Philosopher 2: I am saying matter is matter whether it is moving or not, whether it is visible to our human senses or not, wether it is earth, air, fire, solid liquid or however one cares to identify objects, they are all made of matter...and matter logically must be eternal, having always existed and always will exist, even that this universe had a beginning and even if this universe is to end.
In that I am saying that the eternal cause is material (eternal matter) and the creation of the universe bubble is made of said eternal matter organised in its particular way with its particular rule sets.
We can call it the same "stuff" because the difference between a universe which began as compared to a conceptual universe which didn't is not about different matter but different ways the matter behaves, the behaviour of our universe being due to its design and rule sets.
That is my take/critique on the presumption that the eternal cause nessasarily immaterial.
Why do you believe that presumption? You have yet to explain in any detail.
Philosopher 1: I’m not talking about matter moving or not, I’m talking about how science seems to tell us that matter is temporal by its nature, that its parts are constantly in motion. If matter is temporal by nature, then it can’t be eternal. The eternal thing that causes matter would have to be immaterial.
Philosopher 2: What does science tell us about the eternal cause?
What does science tell us of "immaterial" "things"?
Science isn't telling us that matter did not exist before the beginning of this universe. It is not assumed that a nessasary immaterial thing existed before the universe.
What science tells us is that somthing cannot come from nothing.
This means that material cannot come from immaterial.
What the science tells us is that the eternal cause (you and I agree must exist) cannot be immaterial.
Presently you and I disagree as to what the science is revealing about the nature of the eternal cause is.
We can focus on unpacking that.
Therein, where I think we agree, is that the eternal cause is mindfull.
Philosopher 1: 1. I’m not saying science tells us anything about the eternal cause (that would be philosophy), immaterial things (again, philosophy), or if matter existed prior to this bubble or not (which would be scientific). I’m saying science tells us that the parts of matter that make it matter are constantly in motion and, therefore, matter is temporal in its nature. So, if there is any ‘stuff’ that precedes material; it is not matter but something else.
Philosopher 2: Science doesn't tell us that at all. Science tells us that the universe began and may end (not will end) and what does end are objects (made of matter), not the matter itself.
We observe matter transforming into other things - so a Star (for example) can have an end, but not the matter the Star was made of. That continues to exist.
Philosopher 1: 2. Why do you think science tells us that everything must have a material cause?
Philosopher 2: I am not saying that.
I am saying what we can gain (philosophically) from what science has shown us, is the understanding that this universe must have a material cause.
Science is not telling us "everything" must have a material cause (because science is not telling us there is an eternal cause and the eternal cause counts as part of "everything") but since we agree (philosophically) there must be an eternal cause, while said eternal cause would have to be material, it did not have to have had a cause, therefore we should be able to agree that material did not have a cause (is eternal) while that which is made up from (eternal) material (this universe bubble) did have a cause.
GPT: Philosopher 2 argues that matter, in various forms, is eternal and has always existed. The eternal cause of the universe, according to Philosopher 2, is material, organized in a specific way with distinct rule sets. This perspective challenges the presumption that the eternal cause is necessarily immaterial. Philosopher 1 counters, suggesting that science indicates the temporal nature of matter, as its parts are constantly in motion. Philosopher 2 responds by emphasizing that science doesn't assert that matter itself is not eternal but rather that specific objects within the universe may have beginnings and ends. The disagreement centers on whether the eternal cause is material or immaterial, with Philosopher 2 asserting a material cause based on philosophical interpretations of scientific observations.
In that I am saying that the eternal cause is material (eternal matter) and the creation of the universe bubble is made of said eternal matter organised in its particular way with its particular rule sets.
We can call it the same "stuff" because the difference between a universe which began as compared to a conceptual universe which didn't is not about different matter but different ways the matter behaves, the behaviour of our universe being due to its design and rule sets.
That is my take/critique on the presumption that the eternal cause nessasarily immaterial.
Why do you believe that presumption? You have yet to explain in any detail.
Philosopher 1: I’m not talking about matter moving or not, I’m talking about how science seems to tell us that matter is temporal by its nature, that its parts are constantly in motion. If matter is temporal by nature, then it can’t be eternal. The eternal thing that causes matter would have to be immaterial.
Philosopher 2: What does science tell us about the eternal cause?
What does science tell us of "immaterial" "things"?
Science isn't telling us that matter did not exist before the beginning of this universe. It is not assumed that a nessasary immaterial thing existed before the universe.
What science tells us is that somthing cannot come from nothing.
This means that material cannot come from immaterial.
What the science tells us is that the eternal cause (you and I agree must exist) cannot be immaterial.
Presently you and I disagree as to what the science is revealing about the nature of the eternal cause is.
We can focus on unpacking that.
Therein, where I think we agree, is that the eternal cause is mindfull.
Philosopher 1: 1. I’m not saying science tells us anything about the eternal cause (that would be philosophy), immaterial things (again, philosophy), or if matter existed prior to this bubble or not (which would be scientific). I’m saying science tells us that the parts of matter that make it matter are constantly in motion and, therefore, matter is temporal in its nature. So, if there is any ‘stuff’ that precedes material; it is not matter but something else.
Philosopher 2: Science doesn't tell us that at all. Science tells us that the universe began and may end (not will end) and what does end are objects (made of matter), not the matter itself.
We observe matter transforming into other things - so a Star (for example) can have an end, but not the matter the Star was made of. That continues to exist.
Philosopher 1: 2. Why do you think science tells us that everything must have a material cause?
Philosopher 2: I am not saying that.
I am saying what we can gain (philosophically) from what science has shown us, is the understanding that this universe must have a material cause.
Science is not telling us "everything" must have a material cause (because science is not telling us there is an eternal cause and the eternal cause counts as part of "everything") but since we agree (philosophically) there must be an eternal cause, while said eternal cause would have to be material, it did not have to have had a cause, therefore we should be able to agree that material did not have a cause (is eternal) while that which is made up from (eternal) material (this universe bubble) did have a cause.
GPT: Philosopher 2 argues that matter, in various forms, is eternal and has always existed. The eternal cause of the universe, according to Philosopher 2, is material, organized in a specific way with distinct rule sets. This perspective challenges the presumption that the eternal cause is necessarily immaterial. Philosopher 1 counters, suggesting that science indicates the temporal nature of matter, as its parts are constantly in motion. Philosopher 2 responds by emphasizing that science doesn't assert that matter itself is not eternal but rather that specific objects within the universe may have beginnings and ends. The disagreement centers on whether the eternal cause is material or immaterial, with Philosopher 2 asserting a material cause based on philosophical interpretations of scientific observations.