Could the Universe be Uncaused?

[polytropos]

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.

The attitude is understandable, perhaps, in the sense that we can certainly understand why someone might tend to engage more with a discipline that has practical uses. But that it is understandable (ie. subsumable under a cognitive tendency or, if pathological, bias) does not imply that it is reasonable, since truth does not depend on utility. (One of my mathematics professors once remarked that she appreciated that in her job, she gets to spend her days proving theorems that have no practical application.)

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

I find this to be very implausible. 20th century linguistic philosophy has been fairly productive, in my view, and I think it would be tough to say that it has not contributed to our knowledge about the world. (Obviously I think other philosophical subdisciplines have been productive as well, but they are more contentious.) Take Kripke’s insights about the nature of necessities for natural substances. I think there are qualifications and improvements that can be made about his theses, but their insights are valuable, and arguably without something like them, we would not have a proper understanding of some basic scientific findings. But they have consequences of ruling out certain other theories (in this case, mind-brain identity theory)–and those are certainly important insights about the world. (Though that insight is perhaps not new, since of course other arguments against mind-brain identity theory or for some other incompatible theory may have been sound prior to Kripke’s.)

 

[balto]

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.

I think you’re getting at the right idea. Tomdstone, the problem you seem to be having is that you are forgetting that God is eternal. Eternal does not mean existing for an infinite amount of time, but existing outside of time altogether. He is present to every moment of time in the universe and has been eternally sustaining each instant of the universe. There is nothing in this picture that imparts change to God that I can see.

We speak of God coming down from Heaven and God doing other things like answering prayers and expressing pleasure/displeasure with humans because we as humans exist in a changeable universe and perceive His effects in time. Our real relationship to God is always changing, but God Himself is not changing. God only experiences so-called Cambridge changes, which are not real changes in God but changes in the relations He has to finite realities that are changing relative to Him. As to your concerns about Christ changing, Christ has a dual nature, one divine, unchanging nature and one human, changing nature. The changes occur in His human nature.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Interestingly, I have not read any work of a physicist yet that claimed to know where the laws of physics come from. However, I suppose it doesn’t mean that an answer couldn’t be found in the future. Having said that, the very fact that nature behaves under strict laws, such as gravity, is interesting in it’s own right.

-Phil

There is also the possibility that there is no reason in the first place. It could simply be that way.

 

[Tomdstone]

We speak of God coming down from Heaven and God doing other things like answering prayers and expressing pleasure/displeasure with humans because we as humans exist in a changeable universe and perceive His effects in time.

So it is not a true fact that God came down from heaven?

 

[Aloysium]

So it is not a true fact that God came down from heaven?

John 6:38 - For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

So, it is true.
You will recall, jesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem.
Confusing, ain’t it.

 

[Tomdstone]

So, it is true.

Yes. That is what I thought. That is why I do not understand why someone here said that this is incorrect. I don’t think that the armchair philosophers have everything right about God. I believe that they are wrong in several areas. We have to take a closer look at the question of the OP and ask whether the question is equivalent to the question as to whether God created the universe. When you say that the universe is uncaused, you are really saying that God does not exist. And when you say that the universe had a cause, you are really saying that God does exist. Other attributes of God are arrived at by armchair philosophising and do not take into account Divine Revelation. The Euclidean geometry developed by the ancient Greeks was quite striking in its accuracy and importance. However, there is a limit to what can be known by armchair philosophy. This was seen in ancient times by the inaccurate beliefs about how diseases were caused and how to cure them.

 

[balto]

So it is not a true fact that God came down from heaven?

Yes, it is a true fact. Did you read what I wrote? I and several others have repeatedly answered your questions and yet you are not actually responding to any of the points being made. What is the difficulty here?

 

[SecretCatholic]

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.

I mean no mockery or disrespect, but I am afraid that your comment shows a great ignorance of the subject of philosophy, of life and the world in general. Calling philosophy “armchair philosophy” is merely an inaccurate derogatory term. Much “useful” science is done while in “armchairs”. And much science is not indeed “useful” or “practical”. You will find that these are the things most scientists love- not necessary its “practical” application.

But if understanding the meaning of human existence, love and moral principles isn’t “practical” then I don’t know what is. Without these things, we are lost- we would be nothing more than either animals or machines. Without these things there is no human spirit. This obsession with pointless “practicality” is endemic of our contemporary culture, though. I suggest you broaden your horizons and look beyond such a myopic and misguided view.

This is not actually true.

You have the burden of proof to show me credible science that says the universe has always been around. The scientific consensus today is that it had a beginning. Non-scientific opinions of scientists do not science make. Multiverses and string theory are nothing more than conjecture and speculation. And even they do not contradict the big bang.

However, there is a limit to what can be known by armchair philosophy. This was seen in ancient times by the inaccurate beliefs about how diseases were caused and how to cure them.

Yes, there is a limit to every method. Science also has its limits. Fields of discipline weren’t as specialized and compartmentalized back in the day. Science and philosophy don’t compete, but complement each other when viewed and utilized properly.

You are essentially comparing ancient pre-science to philosophy. They were both one and the same back then! It’s like a protestant claiming superiority over the early church- even though that is from where both his tradition and the current Catholic tradition come from. We could view the errors in ancient non-germ theory as an error of ancient science just as well.

Now that both philosophy and science have grown into their own disciples and have their own protocols- we can more appropriately choose which one to use. You won’t hear a philosopher these days claiming he can come up with an accurate cause of the latest illness. Unfortunately, you do hear scientists commenting on the purpose of life or on God’s existence as if it was in their scientific purview. These people are very confused, and probably being clouded by their own misunderstandings and egos.

When philosophy and science work together its wonderful. Science provides the empirical evidence while philosophy works out its significance and moral consequences. But we have a habit of becoming narrow-minded and “one-tracked” in our society.

 

[oldcelt]

I have offered my opinion before that philosophy is an excellent mental exercise. Generally speaking, It proves nothing in and of itself, but I suspect that many now accepted scientific conclusions had their beginnings as part of philosophical discussions.

In that light, I think that the universe could be uncaused…though I don’t believe that to be the case.

 

[Tomdstone]

I have offered my opinion before that philosophy is an excellent mental exercise. Generally speaking, It proves nothing in and of itself, but I suspect that many now accepted scientific conclusions had their beginnings as part of philosophical discussions.

In that light, I think that the universe could be uncaused…though I don’t believe that to be the case.

Munchie’s computer games are mental exercises but do they tell us anything significant about the real world. Alsol, take for example, the latest craze in physics (?), the multiverse. It is an interesting mental exercise, but you have some physicists accepting it. whereas there are others that say it is not acceptable since there is no way of verifying the multiverse experimentally. So it is basically philosophical speculation and undecidable. Perhaps thinking about the undecidable is an interesting mental exercise, but in the end, with the undecidable, you are not going to be able to come to a definite conclusion one way or the other. The arguments pro and con will continue without resolution.
Some people address the undecidable A in a utilitarian manner by saying that if you believed that A was true, then the world would be a better place, and things would make more sense. If you do not believe in A, then the world will be an unpleasant place to live and there would be no justice in the world. So you are well advised to believe in A. Would that be a good argument for the existence of A? Or is it just wishful thinking? Again, if A is undecidable, then the argument pro and con will continue.

 

[wmw]

The very birth of the sciences are the fruits of philosophy.
An from a summary of Bertrand Russell’s value of philosophy explains the mistake of taking philosophy for granted:

Philosophy cannot maintain that it has had a great measure of success in providing answers to its questions. Russell uses the example that if you were to ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, or a historian what definite truths has been ascertained by their science, their answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you were to ask a philosopher the same question he will confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as those of other sciences. The problem is that as soon as definite knowledge becomes possible it is no longer called philosophy. The study of the heavens used to be philosophy, now it is known as astronomy. The philosopher Isaac Newton studied the human mind, which is now known as psychology.

 

[Tomdstone]

Quote from BR: " The problem is that as soon as definite knowledge becomes possible it is no longer called philosophy.":

That is not true.
cogito ergo sum reaches a definite conclusion and is philosophy.

 

[wmw]

That is not true.
cogito ergo sum reaches a definite conclusion and is philosophy.

You seem to have the point all wrong. Definite conclusions happen and philosophy is a great contributor in history and to come. If a few definite conclusions were to remain only in the study of philosophy it does not detract from the contributions of philosophy, but you’ve picked a poor example.

“I think; therefore, I am” is a dead end philosophy that by providing an example of the opposite of a fruitful philosophy shows by its absurdity that a philosophy that accepts starting systems of axioms or premises is much more reasonable. Its a shame that many that want to make the empirical science the sole source of knowledge use it to attempt to claim that all philosophy is a dead end.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I mean no mockery or disrespect, but I am afraid that your comment shows a great ignorance of the subject of philosophy, of life and the world in general. Calling philosophy “armchair philosophy” is merely an inaccurate derogatory term. Much “useful” science is done while in “armchairs”. And much science is not indeed “useful” or “practical”. You will find that these are the things most scientists love- not necessary its “practical” application.

I meant a-priori metaphysics when I used the term armchair philosophy, I don’t think it is a derogatory term. After all, I admit that it does have its place. It’s just that its place is not teaching us new and interesting things about the world.

Consider pure mathematics; it is an armchair-philosophy discipline; it fundamentally doesn’t care whether or not its axioms actually describe any real world phenomenon. Geometry, for example, teaches us a great deal about the consequences of Euclid’s axioms, it does not teach us if the real world actually obeys Euclid’s axioms.

But if understanding the meaning of human existence, love and moral principles isn’t “practical” then I don’t know what is. Without these things, we are lost- we would be nothing more than either animals or machines. Without these things there is no human spirit. This obsession with pointless “practicality” is endemic of our contemporary culture, though. I suggest you broaden your horizons and look beyond such a myopic and misguided view.

If you start from the supposition that the meaning of our existence *must *be God-ordained, or that we must be given love and morality from some external arbitrator, then of course you will conclude that there is such an arbitrator. But that just packaging an appeal to consequences with a form of begging the question.

There may simply be no ultimate meaning or objective morality, and your preferences to the contrary aren’t evidence that they exist.

You have the burden of proof to show me credible science that says the universe has always been around. The scientific consensus today is that it had a beginning. Non-scientific opinions of scientists do not science make. Multiverses and string theory are nothing more than conjecture and speculation. And even they do not contradict the big bang.

Why? Your claim was: “science says the universe is finite.” That is false. Science doesn’t know yet whether or not the universe is finite. Theists often misquote things like the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth theorem to say that the universe must have had a beginning. The actual state of affairs is that there are many competing theories (some of which are compatible with BVG, some are not) and there isn’t enough evidence to pick past-finite models over past-eternal models yet.

You are essentially comparing ancient pre-science to philosophy. They were both one and the same back then! It’s like a protestant claiming superiority over the early church- even though that is from where both his tradition and the current Catholic tradition come from. We could view the errors in ancient non-germ theory as an error of ancient science just as well.

“Alternative” health care used to be the only sort of medicine that there was. Then scientists came along, tested it, and the stuff that worked became modern medicine. You could still claim that “alternative” methods like homeopathy or faith healing work, but you’d be wrong.

In the same way, it is true that early science and religion both took a lot of their cues from philosophy, but you can’t consequently conclude that therefore religion is just as valid a method as science for investigating the world.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

This is a good article on the possibility of an uncaused universe:

preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement. This conviction necessarily falls short of a proof, but it is backed up by good reasons. While we don’t have the final answers, I will attempt to explain the rationale behind the belief that science will ultimately understand the universe without involving God in any way.

 

[oldcelt]

I meant a-priori metaphysics when I used the term armchair philosophy, I don’t think it is a derogatory term. After all, I admit that it does have its place. It’s just that its place is not teaching us new and interesting things about the world.

Consider pure mathematics; it is an armchair-philosophy discipline; it fundamentally doesn’t care whether or not its axioms actually describe any real world phenomenon. Geometry, for example, teaches us a great deal about the consequences of Euclid’s axioms, it does not teach us if the real world actually obeys Euclid’s axioms.

If you start from the supposition that the meaning of our existence *must *be God-ordained, or that we must be given love and morality from some external arbitrator, then of course you will conclude that there is such an arbitrator. But that just packaging an appeal to consequences with a form of begging the question.

There may simply be no ultimate meaning or objective morality, and your preferences to the contrary aren’t evidence that they exist.

Why? Your claim was: “science says the universe is finite.” That is false. Science doesn’t know yet whether or not the universe is finite. Theists often misquote things like the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth theorem to say that the universe must have had a beginning. The actual state of affairs is that there are many competing theories (some of which are compatible with BVG, some are not) and there isn’t enough evidence to pick past-finite models over past-eternal models yet.

“Alternative” health care used to be the only sort of medicine that there was. Then scientists came along, tested it, and the stuff that worked became modern medicine. You could still claim that “alternative” methods like homeopathy or faith healing work, but you’d be wrong.

In the same way, it is true that early science and religion both took a lot of their cues from philosophy, but you can’t consequently conclude that therefore religion is just as valid a method as science for investigating the world.

You make the excellent point that the vast majority of philosophy here and by people such as Aquinas was and is conclusion driven. God exists, a particular type of god. so now I’ll find ways to prove it philosophically. That alone would have you fail any peer review system I have ever known.

 

[Jerurussia]

This Uncaused Universe was mentally-ill atheist-philosopher John Stuart Mill’s brainchild, snitched by atheist-philospher Bertrand Russell who created a tortured argument erasing cause-and-effect. Carl Sagan is a wannabe who lead the atheist fight to CENSOR the books of Immanuel Velikovsky that showed, at minimum, the consonance of all ancient texts with the Bible. Sagan and other bully atheists pledged that any publisher publishing Velikovsky would be boycotted by these thugs withholding university textbook orders. “Those that have not the love of the truth will have cause to believe a lie.” Now take that hammer, slam it down in a trajectory over your skull and pray, I mean, logically argue, that John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell and Carl “CONTACT” Sagan were correct. Don’t forget Velikovsky’s Princeton bud, Albert Einstein, who described philosophy as beautiful, like writing in honey, but ultimately useless.

 

[wmw]

This is a good article on the possibility of an uncaused universe:

preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

The stated purpose of this article is to…: (Emphasis added)

…explain the rationale behind the belief that science will ultimately understand the universe without involving God in any way.

Self stated confession that it is biased by an anti-religious and poorly formed philosophy that is searching for scientific theories to support their predetermined belief’s conclusion.

Thus far all such attempts of such theories have been completely incompatible with a fit to the evidence of our universe while the single time of expansion, Big Bang theory remains the only generally accepted scientific model. It stands independent of a religious philosophy, but independently agrees with the Judao-Christian religion’s concept of a God created universe.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The stated purpose of this article is to…: (Emphasis added)

Self stated confession that it is biased by an anti-religious and poorly formed philosophy that is searching for scientific theories to support their predetermined belief’s conclusion.

Thus far all such attempts of such theories have been completely incompatible with a fit to the evidence of our universe while the single time of expansion, Big Bang theory remains the only generally accepted scientific model. It stands independent of a religious philosophy, but independently agrees with the Judao-Christian religion’s concept of a God created universe.

If you had read the quote that I posted along with the article, it is clear that is not the case:

Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement. This conviction necessarily falls short of a proof, but it is backed up by good reasons. While we don’t have the final answers, I will attempt to explain the rationale behind the belief that science will ultimately understand the universe without involving God in any way.

The article is an attempt to explain the reasons people have for believing what they do. Are you telling me that the author’s biases are causing him to mischaracterize his fellow scientists beliefs?

I suggest you read the article, it may clear up some of the misconceptions you evidently have about just what the big bang is.

 

[SecretCatholic]

I meant a-priori metaphysics when I used the term armchair philosophy, I don’t think it is a derogatory term. After all, I admit that it does have its place. It’s just that its place is not teaching us new and interesting things about the world.

It certainly does. It has a lot to teach us about what to make of the world and how we should respond to it. (Today’s) philosophy is not science and visa-versa. You seem to be judging anything that is not science as not “interesting” or not “useful” or whatnot. But its a philosophical position.

If you start from the supposition that the meaning of our existence *must *be God-ordained, or that we must be given love and morality from some external arbitrator, then of course you will conclude that there is such an arbitrator. But that just packaging an appeal to consequences with a form of begging the question.

There may simply be no ultimate meaning or objective morality, and your preferences to the contrary aren’t evidence that they exist.

Not all philosophy starts or ends with assuming a creator. But exploring the question is valuable in itself. It’s an important question and its an important journey of discovery. This is the immense value of philosophy.

Turning your statement around- Your preferences also do not make a lick of a difference to the universe. We are all on a journey for truth and accept an objective reality. Why do you assume otherwise? Some of us have come to the conclusion that God is real and Jesus was his incarnation into the physical world, even if we don’t know all the answers. Some of us haven’t decided and some have decided that there is no entity nor purpose behind the world (perhaps your own conclusion?)

Why? Your claim was: “science says the universe is finite.” That is false. Science doesn’t know yet whether or not the universe is finite. Theists often misquote things like the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth theorem to say that the universe must have had a beginning. The actual state of affairs is that there are many competing theories (some of which are compatible with BVG, some are not) and there isn’t enough evidence to pick past-finite models over past-eternal models yet.

I suppose we can play this game with evolution, too. There are a lot of “competing theories” and just not enough facts! Obviously, science is always looking for new answers, and tomorrow we could find we had it all wrong. But the current mainstream science points to a beginning and an end of the universe. It’s not as “vague” as you make it out to be just because you don’t like the current conclusion.

“Alternative” health care used to be the only sort of medicine that there was. Then scientists came along, tested it, and the stuff that worked became modern medicine. You could still claim that “alternative” methods like homeopathy or faith healing work, but you’d be wrong.

Miracles have been documented. So apparently there are other means of curing people, even if they are rare. “Alternative” medicine like herbs acupuncture do indeed still work, with much less side-effects than most synthetic drugs. And I would not be wrong.

In the same way, it is true that early science and religion both took a lot of their cues from philosophy, but you can’t consequently conclude that therefore religion is just as valid a method as science for investigating the world.

Religion is a valid method of interpreting and responding to the world. It does not (at least in our tradition) pretend to be science or predictive. Philosophy is a valid method for exploring meaning in the physical world and non-physical world. Science is a valid method for exploring the mechanics of the physical world. Our religion embraces both philosophy and science. All are valid methods in their own rights. That you prefer- indeed, are infatuated with- one over the others is your own (philosophical) choice, and does not indicate any such empirical fact as you seem to think.