The minimum assumption

[ateista]

Let’s forget about revelation in this thread and let’s start from the hypothesis that the Universe “needs” a cause for its existence. Let’s call this this entity the “Cause”, to avoid confusion with the Christian God.

What kinds of corollaries can we deduce from this starting point? What could be the attributes of the Cause? Can this minimum assumption somehow lead to the concept of the Christian God?

What is your reasoning? Please do not use the Bible, or revelations here. This is supposed to be a fully secular discussion, based upon one premise: “the Universe needs an external explanation for its existence”.

 

[rossum]

Let’s forget about revelation in this thread and let’s start from the hypothesis that the Universe “needs” a cause for its existence. Let’s call this this entity the “Cause”, to avoid confusion with the Christian God.

What kinds of corollaries can we deduce from this starting point? What could be the attributes of the Cause? Can this minimum assumption somehow lead to the concept of the Christian God?

What is your reasoning? Please do not use the Bible, or revelations here. This is supposed to be a fully secular discussion, based upon one premise: “the Universe needs an external explanation for its existence”.

1. The Cause requires the existence of the universe. A cause (or Cause) cannot exist unless it actually is a cause. A cause cannot be a cause unless there is also an effect that it has caused. Hence the Cause requires the existence of the universe in order to be the Cause. Prior to the existence of the universe that entity was a pre-Cause, or a Cause-in-waiting (or possibly non-existent). A childless couple cannot be parents, a cause without any effect cannot be a cause. A Cause without the universe cannot be the Cause.
2. The Cause must change from pre-Cause to Cause. If the Cause did not change then the universe must have come into existence at the same time as the Cause as per #1. If two things happen simultaneoulsy then one cannot have caused the other, so the Cause would not be a Cause. Therefore the entity we are talking about must have changed from pre-Cause to Cause.
3. Time must exist. Change in #2 refers to change in time. Time is also required to distinguish cause from effect - the cause comes before the effect. If the two are simultaneous then we do not have a causal relation between them. Hence the independent existence of time is also required.

rossum

 

[ateista]

1. The Cause requires the existence of the universe. A cause (or Cause) cannot exist unless it actually is a cause. A cause cannot be a cause unless there is also an effect that it has caused. Hence the Cause requires the existence of the universe in order to be the Cause. Prior to the existence of the universe that entity was a pre-Cause, or a Cause-in-waiting (or possibly non-existent). A childless couple cannot be parents, a cause without any effect cannot be a cause. A Cause without the universe cannot be the Cause.
2. The Cause must change from pre-Cause to Cause. If the Cause did not change then the universe must have come into existence at the same time as the Cause as per #1. If two things happen simultaneoulsy then one cannot have caused the other, so the Cause would not be a Cause. Therefore the entity we are talking about must have changed from pre-Cause to Cause.
3. Time must exist. Change in #2 refers to change in time. Time is also required to distinguish cause from effect - the cause comes before the effect. If the two are simultaneous then we do not have a causal relation between them. Hence the independent existence of time is also required.

rossum

This is a great analysis. It relies on the proper usage of the word: “Universe” (capitalized), which means everything that exists. Indeed it is nonsensical to speak of an “external” cause, where “external” is either spatial or temporal - to the Universe. The Universe exists and needs no “external” cause; moreover even to speak of “external” causes is self-contradictory.

But, we can dig further. The “universe” (not capitalized) we live in has 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension(s). It is possible, that the real “Universe” is more than that. It may have more spatial dimensions, for example. Of course it is undetectible by our senses, we are “bound” by our spatial dimensions.

Furthermore, it is possible to create a “virtual universe” inside ours - in a sufficiently complex computer. If we create beings in that environment, they cannot detect our existence either. Yet their world is created. What can they infer from the assumption that their world is “caused” or “created”? If we go by the original assumption of OP that our world is “caused” or “created”, we can attempt to find logical corollaries to this assumption. What would they be?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey Ateista, Ye Aulde Hounde!

Good to see yer face again.

"This is supposed to be a fully secular discussion, based upon one premise: “the Universe needs an external explanation for its existence”. "

'“Universe” (capitalized), which means everything that exists. Indeed it is nonsensical to speak of an “external” cause, where “external” is either spatial or temporal - to the Universe. The Universe exists and needs no “external” cause; moreover even to speak of “external” causes is self-contradictory."

OK, if the Universe is All That Exists, then it doesn’t make sense to speak of an external cause cuz there is, by definition, not a single solitary thing existing outside the Universe to cause it. Outside the Universe, there is absolutely nuttin. The Universe, thusly conceived, must be self-causing. And it would have to be in a category by itself, being the only self-caused being.

So the premise don’t make no sense unless we speak of a subset of the Universe. Let’s call it the little “u” universe which exists within the Big U Universe. The universe lives and moves and has its being in the Universe and is caused by it.

The attributes of the Universe? Well, we’ve already mentioned some. Self-causing and All-inclusive for starters.

 

[ateista]

Hey Ateista, Ye Aulde Hounde!

Good to see yer face again.

Likewise! I missed your company.

OK, if the Universe is All That Exists, then it doesn’t make sense to speak of an external cause cuz there is, by definition, not a single solitary thing existing outside the Universe to cause it. Outside the Universe, there is absolutely nuttin. The Universe, thusly conceived, must be self-causing. And it would have to be in a category by itself, being the only self-caused being.

I am not sure about the usage of the term “being”, I would suggest “entity”. “Being” has overtones, indicating some conscious entity.

So the premise don’t make no sense unless we speak of a subset of the Universe. Let’s call it the little “u” universe which exists within the Big U Universe. The universe lives and moves and has its being in the Universe and is caused by it.

Right.

The attributes of the Universe? Well, we’ve already mentioned some. Self-causing and All-inclusive for starters.

The same suggestion as above: “self-caused” has conscious overtones. The Universe simply exists - uncaused - that would be my preferred formulation.

Now, our universe may be the same as the big U - Universe. There is no way to prove nor disprove it. For the sake of continued discussion, let’s assume they are not the same. In that case there would be a “cause” or a “creator” (where the term creator also has conscious overtones).

If the “cause” is inanimate, there is not much to speak of. If the cause is really a “creator”, then we can hypothesize about this being - and now it would be proper to speak of a “being”.

 

[cpayne]

This is a great analysis. It relies on the proper usage of the word: “Universe” (capitalized), which means everything that exists. Indeed it is nonsensical to speak of an “external” cause, where “external” is either spatial or temporal - to the Universe. The Universe exists and needs no “external” cause; moreover even to speak of “external” causes is self-contradictory.

But, we can dig further. The “universe” (not capitalized) we live in has 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension(s). It is possible, that the real “Universe” is more than that. It may have more spatial dimensions, for example. Of course it is undetectible by our senses, we are “bound” by our spatial dimensions.

Furthermore, it is possible to create a “virtual universe” inside ours - in a sufficiently complex computer. If we create beings in that environment, they cannot detect our existence either. Yet their world is created. What can they infer from the assumption that their world is “caused” or “created”? If we go by the original assumption of OP that our world is “caused” or “created”, we can attempt to find logical corollaries to this assumption. What would they be?

Sorry, but no. If we are looking for a Cause of the Universe (capitalized or not), the Cause must exist logically prior to the existence of the effect. In other words, the Cause cannot be a feature of the universe. Nothing is self-caused. The Cause would have to be uncaused.

This also means it would be timeless and spaceless, with no extension and no composition.

It would also be enormously powerful.

Theism presents all of these features as features of God, or “divinity” (to reduce all these to one feature).

 

[glowingembers]

If we are to avoid infinite regress (i.e. the cause of our universe was caused by another cause which was caused by another cause etc.), then the cause should be inherently indeterminate, so that there’s no proof where it came from or if it even exists. The indeterminateness could also accommodate the reason why the cause caused our universe, intentionality and free will.

 

[cpayne]

If we are to avoid infinite regress (i.e. the cause of our universe was caused by another cause which was caused by another cause etc.), then the cause should be inherently indeterminate, so that there’s no proof where it came from or if it even exists. The indeterminateness could also accommodate the reason why the cause caused our universe, intentionality and free will.

Doesn’t it depend on what you mean by “proof” that it “even exists”? For example, I would accept logic as proof in addition to any empirical evidences.

Logically it would have to exist.

 

[glowingembers]

Doesn’t it depend on what you mean by “proof” that it “even exists”? For example, I would accept logic as proof in addition to any empirical evidences.

Logically it would have to exist.

I mean there should be no logical proof, and also no empirical proof as it is understood in science (i.e. unless we include faith or mystical experiences as “empirical”).

Logic doesn’t seem capable of proving that the cause of the universe is uncaused or self-caused. Logically the cause could be caused by another cause which was caused by yet another cause and so on (infinite regress).

 

[cpayne]

Well, I agree that either we are faced with an infinite regress or an uncaused cause. Let’s say I’ll loan you a dollar if my friend loans me the dollar, and if his friend loans him the dollar, etc., out to an infinite regress. It seems that given the infinite regress, no one would actually have the dollar, certainly not me.

I think (?) this is one of Aquinas’s points: that an infinite regress is actually illogical, given the fact that we do have a universe here.

 

[glowingembers]

Well, I agree that either we are faced with an infinite regress or an uncaused cause. Let’s say I’ll loan you a dollar if my friend loans me the dollar, and if his friend loans him the dollar, etc., out to an infinite regress. It seems that given the infinite regress, no one would actually have the dollar, certainly not me.

I think (?) this is one of Aquinas’s points: that an infinite regress is actually illogical, given the fact that we do have a universe here.

Intuitively I don’t feel that infinite regress is correct (I actually find it repulsive) but I wouldn’t say that it’s illogical. It is one of those extreme logical scenarios that involve infinity.

Maybe the infinite regress could be ruled out based on the second thermodynamic law (increasing entropy). I have read somewhere that cosmological models that assume infinite past run into the problem that current entropy would have to be much higher than we observe. But there doesn’t seem to be a definite conclusion on this…

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Mornin all,

So we have the Universe, the entity which encompassess All That Exists. We are assuming that our observable universe (small u) is a part thereof and is caused by it.

The universe, being caused, is temporal. It is an entity in process, moving from one event to anudder.

It seems that you all are in agreement that the Universe is uncaused and therefore not temporal. Let’s assume that.

So the Universe is:

1. All-encompassing and all-inclusive. Nothing exists outside of it.
2. It simply exists and is not the effect of a prior cause (uncaused)
3. It is atemporal (exists outside of time)

Implicit in #1 is that the Universe is a unified whole. First, it is not a part or fragment of something else. Second, if it is an entity unto itself, it one.

 

[ateista]

Mornin all,

So we have the Universe, the entity which encompassess All That Exists. We are assuming that our observable universe (small u) is a part thereof and is caused by it.

The universe, being caused, is temporal. It is an entity in process, moving from one event to anudder.

It seems that you all are in agreement that the Universe is uncaused and therefore not temporal. Let’s assume that.

So the Universe is:

1. All-encompassing and all-inclusive. Nothing exists outside of it.
2. It simply exists and is not the effect of a prior cause (uncaused)
3. It is atemporal (exists outside of time)

Implicit in #1 is that the Universe is a unified whole. First, it is not a part or fragment of something else. Second, if it is an entity unto itself, it one.

I don’t see your third conclusion: “atemporal”. Atemporal existence is an undefined concept. The rest is fine.

 

[cpayne]

It seems that you all are in agreement that the Universe is uncaused and therefore not temporal. Let’s assume that.

Well, I haven’t been in agreement with this. The universe is certainly temporal; maybe you mean the universe is eternal, has no beginning?

But even in that case: Aquinas assumed that the universe was in fact eternal and had no beginning, and still argued that it required a Cause (in the sense of a non-contingent, sustaining force making the universe a fact rather than just a possibility).

Of course, today we know what Aquinas couldn’t have known, that the universe did have a beginning. Either way, Aquinas’s argument would still hold, would it not?

 

[cpayne]

Wait a second; maybe I’m misunderstanding. By Universe (capital U), do you mean all that exists, including spiritual realities such as God?

 

[ateista]

Wait a second; maybe I’m misunderstanding. By Universe (capital U), do you mean all that exists, including spiritual realities such as God?

Yes. With the caveat that God may or may not “exist”. The word “exists” needs to be clarified when used in conjunction with God.

We are familiar with two types of existence: “concrete” or material existence and “abstract” or conceptual existence. God is supposed to be different from both. God’s existence would be fundamentally different type of “existence”. We can describe the properties of concrete and abstract existence.

What does your phrase “spiritual reality” mean?

 

[cpayne]

Yes. With the caveat that God may or may not “exist”. The word “exists” needs to be clarified when used in conjunction with God.

We are familiar with two types of existence: “concrete” or material existence and “abstract” or conceptual existence. God is supposed to be different from both. God’s existence would be fundamentally different type of “existence”. We can describe the properties of concrete and abstract existence.

What does your phrase “spiritual reality” mean?

Okay; thank you. I was assuming that by capital-U Universe you meant simply the material universe. My mistake.

By spiritual reality I mean that aspect of reality which is non-spatial and non-temporal, and would therefore have no extension or composite nature at all. Aquinas of course describes God this way, but he also describes the soul (when considered in itself separately from the consideration of the human person) as non-composite.

Because these aspects of reality are non-physical, the primary indications of their existence would not be empirical, but would rather be logical and / or experiential.

Their existence could have some empirical implications, however. For example, let’s say God healed me of something. The healing itself would not show up in an empirical check-up, but the result of the healing should show up empirically.

In the OP, you mentioned a “fully secular discussion.” I’m assuming that you mean a discussion that does not appeal to divine authority, even if the discussion ends up arriving at God? I’m also assuming that by “fully secular discussion” you do NOT mean a discussion which excludes the possibility of God from the outset?

Anyway, interesting discussion. How thin of a sandwich do we get if we do not include the meat of divine revelation? And which is better: To know a lot by revelation, or to know a little by rational inference?

 

[ateista]

Okay; thank you. I was assuming that by capital-U Universe you meant simply the material universe. My mistake.

You are most welcome. It is always good to clarify things as soon as possible.

By spiritual reality I mean that aspect of reality which is non-spatial and non-temporal, and would therefore have no extension or composite nature at all. Aquinas of course describes God this way, but he also describes the soul (when considered in itself separately from the consideration of the human person) as non-composite.

Unfortunately I am not sure I follow you. The two examples your brought up are not really an “aspect” of “physical reality”, and so far we only know of this kind of reality. I do not exclude other types of reality, but we have to find out how to identify such reality.

An aspect of reality would be (this is just an example) something like “heavy”. The weight, or mass is objective, but whether the object in question is “heavy” or “light” depends on the person who attempts to lift it. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

Because these aspects of reality are non-physical, the primary indications of their existence would not be empirical, but would rather be logical and / or experiential.

The word “logical” I understand, but the word “experiential” I do not. If you mean something we experience, how is that possible? We only experience “stuff” through our senses.

Their existence could have some empirical implications, however. For example, let’s say God healed me of something. The healing itself would not show up in an empirical check-up, but the result of the healing should show up empirically.

That is acceptable. You propose an interface between the two kinds of “reality”. Now an interface is something that “belongs” to both types of reality. As such we could - in theory at least - “catch” the interaction between the realities, and as such get emprical verification of the non-physical reality.

In the OP, you mentioned a “fully secular discussion.” I’m assuming that you mean a discussion that does not appeal to divine authority, even if the discussion ends up arriving at God? I’m also assuming that by “fully secular discussion” you do NOT mean a discussion which excludes the possibility of God from the outset?

Exactly. If the end result brings forth the necessity of accepting God as a solution, so be it. I prefer not to include this hypothesis from the get-go, because it would “taint” the result.

Anyway, interesting discussion. How thin of a sandwich do we get if we do not include the meat of divine revelation? And which is better: To know a lot by revelation, or to know a little by rational inference?

For me the answer is simple: “to know a little by rational inference”. After all I could never know if the “revelation” is genuine, or just a trick that my own mind plays on me.

 

[cpayne]

**

The word “logical” I understand, but the word “experiential” I do not. If you mean something we experience, how is that possible? We only experience “stuff” through our senses.

Okay, here’s a good example of what I mean by a non-spatial, non-temporal reality. I agree with you that the EXPERIENCE of stuff comes through our senses. However, the act of understanding has to go beyond sense experience, or else we’d be no more than cameras—constantly perceiving but never understanding.

The act of understanding, therefore, is not a function of the physical senses, but rather of the mind. This is what I mean by knowing of the existence of something “experientially” rather than “empirically.” I can’t point to a mind, or weigh it, or tell you its color or shape. However, I know it’s there because it functions within me in a manner which goes beyond the aggregate of mere physical sensations.

By the way, on the other question, Aquinas has an answer which has always interested me. He says that revelation is a better form of knowledge if we are considering its “content,” since there are many things we could not know without revelation. However, he then says that rational inquiry is a better form of knowledge if we consider its “method,” since knowing something by reason is always better than knowing it solely by authority.

I think the italicized part is a very interesting position for a medieval monk to hold.**

 

[ateista]

Okay, here’s a good example of what I mean by a non-spatial, non-temporal reality. I agree with you that the EXPERIENCE of stuff comes through our senses. However, the act of understanding has to go beyond sense experience, or else we’d be no more than cameras—constantly perceiving but never understanding.

Very well put. Though I suspect that you talk about abstractions or conceptual reality. Indeed, the concept of a triangle or the number of “2” cannot be pointed to any spatial “point”, but it is definitely a “temporal” object, starting when the first human conceived it. Or Hamlet did not “exist” before Shakespeare imagined it. If the Sun would go nova tomorrow, Hamlet would cease to exist.

If all the beings in the universe who are capable of conceptualization would cease to exist, the concept of “2” would disappear as well, though the physical reality which makes the concept possible would still be there.

If there is a working CD player in a forest playing the Ninth Symphony and no humans are present, it would not be “music”, but it would be “noise”. Or as Klick and Klack put it: "if there is a male in a forest and no woman is present… is he still wrong?

The act of understanding, therefore, is not a function of the physical senses, but rather of the mind. This is what I mean by knowing of the existence of something “experientially” rather than “empirically.” I can’t point to a mind, or weigh it, or tell you its color or shape. However, I know it’s there because it functions within me in a manner which goes beyond the aggregate of mere physical sensations.

Yes. No question about it. But these are still functions of your brain, abstractions and concepts. Just like “walking” is not a physical, ontological object, but it relies on the muscle movements of the legs. It is an action of the physical infrastructure.

By the way, on the other question, Aquinas has an answer which has always interested me. He says that revelation is a better form of knowledge if we are considering its “content,” since there are many things we could not know without revelation. However, he then says that rational inquiry is a better form of knowledge if we consider its “method,” since knowing something by reason is always better than knowing it solely by authority.

I think the italicized part is a very interesting position for a medieval monk to hold.

Yes it certainly is amazingly insightful.