Time Doesnt Need A Cause!

[MindOverMatter]

This is a hybrid of another thread.

I am not so much interested in proving the existence of an intelligent cause on this thread.
But i am interested in showing that the following two contentions are either false or just unsupportable assertions.

(1.Time doesn’t need a cause)

(2. It is meaningless to say that time has a cause)

These two arguments are actually two good disguises for the following assumption.

(1.Something can come out of nothing)

It is the same argument.

I have some arguments of my own, which will be expressed in 3 paragraphs. Feel free to add to them.

1. Time, is a chain of causes and effects; or change. Time is a transition from potentiality to actuality, so on and so forth. It is also important that one realizes that physical change, within time itself, is reliant on a cause that is itself an effect. Otherwise there is no potentiality in order that an effect can occur. Ultimately we must explain the potentiality of time through other means, since there is no **physical potentiality **to explain the effect of time; simply because there is no before. If we do not choose other means of explanation, we are left we the absurdity of contradiction; we are left with a chain of changes and qualities that have no ultimate reason to exist. Therefore, since time lacks the potentiality to exist, it ought not to exist. Yet we exist; and so, logically speaking, there must be an eternal unchanging cause outside of time, which means nothing more then to express the fact that a transcendent being is timelessly causing change through the nature and virtue of its own being. This is the concept of the unmoved mover. It does not mean that God exists “before” the universe; since God has no spatial location in time. An ultimate first cause cannot be physical or finite. God permeates all being, and transcends it infinitely.

2. There are certain things that must be true, if logic is universal. First of all, there is no reason to suppose that a first cause must be physical, or a changing being in time. Only secondary causes and effects, must exist in time. A first cause can be a simultaneous cause of the universe, if it is allowed to transcend the principle constraints of physics. In other words, we can only explain change, or time, with a non-random, non physical cause, that has alway existed and has always caused the universe. The first
cause would also have to be its own existence, and be existence by its very nature of being an ultimate cause; and the universe would have to exist within existence, since nothing can have actuality outside of existence. Existence itself has to be, non physical, and transcendent, since its is not itself a being in time that is caused or has the potential to exist. It would be necessarily perfect, since only a perfect being can be necessarily existent. Neither can it have any potentiality in it, since existence exists by its own nature of being Existence. Which means that there is a nature that is Existence; and Existence is the first principle of all participatory beings. In order for this being to have a meaningful relationship with its effect, it would have to be, by its very nature, timelessly expressing, creating, and willing.

3. On the issue of of infinite intelligence; If the first cause is not a personal cause with perfect knowledge, then there is no logical reason for the universe to exist. The reason being, is that if any physical body causes something, it is because, it itself is in motion and has also been caused by another moving body or natural phenomenon.** In other words, there is no such thing as a physical cause, in an ultimate sense, because its nature of being a cause is always relative to some other effect that came before it. Therefore physical causes , logically speaking, can only ever be participatory mediums; which are, in reality, nothing more then a chain of effects that need and ultimate cause.** The only other kind of cause we know of, is the cause of intention or will. Therefore the first cause must have some kind of personal nature, that we are selves are an imperfect reflection of. Otherwise we sink in to a tangent of irrational concepts such as “potentially infinite pasts”, or a “beginning with out a cause”. The desperate naturalists are left making the argument that change, or time, exists for no reason in order to avoid that which most haunts them.

Care to challenge me?

However; if you want the dignity of a logical person, i advise you to simply agree with me.

 

[MindOverMatter]

P.s. Also…Please, if you are going to make an argument, please make a real argument. Don’t say that you do not believe that something can come out of nothing, and then reply latter on that perhaps it is meaningless to ask if the universe has a cause.

Its the same argument disguised as different argument.

I guess, I’m just asking for some consistency.

 

[Spock]

I wonder why you chose the “angry” symbol for your thread? Apart from the rather uncharitable expression of “desperate naturalists”, and the taunting “…if you want the dignity of a logical person…”, you said nothing that should be contemplated. All you did is present a bunch of ill-defined categories.

For your benefit, the STEM (space-time-energy-matter) is just another word for the physical universe (to save bandwidth I will call it simply: “universe”). None of these categories can be defined for the universe, they can only be defined within the universe. Causation, as well, can be defined within the universe.

To ask what caused the universe is precisely as unintelligible as to ask what exists outside the universe, or what existed before the universe. These questions are syntactically as valid as to ask: “what exists to the north from the North Pole”. Syntactically valid questions are not necessarily semantically meaningful, and semantically meaningless questions cannot be contemplated.

There is nothing else to be said about this subject.

Have a very nice day.

 

[MindOverMatter]

There is nothing else to be said about this subject.

Have a very nice day.

In other words you are saying that the universe has no logical explanation for its existence.

Out of nothing comes nothing. Where there is change, there is potentiality for change. You are simply trying to avoid this factor through semantic trickery. And neither have you offered any arguments or good reasons for why you claim what you do.

Nice day to you to.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I wonder why you chose the “angry” symbol for your thread?

Your psychological examination isn’t really a valid argument. I put the face there is order to attract attention to this thread.

Explain why my arguments are ill defined. I dedicated three paragraphs to explaining why your philosophy is illogical. You probably didn’t even bother to read it.

For your benefit, the STEM (space-time-energy-matter) is just another word for the physical universe.

Whats that got to do with anything? For your benefit i think you should explain your self.

None of these categories can be defined for the universe, they can only be defined within the universe.

What are you taking about?

Causation, as well, can be defined within the universe.

There is certainly causation in the universe. However; i and Aquinas presented a different kind of cause concerning the existence of time. The unmoved mover, or uncaused cause. You simply fail to understand why such a being must exist; or perhaps you do not want to understand.

To ask what caused the universe is precisely as unintelligible as to ask what exists outside the universe

Why? You have provided no explanation.

To ask what physical object exists outside of space, or what physical object caused the universe is meaningless. But what does that have to do with a transcendent simultaneous cause? You imply a limitation where there is none; and you have also made a false comparison between explaining the cause of the universe with asking what exists outside of it. If anything you are strengthening the proofs for a supernatural cause.

Syntactically valid questions are not necessarily semantically meaningful

Not necessarily? Then why do you imply a logical limitation to a first cause?

There is nothing else to be said about this subject.

All that is evident, is that you have nothing more to say. You have no valid arguments whatsoever.

 

[TheWhim]

In other words, there is no such thing as a physical cause, in an ultimate sense, because its nature of being a cause is always relative to some other effect that came before it. Therefore physical causes , logically speaking, can only ever be participatory mediums; which are, in reality, nothing more then a chain of effects that need and ultimate cause.

A physical cause is always related to some other effect that came before it, so you say. But does this also apply to the first event? By all appearance we are faced with quite an unusual, indeed a singular physical cause here. Your definition could fail since it could be assumed that there was no foregoing effect this physical cause was related to. This even seems a logical necessity since there was no “before” before the first event. If you say that the first event needs a trancendental cause since, as a physical cause it needs an effect to precede it, you assume that there was anything that could have preceded this first event. But since time began with this first event, you go wrong. - The first event in the universe is a very singular physical cause that cannot be treated like physical causes in general without involving oneself in logically contradictory remarks, like you do by saying that there need be something to precede even the beginning of time(which began with the first event).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

In other words you are saying that the universe has no logical explanation for its existence.

Out of nothing comes nothing. Where there is change, there is potentiality for change. You are simply trying to avoid this factor through semantic trickery. And neither have you offered any arguments or good reasons for why you claim what you do.

Nice day to you to.

If the universe = the sum total of all things, then it includes all things; so there is nothing that it does not include, therefore, there is no thing not included. So nothing can be outside it as an external cause. So any cause of it has to be within the set of things that comprises the universe. But it is the cause of the universe that is being sought - & something caused cannot be caused by its effect. But to look for the cause of the universe in the universe is to look for the cause in what that cause effects. So the universe has a cause neither outside nor inside the universe - so to speak of a cause for the universe, is to speak without meaning. So it seems that the universe simply is, & that to search for a cause of it is futile. If we accept that nature is full of mysteries & unknowns, why is it too much to accept this puzzle as one of them ?​

Semantics is very important.

 

[CoG]

Observations indicate that the universe is a temporal construct where cause and effect restrict all objects and actions. Cause and effect are changes that occur with respect to a consistent reference we recognize as time.

In other words, there is no magic. All that is new in the universe is just a change of what already exists. The universe follows the design and the rules of the original Creator. Having been made in the image and likeness of the Creator man has been given the ability to create by change the design and to manipulate the rules of the original creation.

All observation, without exception, indicates that the universe and all things in the universe can not come about without an action outside of the restraints of time. The primary restraint of time being cause and effect. An infinite number of causes never can result in an effect without a cause.

The limitations of time and the physical world can not be seen as a limitation on God. God by the very nature of being eternal must exist outside of time and any physical limitations. Eternity, a condition without time, is the norm and time and the universe is but a construct for the greater intent of God.

Time is a creation to allow man, using freewill to make a choice for or against God. The entire nature of the universe can be seen to support the intent of God for man to make this freewill choice. God can not act against His design and intent and God’s action in our life is by choice and invitation by us. That invitation does not need to be made directly by us but we may ask the influence of God in the life of others. Of course, because of freewill, that influence may be refused.

All logic and observations require the universe and time to be the result of actions outside of the limitations of universe and time. The source or cause of time and the universe must have, at least, all the attributes of time and the universe. Those attributes must include not only the physical but also the attributes of man. By definition, any being that has all the attributes of man, time, and the universe is defined as God.

 

[MindOverMatter]

A physical cause is always related to some other effect that came before it, so you say. But does this also apply to the first event?

If we want to speak reasonably of the Universe, then yes.

By all appearance we are faced with quite an unusual, indeed a singular physical cause here.

We are talking about an entity that had the potentiality to exist. We are trying to explain that potentiality. If we say it had no potentiality, then it ought not to exist.

Your definition could fail since it could be assumed that there was no foregoing effect this physical cause was related to.

It could be assumed, but its not a reasonable assumption.

This even seems a logical necessity since there was no “before” before the first event.

First of all, there was no change before the first event; as in, no time. There certainly wasn’t any physics before the first event. But that does not mean that there was no “being” before time. It seems to me that there is a logical necessity for some kind of being to exist if we are to ground time in existence, rather then nothing. And that being, by inference, would have to be an eternal cause.

If you say that the first event needs a transcendental cause since, as a physical cause it needs an effect to precede it, you assume that there was anything that could have preceded this first event.

I make no assumptions. It is simply what has to be true if we wish to avoid the illogicality of something coming out of nothing. I must stay true to reason.

But since time began with this first event, you go wrong.

Nope.

The first event in the universe is a very singular physical cause that cannot be treated like physical causes in general without involving oneself in logically contradictory remarks, like you do by saying that there need be something to precede even the beginning of time(which began with the first event).

Like i explained above, if change doesn’t have the potentiality to exist, then it shouldn’t, unless it is grounded in a perfect and timeless uncaused cause. Anything which changes, requires an explanation for that change. Otherwise you are suggesting that things can happen for absolutely no reason; they can come out of nothing. I have no logical reason whatsoever to accept such a belief. Neither do i see any reason to think that “being” has to be identified with change.

 

[MindOverMatter]

If the universe = the sum total of all things, then it includes all things​

This is circular reasoning since you have assumed that your premise is true with out giving any logical support to such a wild assertion. It is certainly the sum total of all physical changing entities. But the idea that it is the sum total of all beings, is an unfounded concept, if you mean to say, that all things are physical in nature.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The source or cause of time and the universe must have, at least, all the attributes of time and the universe.

Why?

Those attributes must include not only the physical but also the attributes of man. By definition, any being that has all the attributes of man, time, and the universe is defined as God.

I don’t see any good reason to conclude pantheism.

 

[Sair]

If the universe = the sum total of all things, then it includes all things; so there is nothing that it does not include, therefore, there is no thing not included. So nothing can be outside it as an external cause. So any cause of it has to be within the set of things that comprises the universe. But it is the cause of the universe that is being sought - & something caused cannot be caused by its effect. But to look for the cause of the universe in the universe is to look for the cause in what that cause effects. So the universe has a cause neither outside nor inside the universe - so to speak of a cause for the universe, is to speak without meaning. So it seems that the universe simply is, & that to search for a cause of it is futile. If we accept that nature is full of mysteries & unknowns, why is it too much to accept this puzzle as one of them ?​

Semantics is very important.

Great response, and your little lion icon is gorgeous

To me, it makes profound sense to suppose that the universe encompasses all things that exist, and therefore that contemplating some transcendental cause outside of existence is fundamentally meaningless. In fact, thinking too much about it makes my head hurt. uch:

One assumption I do find troublesome, however, is that if one starts from the proposition that the universe must have had a first cause, that the said first cause is actually able to be known. Another poster has already dealt with this one at some length, but if it makes logical sense to suppose the universe had a first cause, it doesn’t follow that the first cause must necessarily have been God. It could have been, but it’s not something that can be proven either way, so the debate is based purely on faith and opinion.

As for me, I like the idea of mystery - I find it curiously comforting that there are some things that are fundamentally unknowable, like whether or not the universe has a spiritual aspect. If we could actually know everything, it would take all the fun out of speculation :idea:

 

[agangbern]

This is a hybrid of another thread.

I am not so much interested in proving the existence of an intelligent cause on this thread.
But i am interested in showing that the following two contentions are either false or just unsupportable assertions.

(1.Time doesn’t need a cause)

(2. It is meaningless to say that time has a cause)

Yes, those two contentions are false. For we can speak of time only in relation to changes occurring among observable things. Without observable things, there is no time to speak of. But observable things cannot just come forth without a cause. Therefore, since time is necessarily related to observable things, it is right to conclude that time would not come forth without a cause.

 

[CoG]

MindOverMatter all experience and observation, without exception, shows that something can not come from nothing or that something greater can be the result of something less. Two pounds of gold can not be made into three pounds of gold. Mud can not become man without the attributes of God.

It seems I was not clear. I am not saying that man or any of God’s creations are part God. God is not required to be a part of His creations anymore then if a man, with his abilities and attributes, builds a car that the car is part man. The material of the car does become more and has more ability then the material of the car because of the greater attributes of the man.

Mud has become man and all things in creation have obtained more order through the intelligent design and attributes of the Creator, God.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Great response, and your little lion icon is gorgeous

To me, it makes profound sense to suppose that the universe encompasses all things that exist,

To simply define the Universe as Existence in itself, does nothing to prove the definition. The fact that it makes sense to you, can only be a matter of taste. Not reason.

 

[Sair]

To simply define the Universe as Existence in itself, does nothing to prove the definition. The fact that it makes sense to you, can only be a matter of taste. Not reason.

I think you misrepresent my position by quoting a single phrase out of context.

Human reason is bound to the world of matter in which we all live. Many of the principles of the physics of space and time are counterintuitive to human reason, because they are alien to human experience. The concept of nonexistence is deeply incomprehensible to the human mind. Thus the desire to infer that there was something that existed before and outside of the known universe. Based upon discussions I have seen on this forum and conversations I have had with friends who have a far better grasp of space-time physics than I, I have learned that it is not necessary to infer a first cause as the only possibility to explain the existence of the known universe. There are other possibilities, such as an infinite loop of time or in fact the notion that existence could have come from nonexistence. These concepts don’t align with ordinary, matter-bound human reason, but that does not make them impossible.

Furthermore, even if one does infer a first cause, it does not follow that said first cause was God, nor that God has any of the characteristics humans have projected. To suppose that the mind and will of God are knowable is to infer that they bear a comprehensible similarity to human mind and will; to imagine that the ‘prime mover’ of the universe is a God who bears any resemblance to humans is nothing more than anthropomorphism on a grand scale. Our human concept of God is limited by the scope of human reason.

My suggestion is that in using logic to infer the existence of God, one is actually beginning from a position of faith, not concluding that it is necessary to believe because we have proof that God exists. It seems to me that there is a degree of intellectual dishonesty in any attempt to rationalise faith.

 

[Sair]

To expand a little on my previous post, and explain precisely why I feel it is meaningless to attempt a logical explanation for an extrauniversal first cause:

Logic itself is a product of human reason, something that is within the known universe and necessarily bound to the world of form and matter of which we are a part. It cannot be assumed that anything supposed or imagined to be outside of the known universe is logically intelligible. Put simply, if logic is universal, it does not follow that an extrauniversal entity - or nonentity, for that matter - is in any way knowable through logic.

 

[agangbern]

To me, it makes profound sense to suppose that the universe encompasses all things that exist, and therefore that contemplating some transcendental cause outside of existence is fundamentally meaningless. In fact, thinking too much about it makes my head hurt. uch:

But to suppose that the universe encompasses all things that exist is obviously erroneous. For, "The universe is defined as everything that physically exists" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe. In other words, those that spiritually exist are not included as encompassed by the universe. Therefore, to think of a cause outside of the universe is not meaningless.

 

[ruslan]

 

[RobbyS]

A physical cause is always related to some other effect that came before it, so you say. But does this also apply to the first event? By all appearance we are faced with quite an unusual, indeed a singular physical cause here. Your definition could fail since it could be assumed that there was no foregoing effect this physical cause was related to. This even seems a logical necessity since there was no “before” before the first event. If you say that the first event needs a trancendental cause since, as a physical cause it needs an effect to precede it, you assume that there was anything that could have preceded this first event. But since time began with this first event, you go wrong. - The first event in the universe is a very singular physical cause that cannot be treated like physical causes in general without involving oneself in logically contradictory remarks, like you do by saying that there need be something to precede even the beginning of time(which began with the first event).

If one thinks of “time” as part and parcel of space," then it becomes more than a measure of the movements of object in space. But the key word here is “thinks.” Thinking is about what is external to ourselves. We stand here between the micro-and macrocosmos. “Man is the measure of all things.” We stand at the crux of things.