain A (starting point). Because A cannot come from nothingness, according to the same laws. But whatever caused A is not subject to the law of thermodynamics, and hence need not give an explanation for its origin."

Please read above: the idea that the universe, albeit in a different form, was already there, much more compressed, is perfectly compatible with reality as we know it, from a physcal point of view, it logically does without the notion of an external cause, especially if intended as non physical, since the inductive argument explained above seems to shield us pretty well against such a metaphysical option, would you not agree?

"You Said: “Therefore, you have not explained logically nor empirically why the physical universe as we know it could or should not be all which is the case, and a non physical cause, whatever this means, should be needed.”

"If the universe is all that there is then it not answer the question “what caused A (starting point)”… and you can’t dismiss the question as invalid, because starting from A, the laws become applicable."

well, how do you know that the laws were not already there, an they allowed the universe to be in such a compress form, ready to explode? Yiur question would hold if we agreed that the universe started from a non physical cause, an act of creation, ex nihilo. But this cannot be the starting point, if it is what we are trying, empirically and logically, to demonstrate.
Empirically, since ALL causes so far are physical, and they are just transformation, we are strongly inclined to grant the cause for the universe is also of this kind.
Logically, if we conceded a non physical, uncaused cause we would have to logically explain why causality can work among physical entities, between a non physical entity and a physical entity, the universe, but NOT between two non physical entities. Based on what do we exclude non physical entities from causality? It is an unwarranted decision.

"You Said: ““I have no problem with a physical cause for the universe.”

The moment you accept a cause for the universe, you are accepting that there is something that predates the universe and is not bound by the laws of the universe."

No I do not. If I admit a cause for an apple, I do not imply a cause which predates the apple and does not partake of the same laws. Whether the universe is all which is the case or whether there are more universes then nothing logically nor empirically forces me to conclude that the cause for the universe needs being non physical and, moreover, not depending on physical laws, because you would have to FIRST prove, logically or empirically, that the physical laws were born with the universe, and good luck with that.

"When it’s not bound by the laws of the universe then it can be anything fantastical – like for example infinite, uncaused or whatever you can think of. Because there is no way you can conduct any measurements of it. And for the same reason, you can’t insist that it has to be physical… it could be physical, or it need not be. The basic point is that we can never know."

Well we might not know but, as I think I showed, induction points to physical causing physical and logic seems to show that a non physical cause would produce more questions than it solved, since, as I said, one would have to explain why causality can and would only work in 2 scenarios out of 3 (P-P, NP-P, and not in NP-NP).

"You said: “And please feel free to explain your argument as you get to posit god as a necessary cause for the universe, since, to my knowledge, so far, no one has been able to produce a conclusive argument to that effect, and I would personally congratulate you. :)”

This was the subject of a long thread I had with Pragmatic some time back. You can check this link
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/possible-method-dispro...

But to sum it up, this is my logic for God.
Once, I have ascertained the ‘Necessary Cause’ and realized that it’s outside the scope of science to give me an answer, I look for other epistemologies that can gave me an answer. The only other field of knowledge that claims to have an answer for this is religion. I turn to religions. I study all the religions. I subject each religion to an epistemological scrutiny. I disregard all the religions that fail this test. From my study, I came to know that Islam stands this scrutiny. Once I am convinced of Islam as a reliable source of knowledge (all objectively verified), then I accept the concept it puts forth about God as well. Of course, this is belief. But that belief has a rational basis. I know this will raise a lot of questions in your mind as to how I have objectively verified the epistemology of Islam. But that’s a subject of a long discussion. You can check the link I have given above to see the full discussion."

Well I am sure you did your homework, however, I would simply stop you at the start asking you to explain the notion of a necessary cause as opposed to a contingent cause, and I would also tell you that the notion of necessity applies to propositions, not to objects.

"You Said: “First of all, there is o evidence that the big bang came from a creation ex nihilo, and actually the most logical explanation is that its mass and energy were already there, just very much compressed. This is not only compatible with the notion of causality within time and space, but it also solves your dilemma: the universe did NOT come from nothing, and its existence was already there, so the big bang was just a transformation.”

"First of all there is no evidence for anything before the big bang… there are just some conjectures. For how can you have evidence from a state where no measurements are possible? IN essence you are saying the ‘necessary cause’ was matter which was not bound by any of our laws."

Why? If the theory of an oscillating universe is correct, than the state of existence of a compressed universe is bound to the same laws as an expanded universe. Or would you say that a compressing lung and an expanded lung are subject to different kinds of physical laws? Why would the universe before the big bang NOT be following the laws of physics as we know them? just because it was in a different state? it is a non sequitur, I am afraid.

"It’s not very different from saying the necessary cause was a spirit! Why, because when laws don’t matter, it can be just about anything. The moot point is “Do we have any way to measure the reality before the big bang?” If the answer is “No” then it doesn’t really matter what that thing is."

Well i am surprised I am seeing so many conceptual mistakes in just one paragraph: first of all, a compressed, eternally oscillating universe does follow the laws of physics, as explained above. Secondly, we would need to explain whether this impossibility to measure how the universe was befofe the big bang is an empirical or logical impossibility. I would say that, since the universe is a natural fact, the limitation is empirical, which means, tomorrow we might know, using powerful telescopes and radio arrays.

"You Said: “If you see an apple in a meadow you are not going to look for a creator from nothing, but you will look for a physical cause for transformation, seed, tree, etc.”

When we see an apple in a meadow, we are neither looking for a creator nor for a physical cause, we just inquire about the cause."

Bingo. So are you saying that, in the case of the universe, you are starting by looking for a creator straight away? :):):)

"And when we inquired, we found a physical cause. When we inquire the cause behind psychosomatic diseases, we found out the cause was psychological. There could be physical causes, there could be other kinds of causes too. We just need to look for the cause and keep an open mind. It would not serve us well to go with a preconceived notion that every cause has to be physical. We just need to inquire for the cause… and arrive at logical conclusions."

I see that after very good reasoning your arguments are getting sort of sloppy here, and I mean it nicely and friendly.

There is a huge difference between keeping an open mind and be prepared to accept magic for an explanation.
So would you say that medical doctors would need to consider bacteria and Djinnies as equal potential causes for a disease? Would you say that astrophysicists would need to give the same weight to physical causes in the universe AND magic? is this what you are trying to say? And how would they account for the difference between these two methods and causes? what would count to them as a proof that god made the universe from nothing? How can a scientist accept empirically a non empirical proof?

"But more importantly, by stressing on your ‘physical cause’ argument, you seem to be assuming that I am arguing for a non-physical cause. Let me repeat again, I am NOT arguing for a non-physical cause. I am just saying that whatever that cause is, it is beyond our measuring instruments. For all you know it could be physical, why not? But there is no way you can be adamant that it has to be ‘physical’. I am invoking for some epistemological humility here."

Again, it would be perhaps clearer for you to then explain a) whether such impossibility is only empirical or of principle; b) if it is of principle, how you do justify it; c) if we admit a physical, external cause, I am all fine with it, because it means it also needs, in turn, a cause, most likely physical.

"You Said: “likewise, the universe, independently from the fact whether it is all that is the case or not, its energy and mass were already there, and bingo, no uncaused cause is required;

By saying that ‘energy and mass were already there’ you are invoking an uncaused cause, whether you like it or not. Or you must ask what caused the ‘energy and mass?” If your answer to that question is ‘it doesn’t matter’ because they were existing before the big bang, then in the same vein it doesn’t matter whether the cause is physical, non-physical, god or pixie. Because there is no way you can measure that reality."

It is different. I am not saying that the question does not matter. I am saying, as I repeated many times, that the big bang could well be a state of transition between contraction and expansion. So, let us assume all which is the case is our universe. what we call the laws of physics are ALWAYS at work in the universe, no matter whether it is compact or expanded. Why would it make any difference. To claim that something just is, and it is eternally gtransforming, does not mean I am invoking an uncaused cause. I am invoking no cause actually. What is the empirical or logical problem with an uncaused, eternally changing universe? Why would you need a creation for the universe?

"You Said: “the phyisical space of nature, in different stages, is its own cause, in the sense, causality makes sense when applied to sub-systems in reality.”

I don’t understand how ‘the physical space of nature… is its own cause. It’s obvious that a star did not give rise to the first star… it must have come about from something that’s different from a star.”

Imagine the universe is all which is the case.
Imagine the universe is eternal.
Imagine the universe changes back and forth in its dimensions.
Stars and all the rest ALREADY have all the chemical ingredients there, just very compressed.
booom, and things get together. Then, after billions of years, gravity kicks in, and things come back.
Rinse, shake and repeat. What is the problem with this?

"You Said: “When applied to reality as a whole, asking what was BEFORE space and time is meaningless, since the term BEFORE implies another time and another space.”

That’s what I have been trying to explain in the beginning. It’s a limitation of our brain."

No it is a limitation of reality I am afraid :) It does not make sense to ask what was before reality.

"You Said: “Could you please tell me if you see any logical or empirical problem with a universe or multiverse where things transform and there is no creation from nothing, or, as you might argue, from something non physical into something physical? I can see none.”

This explanation is actually not very different from what I have been saying. Because it is once again trying to find a cause for our current universe."

What is YOUR problem with an eternal, ever changing universe, which transforms back and forth, and was not created?

"Just that you are saying that it is another universe which transformed into our universe following the big bang. What is the proof that our universe came from a transformation of a pre-existing universe?"

Induction, as I suggested above. Occam's razor.

"There is really no proof, because once again the reality before big bang is not measurable. So in effect, you are actually invoking a cause that we are agnostic about. Therefore, you have only given an alternative ‘necessary cause’ and not actually done away with ‘necessary cause.’"

So far, we thought many natural phenomena were directly caused by a divine magic. Each time we discovered a physical cause.Why should the universe be any different? And again, please define to me a necessary cause as opposed to a contingent cause, for a do not have this clear.

"Yes, by your theory, we can do away with God. But as I had already tried to say , I am not arguing for God here… just the necessary cause. And you seem to concede to the need for necessary cause."

no in fact I am not.

A) I argue with Russell that necessity is a mark of propositions, not of causes.
B) if you think differently, then you need to show what is the difference between a necessary cause and a contingent one.

this is your first challenge.
The second is show that there are either logical or empirical problems against the possibility for the universe to be:

a) all which is the case
b)eternal
c) transforming
d) uncaused

Let us try to tackle these two points, what do you think?

Thanks be well.