Other eternal forces, part II

[coolduude]

I made a thread somewhat recently titled “other eternal forces”. It basically answered my main question “why can’t gravity have created the universe?” I know now it is because without matter, without mass, there can be no gravity.

But what about other forces? Could something else have created the universe? Why must it be God? Couldn’t something else have started it all?

I know some of you will recommend me to the CCC, but please understand that I’m running through all the other options for creation- options other than God. By process of elimination, I should come full circle and eliminate everything except God. Make sense?

Thanks,
Coolduude

 

[wanstronian]

Not really, because there are potentially infinite other forces or powers out there that we haven’t discovered yet. You seem to be on a mission to eliminate a few basic alternatives, then conclude that God must have done it. Quite literally “God of the gaps” stuff, that ignores the fact that “God did it” is no kind of suitable answer because it has zero explanatory power.

Using the same logic as you’re proposing, I could eliminate a number of alternatives and finally conclude that pixies created the universe.

 

[Impertinens]

I have to agree, you just cannot list all possibilities.

A better strategy would be to start with a list of the properties attributed to the concept of God, and see if a theoretical entity without a particular one of them could or couldn’t have created the world.

For example, could a not all-powerful being be the first cause of everything that exist? Or a not all-knowing one? Or, for that matter, a mindless one, or a malevolent one?

There is plenty of work and debate along these lines already, and I am not even going to try to pretend that I understand all the arguments that theologians and their opponents are using; but as far as I can see, this is the way to go.

However, one would also need to address whether the universe really must have a First Cause - this is another thorny philosophical problem, and it cannot just be dismissed offhand…

 

[coolduude]

I have to agree, you just cannot list all possibilities.

A better strategy would be to start with a list of the properties attributed to the concept of God, and see if a theoretical entity without a particular one of them could or couldn’t have created the world.

For example, could a not all-powerful being be the first cause of everything that exist? Or a not all-knowing one? Or, for that matter, a mindless one, or a malevolent one?

There is plenty of work and debate along these lines already, and I am not even going to try to pretend that I understand all the arguments that theologians and their opponents are using; but as far as I can see, this is the way to go.

However, one would also need to address whether the universe really must have a First Cause - this is another thorny philosophical problem, and it cannot just be dismissed offhand…

I think this adequetly lists the attributes of God:
newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IID

So, can there be a being containing those attributes?

Also, the universe must be finite in time; that is a fact easily deductible through logic

 

[Impertinens]

coolduude:

I think this adequetly lists the attributes of God:
newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IID

This lists some of the attributes of God, not all the ones that are true of Him - for example, I see nothing in that list about Him being born in Galilea

coolduude:

So, can there be a being containing those attributes?

This is exactly the wrong question, I think. One should ask instead: must there be a being containing those attributes?

Of course, I think that the answer is “yes”; but proving that is not a trivial matter.

coolduude:

Also, the universe must be finite in time; that is a fact easily deductible through logic

If you think so, show me the deduction.

Again, I believe that the universe is finite in time; but proving it formally, and from uncontroversial principles, is not an easy task.

Furthermore, even if you managed to prove that the universe is finite in time this would not directly imply that there must be a cause to it - how do you propose to conclude that, from hypotheses that even a Atheist or an Agnostic would consider himself or herself compelled to accept?

 

[coolduude]

Just a quick question here. So there was a First Cause; this can be deduced. The First Cause must explain itself and be eternal (no beginning and no end). But why must it be a personal being? A being with a mind, intellect, and free will? Couldn’t be energy or something of the sort?

I’ll respond to post 5 tomorrow, but I don’t have access to a computer right now

 

[Impertinens]

For the “free will” part, one might perhaps argue that, if the activity of the First Cause was constrained by a set of rules, these rules be ontologically prior to the First Cause Itself.

Whatever “laws of nature” the First Cause obeys need, by the very definition of First Cause, exist only because of It; hence, they do not really limit Its “will”.

As for “mind” and “intellect”, the issue is complicated by the fact that it is not easy to define exactly what we mean by these terms. But if we posit that everything has a purpose, then - again by the definition of First Cause - we must accept that the purpose of all that the First Cause does lies in the First Cause Itself, and that sounds suspiciously like self-directed behaviour.

 

[danserr]

For the sake of brevity, I’m going to go ahead and assume that the universe is finite in time. I do this based on philosophical arguments like the idea that an actual infinite is not constructable and therefore not actualize-able, and scientific evidence for the Big Bang which says the universe did have a beginning. Arguing this though would get off topic, so I will stay close to your question on other eternal forces.

I have heard 3 ways giving of inferring that the cause of the universe is God. I’ll mention the two simplest.

1). The universe includes all time, space, and matter. Therefore if it has a cause, the cause must not be temporal (at least causally prior to the universe’s existence), or physical. As a non physical cause that transcends time, there are only 2 things that fall into this category, abstract objects (like numbers) and a mind (soul/self etc.). Numbers cannot cause anything, therefore the cause of the universe is a mind. This we take to be God.

2). There are two types of explanations, physical and personal. My wife has a pot of water on the stove. I come in and ask why it is boiling. She explains that it is boiling because the stove is transferring heat to the water causing it to reach the point at which liquid water becomes a gas. b). Or she says “because I wanted some tea.”
The first cause is a physical cause. The second is a personal cause. The universe includes everything physical, so if it has a cause the cause must be personal.

 

[coolduude]

Sorry for the delayed response. This goes for post 5.

The second mathematical argument for the claim that the universe has a beginning draws on the idea that an actual infinite cannot be created by successive addition. If one begins with a number, and repeatedly adds one to it, one will never arrive at infinity. If one has a heap of sand, and repeatedly adds more sand to it, the heap will never become infinitely large. Taking something finite and repeatedly adding finite quantities to it will never make it infinite. Actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition.
The past has been created by successive addition. The past continuously grows as one moment after another passes from the future into the present and then into the past. Every moment that is now past was once in the future, but was added to the past by the passage of time.
If actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition, and the past was created by successive addition, then the past cannot be an actual infinite. The past must be finite, and the universe must therefore have had a beginning. This is the second mathematical argument for the second premise of the kalam cosmological argument.

There’s the proof you asked for

Now, as for the second question (about athiests and agnostics), I don’t know to be honest. My answer is ‘I dont know’.

 

[coolduude]

For the sake of brevity, I’m going to go ahead and assume that the universe is finite in time. I do this based on philosophical arguments like the idea that an actual infinite is not constructable and therefore not actualize-able, and scientific evidence for the Big Bang which says the universe did have a beginning. Arguing this though would get off topic, so I will stay close to your question on other eternal forces.

I have heard 3 ways giving of inferring that the cause of the universe is God. I’ll mention the two simplest.

1). The universe includes all time, space, and matter. Therefore if it has a cause, the cause must not be temporal (at least causally prior to the universe’s existence), or physical. As a non physical cause that transcends time, there are only 2 things that fall into this category, abstract objects (like numbers) and a mind (soul/self etc.). Numbers cannot cause anything, therefore the cause of the universe is a mind. This we take to be God.

2). There are two types of explanations, physical and personal. My wife has a pot of water on the stove. I come in and ask why it is boiling. She explains that it is boiling because the stove is transferring heat to the water causing it to reach the point at which liquid water becomes a gas. b). Or she says “because I wanted some tea.”
The first cause is a physical cause. The second is a personal cause. The universe includes everything physical, so if it has a cause the cause must be personal.

Good explanations. However, why can’t there be a force that we just don’t know about? Suppose there are multiple universes (M-Theory); how were they created? Is it logically impossible for other forces to create things and for God to not be necessary?

This is the one thing still holding me up…

 

[reggieM]

Good explanations. However, why can’t there be a force that we just don’t know about? Suppose there are multiple universes (M-Theory); how were they created? Is it logically impossible for other forces to create things and for God to not be necessary?

This is the one thing still holding me up…

Other forces, in no matter how many universes, either existed eternally or they began to exist.

Anything that begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.

Since an infinite regression is logically impossible, then whatever forces you propose began to exist.

So, no matter what unknown forces or however many universes, there has to be a first cause outside of those forces and universes which gives them existence.

 

[coolduude]

Perhaps one of these forces explains it’s own existence?

 

[danserr]

Perhaps one of these forces explains it’s own existence?

Agreed. God. But the force can’t be a physical one because matter began to exist with the big bang.

However, why can’t there be a force that we just don’t know about? Suppose there are multiple universes (M-Theory); how were they created? Is it logically impossible for other forces to create things and for God to not be necessary?

Whether it is “logically possible” I do not know, but it seems metaphysically impossible, for at least highly improbable. And M-theory doesn’t avert the problem of a beginning to the universe. Even the most popular model, the Ekpyrotic model of Paul Steinhardt, cannot be eternal in the past and so had to have a beginning. The Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem of 2003 said any universe inflating toward the future, can’t be past eternal, and Steinhardt admitted this applies to his own theory of the universe. So string theory doesn’t solve the problem.

 

[coolduude]

Agreed. God. But the force can’t be a physical one because matter began to exist with the big bang.

How true is this statement? All known matter was created at the BB, but couldn’t there have been a force still unknown that existed before the BB (not God)?

I suppose what I’m trying to ask is “must God be the sole Creator? Why can’t an unknown force be credited? Why must it be God?” See what I mean?

Whether it is “logically possible” I do not know, but it seems metaphysically impossible, for at least highly improbable. And M-theory doesn’t avert the problem of a beginning to the universe. Even the most popular model, the Ekpyrotic model of Paul Steinhardt, cannot be eternal in the past and so had to have a beginning. The Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem of 2003 said any universe inflating toward the future, can’t be past eternal, and Steinhardt admitted this applies to his own theory of the universe. So string theory doesn’t solve the problem.

Good refreshing on the BGV theory; thanks Good response

 

[danserr]

How true is this statement? All known matter was created at the BB, but couldn’t there have been a force still unknown that existed before the BB (not God)?

I suppose what I’m trying to ask is “must God be the sole Creator? Why can’t an unknown force be credited? Why must it be God?” See what I mean?

Well, take one of the reasons I gave for inferring a personal creator. The universe includes all time, space, and matter. If there is a cause, the cause must be atemporal (at least causally prior to the universe’s creation, it must be immaterial. We know two things that fall into this category, abstract objects (like numbers) and minds. abstract objects do not stand in causal relation, therefore the cause of the universe must be an embodied mind.

To put it this way:
Assuming the following: the cause of the universe must be atemporal and immaterial.

1. The cause of the universe must be an abstract object or a mind.
2. the cause of the universe is not an abstract object
3. therefore, the cause of the universe is a mind.

Your question is why assume that 1. is true, why can there not be another possibility. And then you suggest (or wonder) that since there could be other possibilities we should not infer the cause of the universe is a mind.

This would be my answer:
a). point 1 seems to exhaust all the alternatives, if someone can think of another, he should certainly suggest it, but if he cannot think of another, then we are rationally justified in believing those are the two alternatives and from them inferring the cause of the universe must be a mind.
b). Asking, “but what if there is another possiblity,” sounds fair, but it carries with it a catch. Because if applied to any other argument it would make coming to any conclusion impossible. We would always be holding our conclusion waiting for one more possibility that could maybe possibly be conceived at some point in the future. Coming to any rational conclusion would be impossible.

For example, see how this would apply to a slightly silly example

1. Person A is either male, female, or andrygonous.
2. Person A is neither female, nor androgynous.
3. therefore person A is male.

If premise 1 is probably true, then it is rational to believe the conclusion. You could not hold up the conclusion indefinitely because someone objected “well wait, person A could be something else that might be discovered later, they could be a non-male, non-female, non-androgynous other possibility.” And this is clearly absurd. If someone can think of another possibility they are free to suggest it, but they cannot ask us to hold off on making the conclusion forever just because something else might be thought off. If that were the case we could never draw any rational conclusion about anything.

If anyone made that objection then, I just ask them “like what”, and if they can suggest something, assess it, and if not, point out it’s not enough to through “maybe an un-named something else” as a bare possibility.

 

[coolduude]

@Danser

Good example and answer. That really helps

However, is God comparable to the sex of a human? See what I mean? I like your analogy, but is it comparable?

On another note, couldn’t the ‘other force’ be, say, an undiscovered gravity field? (M-theory) or perhaps an energy field, as some scientists suggest?

Perhaps I am taking this too far, though.

 

[danserr]

@Danser

Good example and answer. That really helps

However, is God comparable to the sex of a human? See what I mean? I like your analogy, but is it comparable?

On another note, couldn’t the ‘other force’ be, say, an undiscovered gravity field? (M-theory) or perhaps an energy field, as some scientists suggest?

Perhaps I am taking this too far, though.

Well, why not try to think of a comparable analogy yourself, I’d say go for it.
The point, of course, isn’t that God is like the sex of a human, the point of the analogy is just to show that we cannot be eternally prevented from making a rational inference, simply because of what may, possibly, theoretically be discovered in the future, especially if, as in this case, we have very good reasons for thinking that we have accounted for all the alternatives. To insist we hold off forever would make any rational inference impossible, not just about God, but about anything.

The other thing to keep in mind is the premises of the argument. When someone makes an objection, make sure you know which premise of the argument, the objection is really aimed at, even if the person making the objection does not know themselves.

Here’s the Kalam Cosmological argument
1). Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2). the universe began to exist
3). the universe has a cause
4). the cause of the universe an un-embodied mind (a couple steps to get here, see my first post).

When someone proposes energy as a cause, this is not aimed at point number 4 (the cause is a mind), but at point 2. energy is part of the physical universe, so either it had a beginning or not. If it did, then that still brings us to point 4, that its cause had to be God. If they say energy did not have a beginning, then this runs into conflict with the arguments (2 philosophical, 2 scientific) showing that the universe had to have a beginning. Same with an undiscovered gravity field.

If they say “well, what about an immaterial, atemporal, non-abstract object, non-personal cause.” The answer to that is easy: it’s just empty words. Like talking about a non-male, non-female, non-androgynous sex. If we have good reason for thinking we’ve accounted for all the possibilities, then just putting the word “not” in front of all of them and saying “couldn’t it be something besides them,” is meaningless. If there is another alternative, they are free to suggest it, but otherwise, we are free to draw the obvious conclusion.

 

[coolduude]

So let me get this right:

The cause for the universe must be personal because “the universe includes all time, space, and matter. Therefore if it has a cause, the cause must not be temporal (at least causally prior to the universe’s existence), or physical. As a non physical cause that transcends time, there are only 2 things that fall into this category, abstract objects (like numbers) and a mind (soul/self etc.). Numbers cannot cause anything, therefore the cause of the universe is a mind. This we take to be God.” (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…

So am I correct or wrong?

I’m still tied up with the underlined portion. That’s still a mess in my head but it is starting to make a little more sense.

 

[reggieM]

So let me get this right:

The cause for the universe must be personal because “the universe includes all time, space, and matter. Therefore if it has a cause, the cause must not be temporal (at least causally prior to the universe’s existence), or physical. As a non physical cause that transcends time, there are only 2 things that fall into this category, abstract objects (like numbers) and a mind (soul/self etc.). Numbers cannot cause anything, therefore the cause of the universe is a mind. This we take to be God.” (Danserr)

That is an excellent summary. A non-physical cause, in this case, has to be a conscious agent – and the first is therefore the supreme conscious agent who we call God.

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…

So am I correct or wrong?

You are correct.

If you try anything else which is a material cause, then this is acted upon by unconscious, blind laws – so the results are determined. More importantly, those laws and matter cannot explain their own existence.

Their cause exists outside the material realm, and therefore is not determined by the physical laws of the universe.

 

[coolduude]

If you try anything else which is a material cause, then this is acted upon by unconscious, blind laws – so the results are determined. More importantly, those laws and matter cannot explain their own existence.

Thanks for the response

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?