S
Skye_Ariel
Guest
Exactly! That would be making the universe into a god.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
abook
Guest
The reason I would say the universe must be caused but God is not caused is because the universe is a physical thing, and therefore must be created within time because time is the measure of motion according to before and after, and since physical things are always in motion at some level physical things cannot be outside of time.
Laircy is correct to say that God is absolutely simple. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about whether God is simple in the summa ,and came to the conclusion that God is simple (newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#article7). This simplicity is , as Laircy said, why God is uncaused because all composite things must be caused (according to St. Thomas Aquinas).Some might say that the Trinity is not absolutely simple, especially the Crucifixion of the Second Person of the Trinity, while the Father remained in heaven.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
I don’t believe it could.
For the universe to be uncaused, it must, as the quote suggests, be eternal. But we can easily show that the universe cannot be eternal, because the very suggestion leads immediately to a logical absurdity: if the universe were eternal, then the past would be infinite. If the past were infinite, we would have to traverse an infinite amount of time to arrive at the present, and as there is no end to infinity, we would never make it to this moment.
Ergo, the universe began to exist. Ergo, the universe was caused.
Much more could and has been said on the subject.
For the universe to be uncaused, it must, as the quote suggests, be eternal. But we can easily show that the universe cannot be eternal, because the very suggestion leads immediately to a logical absurdity: if the universe were eternal, then the past would be infinite. If the past were infinite, we would have to traverse an infinite amount of time to arrive at the present, and as there is no end to infinity, we would never make it to this moment.
Ergo, the universe began to exist. Ergo, the universe was caused.
Much more could and has been said on the subject.
P
PMVCatholic
Guest
I think this is a very valid argument. Well said.I don’t believe it could.
For the universe to be uncaused, it must, as the quote suggests, be eternal. But we can easily show that the universe cannot be eternal, because the very suggestion leads immediately to a logical absurdity: if the universe were eternal, then the past would be infinite. If the past were infinite, we would have to traverse an infinite amount of time to arrive at the present, and as there is no end to infinity, we would never make it to this moment.
Ergo, the universe began to exist. Ergo, the universe was caused.
Much more could and has been said on the subject.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
A mathematical straight line extends infinitely into the past, and infinitely into the future, but there is a place for 0 and 1 on the line.I don’t believe it could.
For the universe to be uncaused, it must, as the quote suggests, be eternal. But we can easily show that the universe cannot be eternal, because the very suggestion leads immediately to a logical absurdity: if the universe were eternal, then the past would be infinite. If the past were infinite, we would have to traverse an infinite amount of time to arrive at the present, and as there is no end to infinity, we would never make it to this moment.
Ergo, the universe began to exist. Ergo, the universe was caused.
Much more could and has been said on the subject.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Unfortunately, there are physicists who believe in the possibility of a Big Crunch which would mean that the expansion of the universe would stop and reverse itself at some time in the future. Most if not all, physical laws are somewhat tentative.There is at least one law that is operating everywhere in the universe and never stops operating: the law of the expanding universe,. .
Please see:
“How the laws of physics lie,” by Nancy Cartwright.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
At one time it was the hope of atheists that this would happen, so that an eternal cycle of Bangs and Crunches would occur and help to justify their belief that God is necessary to explain anything. However, the scientific data is not moving in that direction. If anything, it is moving in the opposite direction.Unfortunately, there are physicists who believe in the possibility of a Big Crunch which would mean that the expansion of the universe would stop and reverse itself at some time in the future.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
The argument in question is only dealing with the causational aspect of God. Bringing up further details does not apply to the parameters of this discussion. The OP’s question did not go into further detail. See what I mean?I don’t think that necessarily follows because God is all loving and the universe is not.
P
PMVCatholic
Guest
Even so, it would take an infinite amount of time to reach 0 and 1 on the timeline if the universe is infinite in the past.A mathematical straight line extends infinitely into the past, and infinitely into the future, but there is a place for 0 and 1 on the line.
-Phil
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I think there are at least a hundred threads on this subject ( perhaps more ). It comes up at least a dozen times a year as a new crop of kids graduate from high school. I guess it will go on as long as C.A. exists :banghead::banghead::banghead:
O.K., Get this, God exists eternally, he created the universe. End of strory!
Linus2nd
O.K., Get this, God exists eternally, he created the universe. End of strory!
Linus2nd
B
balto
Guest
No, the universe cannot be uncaused. Aquinas’ First Way purports to show that a reality that is purely actual is needed to ground all the change we witness in the world. If an entity undergoes change, this occurs because said entity previously had a potential for some kind of change that is actualized by an external agent. If you have a series of agents actualizing potentials that is essentially ordered, you need a first member that is pure actuality and thus is not capable of any change at all.
Consider the stock example of the traveler in the forest moving a rock on the forest floor with the end of his staff. The rock is moving because the staff is moving it, the staff is moving because the arm is moving, the arm is moving because the muscles are contracting, the muscles are contracting because the myosin heads are pulling on the actin fibers, the myosin heads are moving because calcium ions are interacting with them, calcium ions are interacting with them because the action potentials activated the calcium channels, which all depend on physical/chemical properties, etc. Is this an infinite series? No, because an infinite series would always have members needing actualization, so no change would ever be initiated. It’s like supposing that a paintbrush can paint a wall by itself as long as the handle is extended to infinity. There’s nothing in the nature of an infinitely long handle that imparts the power of painting a wall. Likewise, you need something that is purely actual that can initiate change without needing initiation itself.
Further inspection of pure actuality would reveal that since pure actuality does not change, it does not need to receive existence from an external agent, and hence just is existence itself and hence uncaused. The universe does not fit this bill because it changes and has potentialities that need actualization.
Consider the stock example of the traveler in the forest moving a rock on the forest floor with the end of his staff. The rock is moving because the staff is moving it, the staff is moving because the arm is moving, the arm is moving because the muscles are contracting, the muscles are contracting because the myosin heads are pulling on the actin fibers, the myosin heads are moving because calcium ions are interacting with them, calcium ions are interacting with them because the action potentials activated the calcium channels, which all depend on physical/chemical properties, etc. Is this an infinite series? No, because an infinite series would always have members needing actualization, so no change would ever be initiated. It’s like supposing that a paintbrush can paint a wall by itself as long as the handle is extended to infinity. There’s nothing in the nature of an infinitely long handle that imparts the power of painting a wall. Likewise, you need something that is purely actual that can initiate change without needing initiation itself.
Further inspection of pure actuality would reveal that since pure actuality does not change, it does not need to receive existence from an external agent, and hence just is existence itself and hence uncaused. The universe does not fit this bill because it changes and has potentialities that need actualization.
B
balto
Guest
That’s another good point. I believe it was Plotinus’ main argument for a divinity. If the uncaused cause were not simple, then its existence would really depend on the parts existing, in which case it would not be uncaused at all but caused by the parts. You cannot get around this by claiming instead that the parts are uncaused because you cannot have more than one uncaused cause.The answer has to do with the fact that an Uncaused Cause would have to be absolutely simple—which the universe clearly is not—but personally I do not know the theology behind this, I hope someone else could explain.
Say there are two proposed uncaused causes A and B. There must exist some difference between A and B otherwise you would really be using two names to describe the same thing. But that would mean that there is some potentiality in A to be what B is exclusively and some potentiality in B to be what A is exclusively. But then neither A nor B are uncaused, because some purely actual agent would be required to cause A and B to have these specific potentialities (in other words, actualize the essence of A and B to exist) meaning that A and B are not uncaused and that there is one reality over and above them that is uncaused.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
It seems though that this brings up a lot of other questions. For example, does God hear our prayers and act upon them?That’s another good point. I believe it was Plotinus’ main argument for a divinity. If the uncaused cause were not simple, then its existence would really depend on the parts existing, in which case it would not be uncaused at all but caused by the parts. You cannot get around this by claiming instead that the parts are uncaused because you cannot have more than one uncaused cause.
Say there are two proposed uncaused causes A and B. There must exist some difference between A and B otherwise you would really be using two names to describe the same thing. But that would mean that there is some potentiality in A to be what B is exclusively and some potentiality in B to be what A is exclusively. But then neither A nor B are uncaused, because some purely actual agent would be required to cause A and B to have these specific potentialities (in other words, actualize the essence of A and B to exist) meaning that A and B are not uncaused and that there is one reality over and above them that is uncaused.
Suppose that you say No. In that case, God would not be all Loving, which would be a contradiction to His Essence.
Suppose on the other hand, you say Yes: Then would that not imply a change in God? It was only after your prayers were said that He decided to answer your prayer. Wouldn’t your prayers be an actual agent affecting God in this case?
Further, there is a question as to the definition of cause and causality. Is it related to determinism? Before quantum mechanics, physicists taught in terms of deterministic models, where one action has a definite effect upon another. But did Quantum mechanics change the philosophical outlook on causality, at least in the realm of the very small, atomic and subatomic world?
B
balto
Guest
Yes it does bring up a lot of questions as you pointed out, but I think that understanding God as changeless, simple, uncaused, etc are necessary starting points. The main point is understanding that God has these properties and something like the universe does not.It seems though that this brings up a lot of other questions. For example, does God hear our prayers and act upon them?
Suppose that you say No. In that case, God would not be all Loving, which would be a contradiction to His Essence.
Suppose on the other hand, you say Yes: Then would that not imply a change in God? It was only after your prayers were said that He decided to answer your prayer. Wouldn’t your prayers be an actual agent affecting God in this case?
I can give my answer to your specific question. Yes, God does answer our prayers but that does not necessarily imply a change in God. God is timeless and hence is present to all moments in time. So He is acting on prayers eternally because He is eternally present to your deciding to pray. It’s not the case that God is along for the ride in the timeline and gets a prayer request that He wasn’t expecting and makes a decision. In other words, God is eternal (outside of time, changeless) not sempiternal (existing in an infinite timeline).
I’m not a physicist, but I would argue that quantum mechanics cannot cast doubt on the principle of causality. If quantum mechanics disproves the principle of causality, then if we ask why a specific quantum event happened now as opposed to later, or in a certain location as opposed to another location, the objective answer would be that there is no reason at all. But how can this be, since the event has a potential for occurring at a specific place and time that was actualized by another agent? It would also make it impossible for us to explain causal regularities because the fact that things behave in regular, repeatable patterns would be a miracle. There may be an epistemic limit to knowing what the specific cause was, but to claim that there is no cause at all seems to be incoherent.Further, there is a question as to the definition of cause and causality. Is it related to determinism? Before quantum mechanics, physicists taught in terms of deterministic models, where one action has a definite effect upon another. But did Quantum mechanics change the philosophical outlook on causality, at least in the realm of the very small, atomic and subatomic world?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Jesus is God, yet He was in time. Also, He asked His Father for the cup to pass if possible. So, although philosophers say that God is all simple, God really is not all that simple as the philosophers may think.In other words, God is eternal (outside of time, changeless) not sempiternal (existing in an infinite timeline).
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Evidently you didn’t read the OP, which anticipated that response:O.K., Get this, God exists eternally, he created the universe. End of strory!
Also, to add to Tomdstone’s earlier point, the argument against there being an “infinite past” is flawed. The assumption is that it would take an “infinite amount of time” to get from the “beginning” of the universe to this point. The flaw is the assumption that there is a beginning of time. If that kind of argument worked, we couldn’t have an infinite number line in the first place.“Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?” - Carl Sagan
You can only measure the time interval between two points. “Infinitely far in the past” is not a definite point in time.
B
Bradski
Guest
We live on a tiny rock in a nondescript solar system which is tucked away in the outer suburbs of an insignificant galaxy which is one of billions and billions (to use a phrase that Sagan was thought to enjoy).Also, if Sagan were correct then why don’t we see things " popping " into existence every where?
Man has only reached as far as our moon, which is so close I can make out its major features from where I am typing this.
The furthest piece of machinery that we have been able to send outwards has barely reached our back door.
The Universe is expanding so that most of what is out there we will never even see, let alone make contact with. It will be forever hidden from us.
It’s like setting out on a world wide expedition and having the rest of the world move away faster from you than you are moving towards it. There is, to put it in the most profound understatement that it is possible to make, lots we don’t know.
So maybe there are things popping into existence everywhere on a very frequent basis. Let’s say in a part of one in a hundred galaxies every few million years. Or maybe millions of times a second in the parts we will never see.
If someone not so very long ago pointed out that everything was moving away from us, you’d think that we were the centre of the universe itself. If he said that, no - it’s that the space between us and everything else that is actually expanding, you’d think him a lunatic. It would be beyond your comprehension.
Don’t be so ready to assume we know what is going on and that we can ridicule ideas that seem a little strange to our barely prehistoric understanding of the known universe.
B
Bahman
Guest
Your argument is based on the fact that time as a measure of changes is constant which is not be the case as we know that time is not primary.I don’t believe it could.
For the universe to be uncaused, it must, as the quote suggests, be eternal. But we can easily show that the universe cannot be eternal, because the very suggestion leads immediately to a logical absurdity: if the universe were eternal, then the past would be infinite. If the past were infinite, we would have to traverse an infinite amount of time to arrive at the present, and as there is no end to infinity, we would never make it to this moment.
Ergo, the universe began to exist. Ergo, the universe was caused.
Much more could and has been said on the subject.
B
Bahman
Guest
To me causality is overrated. One can simply argue that free will is not possible in a framework which is causal hence it is logically incorrect to argue that everything that exist has a cause.I wanted to make a separate thread on this issue (my original thread was “Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?”).
Carl Sagan once wrote:
“In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?” --Cosmos p.257
It seems logical to say that everything that exists has a cause. However, some believe that this statement only applies to events within the universe, not the universe itself. If the universe could be uncaused, would this nullify the existence of God? All answers would be greatly appreciated.
-Phil
D
djchez
Guest
Here is a good presentation by Fr. Robert J. Spitzer, Phd. regarding this subject.I wanted to make a separate thread on this issue (my original thread was “Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?”).
Carl Sagan once wrote:
“In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?” --Cosmos p.257
It seems logical to say that everything that exists has a cause. However, some believe that this statement only applies to events within the universe, not the universe itself. If the universe could be uncaused, would this nullify the existence of God? All answers would be greatly appreciated.
-Phil
youtube.com/watch?v=Mkjhxzqr-5k
Enjoy!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.