Other eternal forces, part II

[reggieM]

What exactly do you mean here? Especially when you say “so the results are determined”. And how can they not explain their own existence? What prevents them from doing so?

Good question.

There are three options for the origin of “anything else” which could be the first cause.

1. They poppped into existence from nothing.
2. They existed eternally.
3. They were caused by a non-material, uncaused Cause (God).

#1 first - it’s impossible for something to come from nothing. Second, even if it could just “pop” from nothing, then this would mean anything could just pop into existence at any time. Our orgin would be truly random, and rationality would be meaningless.

#2 an eternal string of causes cannot exist.
If A can only be explained by B, and B by C and then all other causes are the next letter plus one … then A can never be explained. You’d have to get to the last letters (AA, BB, CC, DD. etc.) and to get the explanation you have to add one.

So, that can’t happen.

#3. Time, space and matter do not explain their own existence. If something material created them, then we haven’t explained what created that material. If something outside of time, space and matter created them, then that’s an explanation for their origin.

Next question … what created the First Being?

But that can’t make sense because nothing could preceed it.

 

[danserr]

And we shouldn’t ask “why can’t it be something else?” because the answer of “God” adequately explains the universe. Kind of touching on Occam’s Razor…

Well, I’ve suggested that we should feel free to ask “why not something else?”, it’s just someone needs to made an actual suggestion. You can’t just ask “why not some thing else?” because the options we have suggested exhaust all possibilities. If someone disagrees, let him make a specific suggestion we can address, otherwise, we may rationally conclude that God is the cause of the universe. It’s not just that God adequately explains origins of the universe, it’s that if the argument we have given is correct, he is the only thing that explains its origins.

Next question … what created the First Being?

But that can’t make sense because nothing could preceed it.

Nothing could be temporally prior, since time began to exist with the Big Bang, but something could have been causally prior (God).

2 an eternal string of causes cannot exist.
If A can only be explained by B, and B by C and then all other causes are the next letter plus one … then A can never be explained. You’d have to get to the last letters (AA, BB, CC, DD. etc.) and to get the explanation you have to add one.

I would say an easier way to make this point is simply defend the second premise of teh kalam cosmological argument, (that an finite number of past events cannot exist). While I think you are right here, I think it complicates the issue a bit unnecessarily.

 

[reggieM]

Nothing could be temporally prior, since time began to exist with the Big Bang, but something could have been causally prior (God).

To the question: … what created the First Being?

If there was some Being prior to the First, then the question wouldn’t make sense.

Some kind of being is necessary to create being – until you arrive at the First.

 

[coolduude]

Good question.

1. They existed eternally.

#2 an eternal string of causes cannot exist.
If A can only be explained by B, and B by C and then all other causes are the next letter plus one … then A can never be explained. You’d have to get to the last letters (AA, BB, CC, DD. etc.) and to get the explanation you have to add one.

So, that can’t happen.

I’m not quite sure I follow, but:

I’m not talking about an eternal string of causes. An ‘infinite regress,’ as it is commonly put, can easily be debunked by loigc

What I was talking about, however, is a substitute force for God. What prevents a single uncaused force (much like God in His eternalness, but not God himself). What prevents a force like this from existing? See my question?

 

[coolduude]

Well, I’ve suggested that we should feel free to ask “why not something else?”, it’s just someone needs to made an actual suggestion. You can’t just ask “why not some thing else?” because the options we have suggested exhaust all possibilities. If someone disagrees, let him make a specific suggestion we can address, otherwise, we may rationally conclude that God is the cause of the universe. It’s not just that God adequately explains origins of the universe, it’s that if the argument we have given is correct, he is the only thing that explains its origins.

What exactly are these options?

 

[reggieM]

What I was talking about, however, is a substitute force for God. What prevents a single uncaused force (much like God in His eternalness, but not God himself). What prevents a force like this from existing? See my question?

Yes, ok that’s different.

We could have this force. First, it cannot be material for reasons we gave. Also, it cannot be a part of the universe, or within the universe. So, it is outside of time and space. It is also the cause of the universe and itself is uncaused.
If it is uncaused, then it is eternal (without beginning).
Whatever it caused it did so without being forced by physical law or chance or by anything else (since nothing but itself existed). So, it caused things freely and deliberately (not by chance or determined by law.

Those are the properties of this force.

Outside of time and space.
Timeless
Not bounded by any space (dimensionless)
Possessing the power and ability to create the universe
Freely causing all things to exist - not forced or determined.
Eternal, without beginning or end.

When you put all of those characteristics together, what do you have?

 

[coolduude]

Yes, ok that’s different.

We could have this force. First, it cannot be material for reasons we gave

It can’t be material because everything material was created at the Big Bang, correct?

]Also, it cannot be a part of the universe, or within the universe. So, it is outside of time and space. It is also the cause of the universe and itself is uncaused.
If it is uncaused, then it is eternal (without beginning).
Whatever it caused it did so without being forced by physical law or chance or by anything else (since nothing but itself existed). So, it caused things freely and deliberately (not by chance or determined by law.

I think I see what you’re trying to say here, but I don’t quite understand when you say “Whatever it caused it did so without being forced by physical law or chance or by anything else (since nothing but itself existed). So, it caused things freely and deliberately (not by chance or determined by law.” It does appear to make sense, but why is it like that?

]Those are the properties of this force.

Outside of time and space.
Timeless
Not bounded by any space (dimensionless)
Possessing the power and ability to create the universe
Freely causing all things to exist - not forced or determined.
Eternal, without beginning or end.

When you put all of those characteristics together, what do you have?

It does appear to be a mind, however I must suspend final judgment until I fully understand all the reasoning behind your logic

 

[danserr]

What exactly are these options?

An abstract object or mind. (since it transcends space and time and can’t be physical or material). As we’ve discussed above.

 

[reggieM]

It can’t be material because everything material was created at the Big Bang, correct?

That’s right. Even if the Big Bang was proven false, the logic holds.

The universe (all the physical/material components, laws and forces/energies, time and space that exist) either was eternal or it had a beginning.
You see why it can’t be eternal.
Therefore, it had a beginning (call it the Big Bang or whatever).

Now, what caused all of the material to exist?
It can’t be material because then it would be part of what we’re trying to define.

So, this doesn’t work:

Q. What caused the first material components, laws, forces to exist?
A. Some material thing.

No, it can’t be some material thing because we’re looking for the cause of the first material thing.

I think I see what you’re trying to say here, but I don’t quite understand when you say “Whatever it caused it did so without being forced by physical law or chance or by anything else (since nothing but itself existed). So, it caused things freely and deliberately (not by chance or determined by law.” It does appear to make sense, but why is it like that?

Let’s go back to the two options we have:

1. The material universe is eternal. It did not have a beginning. It always existed. It’s an infinite string of events. (all of these are the same thing).

or

1. The material universe had a beginning.

You have correctly excluded option 1. So, option 2 applies – a beginning.

What came before that beginning?

Since it cannot be any part of the material universe – it has to be something non-material.

So, an immaterial “thing” cannot be moved by physical laws. It also cannot be affected by chance or probability. Chance must act on the potential of various material things based on the physical laws and properties that affect those things.
If no physical things exist, then chance or probability do not exist.

It does appear to be a mind, however I must suspend final judgment until I fully understand all the reasoning behind your logic

I think you have some good follow-up questions also because even if you come up with an answer to the attributes of this Force that have been described, you have

A Being
Timeless
Beyond Space
Some large amount of power
Freedom to cause things

There are still attributes missing from the list though.

 

[coolduude]

Good post reggieM. However, I am still tempted to ask “Why can’t another (undiscovered) physical force have created it all?”

What attributes are still missing, and how can we find them?

 

[Gregory_I]

HOw do we know, at the end of it all, that God isn’t just deluding US?

 

[coolduude]

God is, by definition, perfect. To delude, confuse, or do anything else bad is, by Hos very nature, impossible.

Short answer: it is impossible for God to delude us.

 

[yppop]

Coolduude,

You ask a very profound question, one that I asked myself some time ago, namely: How did it all start? Must it be God or something else? And if God, how did He do it?

I presented an answer in the form of a thesis in a thread called, “God Exists, but How”, now on page 35 of this forum. You may have visited it, but never posted. Unfortunately, I didn’t have much success in conveying the meaning of my thesis that I hoped for. I don’t know whether it was my inability to explain or the respondent’s inability to understand, but the meaning of what I wrote certainly didn’t come across. And that is unfortunate because even though the details of what I presented may not precisely plausible, I feel strongly that my approach is the surest way to reconcile science and religion, namely, through the philosophical discovery of the nature of the substance forming the ground of reality, which in my thesis is discrete space.

If what I describe the ground of reality to be, then God must exist for no other reason than that which is formless, infinite, eternal, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient could make my thesis happen.

If my approach is what you are looking, take a look at my thread, and respond in kind in this thread or else forget it and have:

Happy Thanksgiving
Yppop

 

[Gregory_I]

Assuming your definition of God is not a result of his delusion.