Causality simply means that one state of affair at a specific point causes another state later. So we need at least two points one follows another one to have causation. This is a simple notion of time. Any physical theory deals with causality and needs time. We don’t have any point before Big Bang point hence we cannot have any physical theory which can explain the Big Bang.
So why did it come into being then, precisely?
We are perfectly in agreement that no physical explanation requiring time could have caused it. That is nonsensical. But you seem to be taking the position that it popped into existence from nothing. How, exactly?
After all “nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.”
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The Universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe had a cause.
Refute that. Remember, to successfully refute this argument, you must reject either premise one, premise two, or both premise one and two. If you accept both one and two, then three logically follows, regardless of how little you like it.
Okay…but who’s said anything about a physical theory? The change is one of creation, so to attempt to put it into a physical theory (which deals with already existing things) is a non-starter.
Are you smarter than the astrophysicist(s) who developed the theory in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics? Or could it be that you do not understand? :hmmm:
Agreed. Good thing for us God isn’t physical or we wouldn’t be here.
This sounds like an argument in favor of a non-physical theory to explain the Big Bang, a theory such as creation by an extra-temporal G-d.
Do we have to handle both the concept of a “physical” theory and the problem of the origin of the astronomical universe? How about the origin of public key encryption? It seems like a topic that is more feasible if we aim for full understanding.
Is there a physical theory that can explain why James Henry Ellis thought of the idea of public key encryption in 1970? Why not somebody else? Why not much sooner or much later?
Is there a physical theory that can explain why Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman thought of similar ideas?
Please explain your reasoning.
How is this relevant??
Am I missing something?
- A physical entity?
- A being of energy?
- A non-physical being?
- A non-dimensional being?
- A multi-dimensional being?
- A spiritual being not comprised of physical matter or energy?
- A sub-particle sentience?
- An omni-particle presence?
- None of the above?
How might a being create physical matter and energy while yet being intangible, unreachable, untouchable, or otherwise non-physically present? Essentially, how might such a being create matter from effectively nothing?
I am being critical of the wording of the OP, not protesting the act of Creation. I think you may have misinterpreted the meaning of my comment.
You gave me an opportunity to ask my question. I was indicating that my train of thought was sparked by your post. That makes the whole thread easier to understand.
I don’t think that it would be appropriate for you to feel any obligation to devote time or effort to providing an answer. It’s a question that the creator of this thread should be able to think about, if and when the creator of this thread is ready for that step.
Maybe we can switch topics from the creation of the astronomical universe to the creation of this thread. The creator of this thread makes decisions. How? Freud might tell us that the toilet training regimen used by the parents of the thread creator is relevant. It seems that this discussion could go just about anywhere.
*I will answer for prior to incarnation and the origin of the universe. When you put Jesus into the mix, things get complicated quickly.
No. Matter could not have existed prior to the big bang.
No. (Same as above, matter is just a different form of energy).
Yes, as implied by the big bang.*
Yes, as implied by the big bang, space and hence dimensions at one point did not exist.*
No. See above.
*Yes. More specifically, a non-corporeal mind. Just as some people argue that there are such things as Platonic numbers and forms that exist beyond the realm of matter, we believe that at the “root” of the universe (and all that exists), there is a mind. We infer this based on logic and reasoning from the type of origin we see to conclude that this is the only remaining possibility. It is important to note that this mind is not made up of anything material anymore than time, mathematics, or goodness is made up of something material. *
*What in the world is a sub-particle? Particles did not exist prior to the big bang, so probably no.
What in the world is an omni-particle? Particles did not exist prior to the big bang, so probably no.
No (see above).
That is actually a very good question and I must commend you for thinking of it, even if I don’t particularly like answering it because of how it makes my head hurt.
Firstly, it must be pointed out that I am not discussing the creation of the universe from nothing in the sense that nothing caused it. I am discussing the origin of the universe in the sense that it was made from nothing *material * (creation ex nihilo). In other words, God didn’t use anything (like clay, marble, formless matter, etc.) when he created the universe. In the view of theists, the universe was created with an efficient, but not material, cause. (If you don’t know what these terms mean, they harken back to Aristotle. The Efficient cause of a statue, for example, would be the artist who created the statue. The Material cause would be the stuff the statue was made of.) So it is clear from the examination of the universe that it could not have had a material cause. The universe and everything in it was not made from anything material because of course, at one point this material did not exist and there was nothing prior to that. So this leaves us with only efficient causation. We believe that God is the efficient cause of the universe.
You may then (and probably will) rightly ask, well, how is this possible? To quote William Lane Craig:
Drawing on this, one possibility that I have always favored is the creation of information. A mind is capable of creating many different forms of information – computer code, words, laws, etc. When we study the universe on its deepest levels, we see that it is indeed ruled by information – Biology is reduced to the information in DNA, Physical interactions are reduced to natural laws, which are ultimately forms of information, even things like Moral law (which I believe exists just as objectively as matter and space/time) ultimately seem to reduce to forms of information. Information, I would argue, is a very plausible explanation for the fundamental stuff out of which things are composed.
Furthermore, information, as we create it, indeed appears to be formed out of nothing. I am not taking some matter and then fashioning it into information. Matter is being used as a tool of conveyance of information, but the information itself was not created out of the matter. Prior to the thinking of a particular idea (the creation of information), that idea did not exist in any form. So from my philosophical standpoint, which holds that information is the prime basis of reality, I would say that mind is actually an imminently *plausible *explanation for the creation of the universe.
Regardless, even if you find this logically ridiculous, we don’t have to show *exactly *how God was capable of creating the universe for our arguments for Him to work. Obviously, to a certain extent, we may never be able to comprehend this reality. To Quote William Lane Craig again, we can come to this conclusion through a process of elimination, meaning we do not specifically have to comprehend the how:
Not true according to the cyclical theory.
In 1225, Robert Grosseteste wrote in his book De Luce, that the universe began in an explosion.
The Cyclical theory has been shown to *also *imply the beginning of the universe, since by the law of thermodynamics we could only have gone through a certain number of past cycles. It thus does not avoid the primary problem with the Big Bang theory. Furthermore, we have recently discovered that the acceleration of the universe is actually *increasing *with time (objects are moving away from each other faster and faster), which is against this theory’s claim that eventually the expansion will slow down and the universe will contract. There is thus no clear mechanism that could make this process feasible and it is no longer of great important to the debate.
Let’s simplify your idea a little bit.
Suppose instead of “Big Bang” we think of a billiard ball sitting on a great big green table.
It’s not moving. That’s ‘the state’ it’s in. It’s just sitting there waiting for the next ‘state’ to happen.
If the billiard ball starts moving, would you not logically refer to the time before and after it started moving? Why would you insist on claiming that there was no point or prior state before the ball started moving?
Moreover, the movement of the billiard ball (obedient to the free will of my mind) can change direction. It could be moving one way, and I can cause it to stop and even go the opposite direction. What would you say about the “prior states” in which the ball was obeying my free will agency? Is my mind (agency) inside or outside of space/time insofar as the billiard balls movement is concerned?
Your analogy breaks down because the Billiard ball in question is actually time and space. Hence we can’t think of a time before the start of time! That is nonsensical. Nor can we think of a space outside of space. This is, however, not harmful, but rather *helpful *to the theistic worldview, because it shows that the universe’s cause must have been without either time or space.