Does everything physical need a cause?

  • Thread starter Thread starter yawnernonner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pocaracas said:
Indeed. It would be a state of space-time with zero matter and energy.

How close to nothing is that?
Click to expand...
Not close enough. After all, it still presumes a quantum sub-stratem which is, of course, not ‘nothing’. 😉
 
Don’t forget that space-time is a framework. It’s not a thing with a start and end. It’s not air in an “empty” box.
If I interpret “unchanging” as no passage of energy from one state to any other state, and keep in mind that any Universe like the ones I mentioned have an overall null energy content, then space-time qualifies.
It has no extension in space nor time, for it is those “things”.
It is not composed of other parts (I guess this is what you mean by “being composite”)
I’ve outlined a way of looking at it as unchanging.

So… there… I still think space-time can qualify for the prime mover.
 
Are we really debating the law of non-contradiction? If that’s how far one has to go in order to deny the conclusion of the theist then i would say that the theist has won the debate.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
It’s not a matter of just arbitrarily choosing one thing as being the first cause “just because”, but about (1) deducing that there must be a First Cause and (2) describing that first cause, as much as it can be described, by determining what it can’t be (it can’t be composite, changing, extended through space, have a beginning… etc… precisely because any of these require a cause, and we can’t engage in special pleading)
Click to expand...
This is exactly what Aristotle and Aquinas were getting at.
It’s not a matter of plugging the gaps with God, it’s the logical conclusion given the impossibility of an infinite regress. For something to be actualized from potential, it requires an outside force. If my scalding hot coffee grows cold, it doesn’t do so by its own merit. The air in my kitchen cools it, and the air is cool because of my air conditioner being turned on. The universe is really no different. Things can’t be actualized by themselves, and to say space-time itself is a “first cause” is insane.
 
Gorgias said:
40.png
pocaracas:
Don’t forget that space-time is a framework. It’s not a thing with a start and end.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Do you assert that space-time pre-exists the Big Bang, or does the Big Bang give rise to it?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. Do you know?
I don’t think we can assert that with any degree of confidence. It is (as far as I can tell) an unknowable unknown.

I’m saying that Krauss’ point of view does consider a space-time sort of independent from the big bang, of which the space-time within our universe is a (possibly finite) subset.
 
pocaracas said:
I don’t know. Do you know?

I don’t think we can assert that with any degree of confidence. It is (as far as I can tell) an unknowable unknown.
Click to expand...
Well, I think we can have an intelligent discussion about it. And, my intuition is that – from a philosophical perspective – we can conclude from that discussion that we can rule out the “space-time framework” as the unmoved mover.

If we’re saying that multiverses exist, then we’re making a claim that different physics apply in the various universes. If that’s the case, then our space-time framework must be different from others’; more to the case, there can’t be a single framework in which all universes participate. This implies that our framework came into existence with our universe. Hence… not the unmoved mover.

On the other hand, maybe we should limit our discussion to our universe. That would mean that either it came into existence with the Big Bang (bringing the space-time framework into existence along with it), or there is something that pre-exists the Big Bang (which we can never access). If the former, then space-time – as a created entity – can’t be the unmoved mover. If the latter, then you’ve painted yourself into the corner of never being able to say anything about the question of the nature of space-time (and therefore, can’t really make the claim that it’s the unmoved mover).
I’m saying that Krauss’ point of view does consider a space-time sort of independent from the big bang, of which the space-time within our universe is a (possibly finite) subset.
Click to expand...
Right. So, if that holds, then our space-time proceeds from something that precedes it (chronologically or as a cause). Therefore… “not unmoved mover.” 😉
 
Gorgias said:
Well, I think we can have an intelligent discussion about it. And, my intuition is that – from a philosophical perspective – we can conclude from that discussion that we can rule out the “space-time framework” as the unmoved mover.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t go there so bravely…
Gorgias said:
If we’re saying that multiverses exist, then we’re making a claim that different physics apply in the various universes.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.
Since all come about through similar quantum fluctuations, all should have similar properties, perhaps only different separations between their energy and dark energy content… well, they’d have to go 50/50 all the same, but I mean different amounts of each.
Gorgias said:
If that’s the case, then our space-time framework must be different from others’; more to the case, there can’t be a single framework in which all universes participate. This implies that our framework came into existence with our universe. Hence… not the unmoved mover.
Click to expand...
Under what Krauss seems to be proposing, I think (and this is my interpretation so feel free to rip it apart) that the space-time in our Universe is a subset of the all-permeating space-time.
Gorgias said:
If the latter, then you’ve painted yourself into the corner of never being able to say anything about the question of the nature of space-time (and therefore, can’t really make the claim that it’s the unmoved mover).
Click to expand...
Just because I can’t probe beyond our Universe doesn’t mean that it’s an invalid possibility. Certainly, never more invalid than a god.
Gorgias said:
I’m saying that Krauss’ point of view does consider a space-time sort of independent from the big bang, of which the space-time within our universe is a (possibly finite) subset.
Click to expand...
Right. So, if that holds, then our space-time proceeds from something that precedes it (chronologically or as a cause). Therefore… “not unmoved mover.” 😉
Click to expand...
I may have not made myself clear.
The notion I wish to pass is that the space-time on which our Universe lies is a part of the “greater” infinite(?) space-time. There’s no preceding.
 
pocaracas said:
I may have not made myself clear.

The notion I wish to pass is that the space-time on which our Universe lies is a part of the “greater” infinite(?) space-time. There’s no preceding.
Click to expand...
So basically an infinite regress.
 
Last edited:
pocaracas said:
I may have not made myself clear.
The notion I wish to pass is that the space-time on which our Universe lies is a part of the “greater” infinite(?) space-time. There’s no preceding.
Click to expand...
Your whole posts deserve a long treatment, so I apologize, but you’ve just stated that space-time in this instance has parts and can be divisible into parts and is therefore composite. And by composite, it should be clear that we are not just referring to a physical composition.
 
Wesrock said:
has parts and can be divisible into parts and is therefore composite.
Click to expand...
So… is that the definition of composite?
To have parts and be divisible into parts?

Can I interest you in a three-part god?
 
Last edited:
Trinitarianism (and your inaccurate description of it) is neither here nor there at this point in the discussion. You can’t object to theism on the basis of whether Trinitarianism is true. Or have you decided to accept that there is a metaphysically simple, one, omnipotent, eternal omniscient (knowing), Being beyond Being behind reality?
 
Last edited:
pocaracas said:
Can I interest you in a three-part god?
Click to expand...
No, you cannot. A three part god would be a false god. The persons of the Trinity are not parts.

So, if you are thinking that you question applies to the God described by Christianity, you have resorted to a straw man.
 
davidv said:
40.png
pocaracas:
Can I interest you in a three-part god?
Click to expand...
No, you cannot. A three part god would be a false god. The persons of the Trinity are not parts.

So, if you are thinking that you question applies to the God described by Christianity, you have resorted to a straw man.
Click to expand...
A strawman, of course! As long as one can redefine terms… what’s a person in here?
Last I checked, personhood was a characteristic of mankind. 3 persons refers to three human beings.
 
Again, Trinitarianism is neither here nor there at this time. You’ve raised no objection to monotheism in it.
 
Wesrock said:
Again, Trinitarianism is neither here nor there at this time. You’ve raised no objection to monotheism in it.
Click to expand...
Lol… compartmentalization, gotcha!

As far as this thread goes, all I think one can come to is that competing notions exist that can fulfill all the requirements of your favorite philosophy… of course, as soon as you start redefining terminology just to shield a particular “conclusion” while denying any chance from another, it becomes a useless endeavor.

I noticed that you failed to define “composite”, as I asked (implicitly).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top