Could the Universe be Uncaused?

[JapaneseKappa]

I did not point that out. The “features of the world” are not the same as the “features discovered by science” (though there may be overlap), not the least because science requires metaphysical and epistemic presuppositions that it does not internally justify. By “features of the world,” I simply mean things like the reality of change, the existence of contingent substances, etc.

You know a successful method for discovering features of the world other than science!? Don’t hold back, what is the method and what features have you discovered?

Science is a method for distinguishing true statements about the universe from false ones, and it is true that there are possible statements science cannot prove. However, as far as I know, the only presuppositions science makes is that our sense data is reliable. We must not be receiving artificial signals like brains in vats and the universe must not have been created last Thursday. I have seen some people argue that science requires that the universe have laws and that those laws must not vary with space and time but that is incorrect. Those are assumptions many scientists make, but science would work even if they were not true.

Even if that were true, science would certainly have no capacity to determine it. Empirical observation in principle cannot distinguish between a “brute fact” and an unobserved cause. (Even things like Bell’s theorem can’t demonstrate empirically that there are no hidden variables in quantum mechanics, for instance. For it would always be consistent to posit that every electron in the universe has been preordained to act in all of the ways that it does.)

I think this is a counterfactual hypothesis, anyway. Cosmological arguments (classically, at least) purport to be metaphysical demonstrations. They are not extraordinarily difficult to formulate validly. If their conclusions are false, then, it must be the case that one of the premises is false. But I think that there are at least a few variants of the cosmological argument that have true premises, so I don’t regard it as even epistemically possible that science should discover that the universe has no cause (even apart from the above considerations that such a discovery is not within science’s epistemic domains). (Barry Miller’s cosmological argument does not even rely on the principle of sufficient reason.)

Suppose we found that the best explanation for all the data we had was a model of an infinite-in-time universe which made it impossible for there to be an observer external to the universe (e.g. Relational quantum mechanics.) The theory might assert (for example) that the lack of observability implies that a thing must be uncaused, and therefore implies an uncaused universe. You could certainly could still postulate that there was some supernatural observer with Godlike properties, and science would be unable to prove or disprove it. However, it would add nothing to our actual understanding of the universe and could be safely kept in the closet with the “brain-in-a-vat” and “last Thursday” hypothesis.

Either the metaphysical demonstrations are based on a-priori reasoning, or they are statements based on some sort of empirical observation. If they are statements based on empirical observation, then they should be subject to scientific inquiry (unless you have some new and better method for distinguishing true statements from false ones based on empirical evidence.)

 

[abucs]

Well, that “scientist” has done his homework and obviously knows what he’s doing considering it is due to scientists that we have advanced so far since ancient times such as in medicine, technology, research etc. We know how to constantly make new vaccines that kill viruses that evolve to become immune to the previous vaccines, we know how to treat diseases which, in turn, reduced the number of deaths from these diseases to the point where we don’t even have to worry about them killing us like they did in ancient times because we now have doctors who can prescribe us the medication to make us healthy again. We know how planets, stars, moons etc. form, how galaxies form, how gravity operates, what life forms there were way before humans, how we evolved to become the Homo Sapiens we are today and who we share a common ancestor with. These are all things that science has brought forth and who knows how much farther advanced we could’ve been today had it not been for the Christian dark ages where nearly everyone had that mentality that you quoted. With all of those wasted centuries we could’ve been advancing to the point where Cancer, HIV and AIDS could’ve been nothing to worry about today. So don’t act like scientists are ignorant for using open, rational minds to figure things out instead of relying on faith.

The first half of your post made sense. The second half relies on a faith in the conflict thesis between Christianity and science. That faith is misplaced,

Consider:

gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/36672

especially

archive.org/details/medievalmedicine00wals
booksshouldbefree.com/book/Makers-of-Modern-Medicine-by-James-J-Walsh
readcentral.com/book/James-J-Walsh/Read-Old-Time-Makers-of-Medicine-Online
gutenberg.org/ebooks/35477

 

[Tomdstone]

Very perceptive. But faulty on seveal accounts. God, in all his Divine Simplicity, existed for an eternity before the creation of the universe and the universe was created 13 billions of years before Jesus Christ was born, who was himself a product of creation. So the objecton fails on this account.

Secondly, the Second Person of the Trinity possesses the complete Divine Nature in all its uncomposed Simplicity, as does the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Second Person of The Trinity did not give up his Divine Simplicity when he assumed a human nature. So the objectors argument fails. Jesus Christ possesses One, Simple, Divine Nature, to which he assumed a human nature, but not a human person. The only Persion in Jesus Christ is the Divine Second Person which has One, Simple, and Divine Nature.

See the CCC, Part 1, Chapter 2, paragraphs 422 - 478 and meditate on it.

" … the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin”. He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.91

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. the distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.92

468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ’s human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity."93 Thus everything in Christ’s human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."94

469 The Church thus confesses that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man. He is truly the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother: “What he was, he remained and what he was not, he assumed”, sings the Roman Liturgy.95 and the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom proclaims and sings: "O only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal being, you who deigned for our salvation to become incarnate of the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, you who without change became man and were crucified, O Christ our God, you who by your death have crushed death, you who are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us!"96

IV. HOW IS THE SON OF GOD MAN?

470 Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed”,97 in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ’s human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ’s human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from “one of the Trinity”.

The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity:98

The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.99

Christ’s soul and his human knowledge

471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.100

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and man”,101 and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.102 This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.103

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person.104… "

Linus2nd

According to the creed: The Second person of the Blessed Trinity came down from Heaven and became man. This is obviously a change as it indicates a movement from heaven to earth. God came down from heaven and became man. This is asserted at every Mass by millions of people, Eastern or Western liturgy, it makes no difference. So it cannot true that God is unchangeable as has been asserted by philosophers here, since He came down from Heaven and became man.

 

[Tomdstone]

If we accept the principle that “everything that exists has a cause,” then we would have to ask whether God has a cause. But no credible philosopher who has defended a cosmological argument has held that principle, so it is ignorance rather than courage to go on to invoke it in order to ask the question as to what caused God.

Proponents hold, for example, that everything contingent or everything that changes has a cause. The universe changes, so the universe has a cause. If the vicious regress (an infinite essentially ordered causal series) is impossible, then something does not have a cause. This is consistent with the causal principles being invoked as long as that which has no cause does not also change.

(It’s also not really a matter of the universe or God having “always existed,” but of God having existed eternally. We could say that God exists “always” if we define an eternal to exist at t for all t. But in that sense the universe also always exists, assuming this is the only universe there ever was and will ever be, even though it is not eternal, or outside time.)

Scientists look for causes, but they may not find them for some reason or another. In some cases, apparent causes are fictitious.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

According to the creed: The Second person of the Blessed Trinity came down from Heaven and became man. This is obviously a change as it indicates a movement from heaven to earth. God came down from heaven and became man. This is asserted at every Mass by millions of people, Eastern or Western liturgy, it makes no difference. So it cannot true that God is unchangeable as has been asserted by philosophers here, since He came down from Heaven and became man.

Indeed he assumed a human nature but his own nature did not change. It is De Fide Doctrine ( do you know what that means? ) that God is Simple and uncomposed in his nature/essence and does not change. When you say that God " came down " from heaven that is incorrect becuase there is no up or down about heaven, heaven is wherever God is and wherever his power operates.

When the Second Person assumed a human nature, his Divine Nature did not change. Read the CCC which I have quoted above.

Linus2nd

 

[Tomdstone]

When you say that God " came down " from heaven that is incorrect becuase there is no up or down about heaven,…

Incorrect???
Really? Do you think that the Roman Catholic Church is teaching error everyday in every Mass
Here is the quote for the Mass - two versions:
" For us men and for our salvation

   ** he came down from heaven**: 

    by the power of the Holy Spirit

    he was born of the Virgin Mary, 

    and became man."

OR
" For us men and for our salvation

   ** he came down from heaven**, 

    and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate 

    of the Virgin Mary, 

    and became man."

divinesacredheart.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192
Are you then saying that God did not come down from heaven and He did not become man?

 

[polytropos]

You know a successful method for discovering features of the world other than science!?

I would argue that philosophy can be successful (though not consensus-generating). All I would do is present arguments with conclusions that are to all appearances outside of the domain of science (ie. arguments for the existence of God, immateriality of thought, etc.).

If you are looking for a checklist of steps you follow to try to assess claims (something like the “scientific method” as introduced to students), then no, I don’t have that. Arguments can simply be presented and evaluated on their own terms; there is no formalizable method. (Nor is the scientific method formalizable, since the important steps rely on intuition, insight etc.)

However, as far as I know, the only presuppositions science makes is that our sense data is reliable. We must not be receiving artificial signals like brains in vats and the universe must not have been created last Thursday. I have seen some people argue that science requires that the universe have laws and that those laws must not vary with space and time but that is incorrect. Those are assumptions many scientists make, but science would work even if they were not true.

Perhaps not laws, although I think it would be difficult to warrant science without grounding observable regularities somehow. There would be nothing for science to discover or generalize if there were no regularities. (In that sense the reliability of our sense data is not the main issue, since science could conceivably even be carried out in skeptical/idealist situations. That the data reflects regularities, that the “external world” behaves in an intelligible way, is necessary.)

The different question of the status of what science actually does discover is also important. There is no agreement between scientists on such issues. Without seeking internal justification, science won’t figure it out. And the question of whether positivism or scientific realism is true is hardly meaningless, even if practicing scientists and philosophers of science will likely never reach consensus.

Is there a method to evaluating such claims? I doubt it. It seems plausible that any sort of “method” will only make sense if it could be subsumed under some more comprehensive account of why the method should work. So the lack of the method is hardly reason to deny that we can think about and debate the question, nor that the two theories, because not confirmable or falsifiable by the scientific method, are therefore equally plausible.

But if we concede that there’s a fact of the matter in the debate between realism and positivism, and that we can sensibly and productively discuss the grounds for such positions even without direct recourse to the scientific method, then the whole presumption that philosophical methods are obviously unfruitful reveals itself to be hot air.

Suppose we found that the best explanation for all the data we had was a model of an infinite-in-time universe which made it impossible for there to be an observer external to the universe (e.g. Relational quantum mechanics.) The theory might assert (for example) that the lack of observability implies that a thing must be uncaused, and therefore implies an uncaused universe.

Well, I don’t claim to be an expert in interpretations of quantum mechanics. The theory would have to be spelled out in more detail. For now I would only say that using such an interpretation of quantum mechanics to try to refute (or render otiose) the need for a cause of the universe seems to equivocate on “cause” (at least with respect to some arguments for an uncaused cause). The sense of “uncaused” that an interpretation of quantum mechanics invokes will have to do with genuine indeterminacy and whether temporally antecedent variables can determine later states. That would leave, at least, the “existential” arguments untouched, since such arguments claim that for a contingent object to exist is for the object to exist qua sustained by something else. (The clearest statement of this analysis is Barry Miller’s.) An object might be “uncaused” in the quantum mechanical sense, but that has no clear implication in this “existential” sense.

(Other considerations would be what it means for the model to be the “best explanation.” Many scientific theories are more descriptive than explanatory. Newton’s law of gravitation allows us to predict fairly well but leaves the underlying causes of gravity obscure. General relativity improves Newton’s models but scientists would still like to know more about the ontological side of things. Quantum mechanics produces incredibly accurate predictions but the interpretation of quantum mechanics is notoriously undecided, because quantum mechanics can describe a system much better than it can explain it. Such theories have (at least in their heydays) been the “best explanation,” but that designation is pretty far from giving us an ontological inventory.)

Either the metaphysical demonstrations are based on a-priori reasoning, or they are statements based on some sort of empirical observation. If they are statements based on empirical observation, then they should be subject to scientific inquiry (unless you have some new and better method for distinguishing true statements from false ones based on empirical evidence.)

The trouble with your dichotomy here is the vagueness of the phrase “subject to scientific inquiry.” To refer to Barry Miller again, the empirical premise of his cosmological argument is “Fido exists.” The rest of his argument is analysis of that proposition. “Fido exists” is obviously subject to (uninteresting) scientific inquiry. The conclusions that he claims to draw from it need not be themselves subject to scientific inquiry.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Incorrect???
Really? Do you think that the Roman Catholic Church is teaching error everyday in every Mass
Here is the quote for the Mass - two versions:
" For us men and for our salvation

   ** he came down from heaven**: 

    by the power of the Holy Spirit

    he was born of the Virgin Mary, 

    and became man."

OR
" For us men and for our salvation

   ** he came down from heaven**, 

    and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate 

    of the Virgin Mary, 

    and became man."

divinesacredheart.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192
Are you then saying that God did not come down from heaven and He did not become man?

I’m saying that heaven is wherever he is. " He came down from heaven, " simply means he entered into our finite universe so as to assume a human nature. Heaven is not a place, how can a pure spirit be " in a place, " like New York is a place. But if you want to interpret it literally that’s O.K. You will find plenty of Catholic theologians to disagree. But it is no big deal.

However, to think that God changes is a big deal. God does not change, nor can he change, he is pure spirit with no potency whatsoever. That is what the Church means when it says God is Simple. It means he is not composed, therefore he cannot change. All the attributes we attribute to God are merely different ways of viewing his Essence/Nature, which is Pure Subsistent Existence. God does not change, even when the Second Person assumes a human nature.

Linus2nd

 

[Tomdstone]

I’m saying that heaven is wherever he is. " He came down from heaven, " simply means he entered into our finite universe so as to assume a human nature. Heaven is not a place, how can a pure spirit be " in a place, " like New York is a place. But if you want to interpret it literally that’s O.K. You will find plenty of Catholic theologians to disagree. But it is no big deal.

However, to think that God changes is a big deal. God does not change, nor can he change, he is pure spirit with no potency whatsoever. That is what the Church means when it says God is Simple. It means he is not composed, therefore he cannot change. All the attributes we attribute to God are merely different ways of viewing his Essence/Nature, which is Pure Subsistent Existence. God does not change, even when the Second Person assumes a human nature.

Linus2nd

The question concerns whether it is consistent to say on the one hand that God never changes, but on the other hand to say that God came down from heaven, that God entered our finite world, and that God became man.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The question concerns whether it is consistent to say on the one hand that God never changes, but on the other hand to say that God came down from heaven, that God entered our finite world, and that God became man.

I have explained what the Church teaches, which is what God himself has Revealed and God has appointed the Church to hand on his Revelation. The mysteries of God cannot be reached by human logic or reasoning although those things known through Revelation are not contrary to reason because God is Supremely Logical.

Linus2nd

 

[MarcoPolo]

I was addressing the issue that if God is not the uncaused cause, then the universe would be God.

No, in post 13, you brought up an attribute outside the issue of causation and went further into whether God is loving and later brought up whether He answers prayers, etc…

 

[Aloysium]

The question concerns whether it is consistent to say on the one hand that God never changes, but on the other hand to say that God came down from heaven, that God entered our finite world, and that God became man.

Let’s see if this helps.
I think the first thing you have to do is accept that God is unchanging. You can argue this, but you will be wrong.
I’ve been contemplating Jesus’ sacrifice and feeling quite in awe.
Jesus is an eternal reality, revealed in time.

Rev 13:8 - All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast–all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

1 Peter 1:18-20 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Ephesians 1:3-7 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace

2 Timothy 1:9 - “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,”

The Son, the innocent Lamb, in loving obedience of the Father became sin, in order to die that we might be saved from the sin we bring into creation.
He sweat blood not agonizing over hours and days of pain, but in having to accept the filth of sin, that we might live eternally as children of God.

 

[Tomdstone]

Let’s see if this helps.
I think the first thing you have to do is accept that God is unchanging. You can argue this, but you will be wrong.
I’ve been contemplating Jesus’ sacrifice and feeling quite in awe.
Jesus is an eternal reality, revealed in time.
The Son, the innocent Lamb, in loving obedience of the Father became sin, in order to die that we might be saved from the sin we bring into creation.
He sweat blood not agonizing over hours and days of pain, but in having to accept the filth of sin, that we might live eternally as children of God.

In answering the question whether the universe can be uncaused, people are saying that only God is uncaused, not the universe. But what does it mean if God is from God? When we say that John’s lung cancer was from too much smoking, we mean that too much smoking was the cause of his lung cancer. But Catholics say that Jesus is God from God. If God is uncaused, how can God be from God?
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,…

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/credo.htm

 

[Tomdstone]

Let’s see if this helps.
I think the first thing you have to do is accept that God is unchanging. …
The Son, the innocent Lamb, in loving obedience of the Father became sin,…

This is difficult to understand. First you say that God is unchangeable, then you say that God became sin. If God is unchangeble, how could He become sin?

 

[abucs]

In answering the question whether the universe can be uncaused, people are saying that only God is uncaused, not the universe. But what does it mean if God is from God? When we say that John’s lung cancer was from too much smoking, we mean that too much smoking was the cause of his lung cancer. But Catholics say that Jesus is God from God. If God is uncaused, how can God be from God?
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,…

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/credo.htm

If we say David from New York we don’t mean New York caused David.

That being said, you do have an interesting question regarding what it actually means when it is said that God is unchangeable.

 

[SecretCatholic]

People like Hawking, Dawkins and deGrasse Tyson are good, even great, scientists- but don’t have any more credibility in philosophy or theology than your average college student (which is to say- not much). What they are doing is commenting on a field outside their expertise and treating it like it doesn’t matter. Hawking has even stated that “philosophy is dead” and Tyson has publicly expressed his low opinion of philosophy in general. Yet they often engage in philosophy and even theology when they comment on matters outside of science.

As for the universe being uncaused- Let’s see. Science currently tells us that the universe had a beginning, not that it was around forever. And while Hawking makes statements about gravity causing the universe, it is perhaps his personal beliefs blinding his reason, because gravity is clearly something within the universe. At the very least, he needs to clarify how he thinks that something inside the universe can cause the universe.

Scientifically, it seems that the universe was indeed caused. By what, science has yet to determine. Ultimately, I do not think anything that we regard as “science” these days can determine the cause of the universe, since it is outside time, space and outside the physical world itself- which is what science deals with, exclusively.

The question is not whether the universe was caused, but what caused it. Atheists claim that it is something other than God- some unconscious force, such as Hawking alludes to- though it cannot be gravity, nor anything that we could properly call “physical”. It must be immaterial in some way. (Though not necessarily God).

Actually, it seems to me that God can be uncaused because he is not of this world- Because he is non-physical and need not obey physical laws of causality.

Also, one would expect something random and purposeless from something random and purposeless. Since the universe seems not to be random and to have purpose, then it would be logical to expect a non-random and purposeful source for the universe. What can have true purpose? Well, that sounds something like an intelligence, like a person. It sounds something like God.

So while we could say that the universe might come from some non-physical, unconscious force, it seems far more likely that it is the result of some kind of purposeful intelligence, thus God.

And God’s greatest prophet was Jesus. And Jesus claimed to be God’s only begotten son. And he started a church. And that church and the writings that precede that church tell us that the universe was created. So I believe Jesus and that church. So, I believe that the universe was created on the basis of science and faith. Reason leads me to believe in God, and faith leads me to believe Jesus the teachings of his church.

 

[Aloysium]

This is difficult to understand. First you say that God is unchangeable, then you say that God became sin. If God is unchangeble, how could He become sin?

I don’t think I can explain it to you. If what I wrote previously does not answer your question, I believe other words and explanations will suffer the same fate.
For example: Unchangeable, I would think, means not constrained to time. I would say that He became sin in the manner that the Son is begotten from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. That probably doesn’t make sense either, right?

God is a mystery.
He creates us and even we are a mystery to ourselves. From the principal character in the myth we form about our life to the theories about our physical make-up, as a collection of cells, organs and such, these are understandings, but we can only be as that person who does the thinking. The images and ideas point to who one is. The reality of who I am is who I am.

I’m not sure you get what I mean, but God is even more - beyond/behind/above that. He is the Source of our being. We cannot reach Him, but He reaches out to us through revelation - a lifting of the veil. Ultimately, He is known, as He knows us, through love.

Sometimes what is revealed sounds contradictory, but that is because we are trying to understand it using what we know otherwise - bits and pieces of scripture and our knowledge of workings of the physical world. What you have to do is believe that God is who He says He is. Once you have done that, you will find that the pieces start falling in line. He is the linchpin, that brings and keeps it all together.

This business is a lot more difficult than someone may think. In today’s society, everyone has an opinion and many think that their opinion is worth like any other. That is not the case. Some random person like myself is unlikely to be of benefit to you compared to others much wiser and more learned. I would check out at least the Catechism. I find Ratzinger writes what is on the tip of my tongue.

The important thing is not to just understand as it may just feed pride. The all important thing is to do His will.

 

[Tomdstone]

For example: Unchangeable, I would think, means not constrained to time.

When I think of unchangeable, I think of something that remains the same. It does not change over time. When I think of something becoming something else, that to me is a change. So when I consider the following characteristics of God, it seems like there has been a change of some kind:
God became man
God became sin
God came down from heaven
God is from God
God the Son prays asking that the cup may pass from Him. (Matthew 26) God knew that the cup would not pass, but He asks for a change and that the cup may pass. If God is unchangeable and all knowable, why would He ask for the cup to pass?
How would this relate to the question on causality? One objection to the universe being uncaused is that the universe changes with time. It is said by the philosophers, that if the universe changes, then it cannot cause itself for some reason that has to do with actuality, potentiality, or some other philosophical concept. And the uncaused cause is supposed to be unchangeable according the the philosophers.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

People like Hawking, Dawkins and deGrasse Tyson are good, even great, scientists- but don’t have any more credibility in philosophy or theology than your average college student (which is to say- not much). What they are doing is commenting on a field outside their expertise and treating it like it doesn’t matter. Hawking has even stated that “philosophy is dead” and Tyson has publicly expressed his low opinion of philosophy in general. Yet they often engage in philosophy and even theology when they comment on matters outside of science.

I think this attitude is entirely understandable given the enormous success of science and the enormous impotence of theology.

Science and theology both purport to be able to discern true statements from false ones. The difference is that the statements science discerns are useful, and make predictions about our everyday experience of the world. They allow the creation of such things as the computer you’re typing on, and the elimination of smallpox. The claims theology discerns, however, are never useful. No one has ever been cured by a theological finding; I can’t use theology to make a device to quickly thaw out my frozen dinner. Theology is fundamentally a study of things that do not make predictions about what we will perceive and experience. As such, there is no reason to take theological claims too seriously.

Armchair philosophizing is useful and has its place, but it has never taught us anything new and interesting about the world.

As for the universe being uncaused- Let’s see. Science currently tells us that the universe had a beginning, not that it was around forever.

This is not actually true.

 

[Aloysium]

When I think of unchangeable, I think of something that remains the same. It does not change over time. When I think of something becoming something else, that to me is a change. So when I consider the following characteristics of God, it seems like there has been a change of some kind:
God became man
God became sin
God came down from heaven
God is from God
God the Son prays asking that the cup may pass from Him. (Matthew 26) God knew that the cup would not pass, but He asks for a change and that the cup may pass. If God is unchangeable and all knowable, why would He ask for the cup to pass?
How would this relate to the question on causality? One objection to the universe being uncaused is that the universe changes with time. It is said by the philosophers, that if the universe changes, then it cannot cause itself for some reason that has to do with actuality, potentiality, or some other philosophical concept. And the uncaused cause is supposed to be unchangeable according the the philosophers.

Again, you are asking a random guy on the internet some pretty deep questions.
With that disclaimer, how about: The universe exists because God created it. It exists eternally in Him (for want of a better way to express it). He does not change. Time passes but He is in and beyond time. It all happens within eternity, unchanging. He creates all time. How’s that? I can try another way to say it, but I go back to the truth that He is as He has revealed Himself.