Could the Universe be Uncaused?

[JapaneseKappa]

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.

You could end this discussion very quickly by simply supplying an example. A previous poster suggested linguistic philosophy which is quite interesting; I suspect its success is that even in an armchair you can “go out and look at” language.

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.

You’re right, of course. But no amount of philosophizing about gods will make them exist, just like no amount of Euclidean geometry will force the world to be Euclidean.

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?)

The issue is that you seemed to think that a lack of meaning or objective morality would be a problem with my position. It isn’t a problem, it is entirely possible that that’s just the way things are. I don’t think the existence of meaning or morality is a problem with your position, it is entirely possible that that’s just the way things are. If you have some evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it.

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.
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.

Science is more honest than religion in that science is willing to admit when it has not yet found a convincing answer. The big bang is one such case. Evolution is not. Science is plenty certain that homeopathy is ineffective beyond placebo effects. Science is plenty certain that faith healing doesn’t work (by the way, if you know an actual faith healer, why not have him win a million dollars?)
Sean Carroll (a professional cosmologist) has this to say:

While the Big Bang model – the picture of a universe expanding from a hot, dense state over the course of billions of years – is firmly established, the Big Bang itself – the hypothetical singular moment of infinite density at the very beginning – remains mysterious. Cosmologists sometimes talk about the Big Bang, especially in popular-level presentations, in ways that convey more certainty than is really warranted, so it is worth our time to separate what we know from what we may guess…
The issue of whether or not there actually is a beginning to time remains open. Even though classical general relativity predicts a singularity at the Big Bang, it’s completely possible that a fully operational theory of quantum gravity will replace the singularity by a transitional stage in an eternal universe. A variety of approaches along these lines are being pursued by physicists: bouncing cosmologies in which a single Big Crunch evolves directly into our observed Big Bang, cyclic cosmologies in which there are an infinite number of epochs separated by Big Bangs, and baby-universe scenarios in which our Big Bang arises spontaneously out of quantum fluctuations in an otherwise quiet spacetime. There is no way to decide between beginning and eternal cosmologies on the basis of pure thought; both possibilities are being actively pursued by working cosmologists, and a definitive judgment will have to wait until one or the other approach develops into a mature scientific theory that makes contact with observations.

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.

Its possible that religion is a valid method for something, but it is not for learning new and interesting things about the world.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Its possible that religion is a valid method for something, but it is not for learning new and interesting things about the world.

So you are saying that having a relationship with the Person who created all this is uninteresting, as is knowing why it was created and where it is going. Your attitude is a barrier for truth.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So you are saying that having a relationship with the Person who created all this is uninteresting, as is knowing why it was created and where it is going. Your attitude is a barrier for truth.

This thread is about the universe and whether or not it could be uncaused. That knowledge would constitute something new and interesting about the world. By interesting I mean non-trivial, not “desirable”. I have no doubt you are very “interested” in a relationship with a God in the same way I am very “interested” in finding a genie in a bottle.

Since you seem to be claiming to know the answer to the “why” questions, why did God make the entropy of the early universe 10^(10^120) times smaller than would be required for us to exist?

 

[SecretCatholic]

You could end this discussion very quickly by simply supplying an example.

I have already given examples. Simply morality and exploring the meaning/purpose of life are extraordinarily important contributions, even if we disagree on some answers.

The issue is that you seemed to think that a lack of meaning or objective morality would be a problem with my position. It isn’t a problem, it is entirely possible that that’s just the way things are. I don’t think the existence of meaning or morality is a problem with your position, it is entirely possible that that’s just the way things are. If you have some evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it.

A lack of objective meaning and morality in the universe is very problematic for humans. Serious, honest atheists have said as much. Now some people don’t care. Some people don’t care about much at all. All they want is to fornicate and poop when nature calls. Others give their lives to trivial puzzles and pursuits. Some low-brow and some incredibly intellectual. Yet they are all hollow.

You don’t need to accept my position as a Catholic to accept this idea. Most people craze purpose, meaning and love in their lives. Most people believe in God or in some higher power. Many who don’t believe God to be true wish that he were. There is certainly a need for objective meaning, purpose and love that echoes throughout human history.

Maybe its just a psychological/neurological/evolutionary “glitch” or side-effect in the human psyche. I find the Catholic explanation much more convincing. But however you explain it, it’s there. It may not be a problem for YOU and perhaps many others, but it is certainly a problem for most of humanity and throughout history and the present.

Science is more honest than religion in that science is willing to admit when it has not yet found a convincing answer.

As Catholics we accept the word of God. We accept the teachings of the church. But we also accept that there’s a heck of a lot we don’t know and understand- and in fact won’t ever on this Earth. The purpose of revelation is for salvation, not for scientific/historical/medical explanation. You seems to be getting this purpose mixed up with the purpose of other disciplines- including science. It’s not science or religion- both are part of a greater whole of human practices and understanding.

You dismiss the role and function of religion because you have bought into a philosophy which does so. Just as there is no convincing a fundamentalist Christian that his blind belief in the Bible alone is misplaced, there is no convincing someone who has bought into naturalism/scientism that there is anything beyond the material world nor any use for anything but the scientific method to discern truth and “new and interesting things about the world”.

Its possible that religion is a valid method for something, but it is not for learning new and interesting things about the world.

It is a valid method for salvation, for communing with God, for growing in spiritual maturity and for leading a generally more fulfilling and longer life on Earth that will prepare us for the greater reality of life and the universe.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I have already given examples. Simply morality and exploring the meaning/purpose of life are extraordinarily important contributions, even if we disagree on some answers.
It is a valid method for salvation, for communing with God, for growing in spiritual maturity and for leading a generally more fulfilling and longer life on Earth

So it’s irrelevant to the question that we are discussing in this thread?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

A lack of objective meaning and morality in the universe is very problematic for humans. Serious, honest atheists have said as much. Now some people don’t care. Some people don’t care about much at all. All they want is to fornicate and poop when nature calls. Others give their lives to trivial puzzles and pursuits. Some low-brow and some incredibly intellectual. Yet they are all hollow.

You don’t need to accept my position as a Catholic to accept this idea. Most people craze purpose, meaning and love in their lives. Most people believe in God or in some higher power. Many who don’t believe God to be true wish that he were. There is certainly a need for objective meaning, purpose and love that echoes throughout human history.

Maybe its just a psychological/neurological/evolutionary “glitch” or side-effect in the human psyche. I find the Catholic explanation much more convincing. But however you explain it, it’s there. It may not be a problem for YOU and perhaps many others, but it is certainly a problem for most of humanity and throughout history and the present.

So now you’re saying that our preferences DO matter to the universe? A lack of external morality/meaning may be a “problem” in the sense that we have to deal with the consequences, but it is not a “problem” in the sense that it presents some sort of logical contradiction or impossibility. When dealing with “could” questions, the only sort of “problems” that are relevant are the logical kind.

 

[Tomdstone]

Some people don’t care about much at all. All they want is to fornicate and poop when nature calls.

I don’t see what this has to do with the question of whether or not the universe is uncaused?

 

[Tomdstone]

Since you seem to be claiming to know the answer to the “why” questions, why did God make the entropy of the early universe 10^(10^120) times smaller than would be required for us to exist?

Could it be because He wanted man to exist in the later universe?

 

[Tomdstone]

Religion is a valid method of interpreting and responding to the world.

However, in Euclidean geometry you are going to always have that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. Everyone agrees on the truth of that. But in religion, you are going to get different answers. For example, JW say that there is no eternal fire and damnation in hell. The Eastern Orthodox say that the Church can allow divorce under certain restricted conditions. The Jewish religion say that the long awaited Messiah has not come yet. The Episcopal Church in the USA allow bishops to marry a same sex partner. Protestant Churches generally allow married couples to use contraceptives, whereas in the Roman Catholic Church it is a mortal sin to use artificial contraception, which if not repented, can send the couple to eternal damnation in hell. Etc…
How can religion be a valid method, when there is so much disagreement on interpreting and responding to the issues faced in the world? With reference to the original question about the cause of the universe, a Buddhist might say that this is something which cannot be known with certainty, whereas a Roman Catholic might say that it is certain to her that the universe has been caused by God.

 

[SecretCatholic]

So it’s irrelevant to the question that we are discussing in this thread?

What are you asking? Is philosophy irrelevant to this topic? Or is it science or religion? I think all of them are relevant, in different ways. Science is the discipline to go to if you’re asking about physical phenomenon. Religion, if you’re asking about God. Philosophy is you’re asking about meaning and metaphysical phenomenon.

So now you’re saying that our preferences DO matter to the universe? A lack of external morality/meaning may be a “problem” in the sense that we have to deal with the consequences, but it is not a “problem” in the sense that it presents some sort of logical contradiction or impossibility. When dealing with “could” questions, the only sort of “problems” that are relevant are the logical kind.

No, whatever reality is is not a problem for reality. I don’t understand how you could come to that conclusion. I am saying that it presents us human beings with problems for us human beings. It is not “relevant” to objective reality. But it is “relevant” to its observers- us human beings.

I don’t see what this has to do with the question of whether or not the universe is uncaused?

I was pointing out that people have many different motivations and some simply do not care about whether objective reality exists or not. But that it has been important to a great number of human beings throughout human history.

How can religion be a valid method, when there is so much disagreement on interpreting and responding to the issues faced in the world? With reference to the original question about the cause of the universe, a Buddhist might say that this is something which cannot be known with certainty, whereas a Roman Catholic might say that it is certain to her that the universe has been caused by God.

There are several different answers to this question. One is simply that all religions but one are wrong, and that all the others are invalid. Another is that all religions have the wrong answer, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an answer.

Yet another, which is what I believe, as a Catholic and intuitively, is that some religions are more correct/complete than others, ours being the most correct/complete, but that most other religions are correct to differing degrees and offer us many, if not all, complete truths and different perspectives of truth.

Religion is a valid method because its the best we have on Earth. In the life to come we will not be “religious” or need to have “faith”. We will simply see the truth and come to understand what will then be obvious objective facts.

You may elect to totally disregard religion because it is not as cut-and-dry as the physical sciences, but I personalty think that is a loss. It is better to see dimly than not see at all. Catholic faith does not ask you to disregard anything scientific, only to consider and seek understanding of that which is beyond the realm of science.

 

[Tomdstone]

Religion is a valid method because its the best we have on Earth.

I don’t see why religion is the best we have on earth because some religions have shown that they are unhelpful. For example, in the ISIS caliphate, the religious imams and followers demand that you either convert to Islam, pay a huge tax which is impossible for some people there, or that you be beheaded. I don’t see how being beheaded is a valid method for interpreting the world and responding to it. Once you are beheaded, you are no longer able to respond to anything.
Also, first you said that religion is a valid method. But then later on, you say that only one religion is a completely valid method and all the others fail in some respect. If that is true, then how come in Euclidean geometry everyone agrees that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal, but in religion there is no agreement on certain things, take for example the issue of artificial birth control. There are Roman Catholic priests and laypersons in the Roman Catholic religion who believe that it would be acceptable for a married Roman Catholic couple to use artificial birth control if the couple is facing financial difficulties after having five children. If the Roman Catholic religion is the one and only valid religion in the world, how come there are so many Roman Catholics who do not accept the one and only valid teaching on the issue of artificial birth control. At a local Roman Catholic Jesuit college, there was a poll taken by the sociology department on this question. For incoming freshman, something like 50% agreed with the position of the Roman Catholic Church on artificial birth control for married couples. But after four years of study at the Catholic college, only something like 10% of the graduating seniors agreed with the valid position of the Roman Catholic Church on ABC for married couples. If the position of the Roman Catholic religion is the one and only completely valid method for interpreting and responding to the world, how come so many people who have studied the question of artificial birth control do not agree with the valid approach of the Roman Catholic Church? For example, after studying Euclidean geometry for less than one year, everyone agrees that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. And this would be in Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, or even public schools. And it would not matter in which country you studied this, whether it be in China, Russia, France, Brazil, India, Vietnam, Germany, UK, Peru, Argentina, or any other country, it would not matter, You would always come up with one and only one answer and everyone would agree. How can religion be a valid approach, when there is so much disagreement in what will sent you to eternal damnation in hell?

 

[SecretCatholic]

I don’t see why religion is the best we have on earth because some religions have shown that they are unhelpful. For example, in the ISIS caliphate, the religious imams and followers demand that you either convert to Islam, pay a huge tax which is impossible for some people there, or that you be beheaded. I don’t see how being beheaded is a valid method for interpreting the world and responding to it. Once you are beheaded, you are no longer able to respond to anything.

If you believe in the afterlife, you realize that your physical death is not the end. That said, this is not proper religion. This is an abuse of religious ideas and most faithful Muslims DO NOT agree with the actions of this rogue group. That they do it in the name of religion means nothing. If they did it in the name of science, or progress or atheism, it would still have nothing to do with those things.

You are quick to point out the atrocities carried out (improperly) in the name of religion, but what of the far more abundant noble acts that have been carried out in the name of religion? I am not only including Catholicism here- but all Christianity and all other major world religions. Religion does far more good than harm in the final analysis. it has given hope to the hopeless, comfort to the broken-hearted and charity to the poor. This is a flawed line of reasoning and in fact, has little to do with the validity of religion.

Also, first you said that religion is a valid method. But then later on, you say that only one religion is a completely valid method and all the others fail in some respect. If that is true, then how come in Euclidean geometry everyone agrees that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal, but in religion there is no agreement on certain things,

Religion is a valid method. I stand by that statement. But that doesn’t mean that every religion is totally correct. They can’t be, because there are some contradictions. This isn’t math. Even in high-level mathematics, answers get very hazy and sometimes cannot be agreed upon. I am no mathematician, but a mathematics friend of mine tells me as much. You are trying to pin down religion as this or that- but it isn’t this or that. We can make decent analogies. But at the end of the day, religion is religion and has no complete analog. We are dealing with the most important questions in humanity here, with the least precision in a realm which is neither merely conceptual (such as math) nor merely physical (such as what science studies).

If the position of the Roman Catholic religion is the one and only completely valid method for interpreting and responding to the world, how come so many people who have studied the question of artificial birth control do not agree with the valid approach of the Roman Catholic Church?

Consensus does not make truth. Where there is consensus, there is probably some truth. But not always does consensus follow from truth. The Catholic church is very consistent in what she teaches on birth control. Frankly, I think most of the dissenting opinions come from the fact that it is a hard teaching and it runs counter to our current self-centered “practical” culture. The church’s teaching is not merely religious, it can be discerned through natural law, without resorting to revealed truth.

For example, after studying Euclidean geometry for less than one year, everyone agrees that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. And this would be in Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, or even public schools. And it would not matter in which country you studied this, whether it be in China, Russia, France, Brazil, India, Vietnam, Germany, UK, Peru, Argentina, or any other country, it would not matter, You would always come up with one and only one answer and everyone would agree. How can religion be a valid approach, when there is so much disagreement in what will sent you to eternal damnation in hell?

Again, you will find that in higher mathematics things are not so simple. Also, you are painting a very inaccurate picture. All the world’s major religions agree on much more than they disagree. They disagree on a lot of other things, especially details, but they are not opposed to each other in how we should treat others and in many of the things we should do to grow spiritually.

There are many inter-faith gatherings where people of completely different faiths meet, get along and even pray together to the extend that their traditions allow. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist and Christians usually get along just fine. Most of us believe in God and agree on many of God’s general attributes.

 

[Tomdstone]

Even in high-level mathematics, answers get very hazy and sometimes cannot be agreed upon.

Where is there disagreement about a theorem of “high-level” mathematics?

 

[Tomdstone]

That said, this is not proper religion. This is an abuse of religious ideas and most faithful Muslims DO NOT agree with the actions of this rogue group.

Do Catholics agree with the action of the Catholic Crusaders or was the Pope wrong to encourage and support the various Crusades?

 

[Peter_Plato]

If the Roman Catholic religion is the one and only valid religion in the world, how come there are so many Roman Catholics who do not accept the one and only valid teaching on the issue of artificial birth control.

I expected better than this from you

Following the same line of thinking it would mean that because there are so many people that have different ideas about truth, that means, according to your line of thought, that no one and only valid truth exists. Obviously, many, and even all, could be mistaken about the truth. Merely engendering dissent is insufficient to entail that a view is false.

By the way, the same holds for scientific propositions. They are false merely because someone can be found who dissents?

 

[inocente]

IHow can religion be a valid approach, when there is so much disagreement in what will sent you to eternal damnation in hell?

Because people, being people, disagree. Disagreeing isn’t bad in itself, what is bad is going against our conscience, because that can never be good:

*"One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.

…] Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin." - Romans 14*

 

[SecretCatholic]

Where is there disagreement about a theorem of “high-level” mathematics?

Tomdstone, I’m sorry I cannot make a more specific claim. It’s due to my priorities and lack of time. Maybe I shouldn’t have brought it up. But maybe some mathematician or someone well acquainted with high-level mathematics can chime in on this. Otherwise, a search engine might do the trick, but not without devoting significant time to it, which is what I don’t have.

To make my point another way- once you get past mere measurements, things get complex and opinions vary on what is being observed and what it means. You can’t approach spirituality and God like you can a math problem or a scientific question. If we could, we would not need religion and matters of the spirit and God would be printed as facts in school textbooks. Believe me, things would be far easier if we didn’t need faith. But it seems we need to struggle to come to terms with the truly important and true things in life.

As for the original question, even a universe uncaused in time (that is, one having no beginning) does not negate or contradict the existence of God as creator (though not in time) and sustainer of the universe . It WOULD contradict and negate Catholic teaching, though, thus negating Christianity.

God is not just in the gaps. God is not just in the beginning and the end. God is in everything known and unknown. God is in all time and beyond time.

 

[Tomdstone]

But it seems we need to struggle to come to terms with the truly important and true things in life.

What is truly important to one person, may not be all that important to another. For example, it is truly important for some children in Central America to escape from the horrors of the drug cartels and to reach the promised land of the USA. They will struggle to achieve that. However, many in the USA will struggle to keep them out and to send them back to the violence and crime from which they have escaped. For many of these Tea Party members it is truly important that these unfortunate illegal immigrants be returned and face horrible conditions.

 

[SecretCatholic]

What is truly important to one person, may not be all that important to another. For example, it is truly important for some children in Central America to escape from the horrors of the drug cartels and to reach the promised land of the USA. They will struggle to achieve that. However, many in the USA will struggle to keep them out and to send them back to the violence and crime from which they have escaped. For many of these Tea Party members it is truly important that these unfortunate illegal immigrants be returned and face horrible conditions.

Bizarre how you would bring a totally unrelated and political matter into this conversation. The purpose, meaning and origin of our lives and the universe are truly important to the vast majority of thinking people and has driven faith and science throughout the ages.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The purpose, meaning and origin of our lives and the universe are truly important to the vast majority of thinking people and has driven faith and science throughout the ages.

Even those who believe there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to life have been driven to that conclusion throughout the ages. Yet some of them show up at Catholic Answers because they are not absolutely certain there is no ultimate meaning or purpose to our lives.