Time Doesnt Need A Cause!

[Sair]

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.

Again, I would suggest that in stating such, you’re beginning from a position of faith, not reasoning yourself into believing. This is absolutely fine as far as I’m concerned, but I don’t think it was the intention of MindOverMatter’s original post - it seemed intended to persuade readers that faith in God was the culmination of reason, indeed that faith in God was the only logically sound position to hold.

My internal jury is still out on the existence of a soul, by the way. I am content to dwell in uncertainty at present, but I would be curious to see an effective logical rationalisation of how the dualistic being made up of soul and body manages to simultaneously exist within and outside the known universe!

 

[agangbern]

Again, I would suggest that in stating such, you’re beginning from a position of faith, not reasoning yourself into believing. This is absolutely fine as far as I’m concerned, but I don’t think it was the intention of MindOverMatter’s original post - it seemed intended to persuade readers that faith in God was the culmination of reason, indeed that faith in God was the only logically sound position to hold.

My internal jury is still out on the existence of a soul, by the way. I am content to dwell in uncertainty at present, but I would be curious to see an effective logical rationalisation of how the dualistic being made up of soul and body manages to simultaneously exist within and outside the known universe!

Not really from a position of faith, because if the universe and everything therein cannot come forth to existence without a cause, but it came forth, therefore we have no choice but to accept the fact that a cause outside of it existed. And since the universe is physical, then we again have no choice but to conclude that the the cause of its existence is non-physical, that is, spiritual. As to the nature of spiritual things, this is not relevant to the topic of this thread. It is enough that this thread has established the truth that *time needs a cause.
*

 

[JDaniel]

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.

While what you say is no doubt true in some respects, it is not true of those things we encounter every day and grasp fully, such as cause and effect events. We witness this dual-event relationship occurring in everything we sense, and now, through science, we witness it in the rest of the universe as well. So, we’re not seeking, or, talking about things that are mental fabrications, where we have juxtaposed unrelated exigencies that, in the actuality of reality, make no sense.

The concept of nonexistence is deeply incomprehensible to the human mind.

Not at all. A lost toy - never to be found again - experienced by a youngster, is his first-hand experience with non-existence.

Thus the desire to infer that there was something that existed before and outside of the known universe.

Not so. All that is happening here is that men grasp a concept, such as, say, “the beginning”. Then we employ the conclusions of science, however unrelated the premises were before their conclusions, to postulate mechanisms. Thus, from logic we receive true knowledge, and from science we receive justified true belief.

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.

In adhering to that sort of thinking, essentially you’re admitting that nothing can really be known. Why even bother, then? Any man can mentally fabricate any sort of nonsense and glue it to reality. The problem is, if it makes no sense, the glue won’t stick. Those sorts of conjecture that you’re talking about are akin to making large gorilla-like monsters for science fiction movies.

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.

I have started a new thread particularly directed to try to answer your first objection, “can one posit that the first cause was God?” We’ll see where that goes. In response to your second objection, certain cultures always forget the one, over-riding exigency that is part of Christian culture and tradition and that is, divine revelation.

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.

I completely disagree. Anyway, we shall check out the thread called “Cause?” and see where it leads.

jd

 

[Sair]

While what you say is no doubt true in some respects, it is not true of those things we encounter every day and grasp fully, such as cause and effect events. We witness this dual-event relationship occurring in everything we sense, and now, through science, we witness it in the rest of the universe as well. So, we’re not seeking, or, talking about things that are mental fabrications, where we have juxtaposed unrelated exigencies that, in the actuality of reality, make no sense.

Certainly all laws of physics can be said to ‘work’ for that which is contained within the known universe. I am simply suggesting that familiarity and the consequent understanding decrease as one moves further away from human experience, which is contained within our world of matter and form. Thus it is much easier to grasp the principle of cause and effect based upon observations of one’s surroundings, but it is harder to apply the theory to the behaviour of light in deep space, for example. Consequently, given that the laws of logic were derived from the known universe, one can infer that anything outside the known universe is not necessarily bound by its laws, whether physical or logical.

Not at all. A lost toy - never to be found again - experienced by a youngster, is his first-hand experience with non-existence.

This may well be the closest we can approach to a comprehension of nonexistence, but I would suggest that there is a step up in complexity and difficulty of understanding from contemplating an object that has been lost, and is no longer present, but by inference still exists in the physical world, to actually contemplating the concept of nonexistence.

Not so. All that is happening here is that men grasp a concept, such as, say, “the beginning”. Then we employ the conclusions of science, however unrelated the premises were before their conclusions, to postulate mechanisms. Thus, from logic we receive true knowledge, and from science we receive justified true belief.

In adhering to that sort of thinking, essentially you’re admitting that nothing can really be known. Why even bother, then? Any man can mentally fabricate any sort of nonsense and glue it to reality. The problem is, if it makes no sense, the glue won’t stick. Those sorts of conjecture that you’re talking about are akin to making large gorilla-like monsters for science fiction movies.

Speaking as someone who does have difficulty wrapping my head around theoretical physics, I would again say there is a gulf of knowability between theory drawn from observation of the known universe and theory based on entities outside the known universe - one is at least able to be understood in known terms; the other is, at least through human logic, theoretically unknowable. I would say that in theory, there is nothing within the universe that cannot ultimately be understood with human reason - I would not presume to make such a claim for anything supposed to exist outside the universe.

I have started a new thread particularly directed to try to answer your first objection, “can one posit that the first cause was God?” We’ll see where that goes. In response to your second objection, certain cultures always forget the one, over-riding exigency that is part of Christian culture and tradition and that is, divine revelation.

I shall read with interest I have no objection to an appeal to divine revelation as such, although it is not my personal belief; I would, however, question the necessity of appealing to logic and the laws of physics when one has faith in divine revelation. But I shall save any further speculation for the new thread.

 

[DavidCatechumen]

IMHO the real question is not whether time needs a cause, but rather whether the scientific method can describe the first cause or not.

Since the first cause’s effect (whether the Big Bang, brane collision, quantum flux, what have you) occurred at time = 0, and the scientific method requires causality, and causality needs time, the first cause cannot be described by science. Causa finit est.

 

[agangbern]

IMHO the real question is not whether time needs a cause, but rather whether the scientific method can describe the first cause or not.

Everyone can make any opinion. But opinions would not change the title of this thread: *Time Doesn’t Need a Cause!!!

• The OP attempted to prove that the allegation is false. For time needs a cause. And I agree with him.

 

[DavidCatechumen]

Everyone can make any opinion. But opinions would not change the title of this thread: *Time Doesn’t Need a Cause!!!

• The OP attempted to prove that the allegation is false. For time needs a cause. And I agree with him.

But if you can’t prove (scientifically) whether time has a cause, how do you answer the OP with anything but your opinion?

 

[DavidCatechumen]

But opinions would not change the title of this thread: *Time Doesn’t Need a Cause!!!

• The OP attempted to prove that the allegation is false. For time needs a cause. And I agree with him.

Aha, I see. I misinterpreted Sair’s post and got off topic. Sorry

 

[JDaniel]

Certainly all laws of physics can be said to ‘work’ for that which is contained within the known universe. I am simply suggesting that familiarity and the consequent understanding decrease as one moves further away from human experience, which is contained within our world of matter and form. Thus it is much easier to grasp the principle of cause and effect based upon observations of one’s surroundings, but it is harder to apply the theory to the behaviour of light in deep space, for example.

Not so. Here you provide an example of a thing which seems to defy everything else we “know”. Notice, I said “seems”. Because we do not have the appropriate investigative tools to expand our knowledge of light, at light’s speed, does not automatically infer that what seems to be unexplainable by cause and effect, is actually thereby unexplained. What other examples would you provide?

Consequently, given that the laws of logic were derived from the known universe, one can infer that anything outside the known universe is not necessarily bound by its laws, whether physical or logical.

Not so. The Laws of Logic were not “derived” from the known universe, they were merely “discovered” to coincidentally exist in the known universe. The Law of non-Contradiction is a priori to the human discovery of it.

This may well be the closest we can approach to a comprehension of nonexistence, but I would suggest that there is a step up in complexity and difficulty of understanding from contemplating an object that has been lost, and is no longer present, but by inference still exists in the physical world, to actually contemplating the concept of nonexistence.

I don’t think we need to wrap our brains around the axle. When you throw a “qualifier” into the mix, of course concepts can change. But, I pose you a further qualifier: that the toy was tossed into a vat of acid and utterly consumed. Neither of these has any relevance to the event at hand: that for the child the toy no longer exists.

Speaking as someone who does have difficulty wrapping my head around theoretical physics, I would again say there is a gulf of knowability between theory drawn from observation of the known universe and theory based on entities outside the known universe - one is at least able to be understood in known terms; the other is, at least through human logic, theoretically unknowable. I would say that in theory, there is nothing within the universe that cannot ultimately be understood with human reason - I would not presume to make such a claim for anything supposed to exist outside the universe.

Except that we do have “revelation”. And, through revelation, we are provided with ways and manners of knowing in order that we may possess justified true belief. In fact, revelation has been consistent for 5,000 years. After so many times being hit in the head by a speeding hard ball, one will eventually learn not to walk in front of the pitcher.

I shall read with interest I have no objection to an appeal to divine revelation as such, although it is not my personal belief; I would, however, question the necessity of appealing to logic and the laws of physics when one has faith in divine revelation. But I shall save any further speculation for the new thread.

There are at least two ways of becoming one with God. The first, is to be fortunate enough to have been provided the gift of Faith from an early age. The second, which is how I came to be one with God, is by letting logic and knowledge take me as far as they could, then, relying on Faith for the rest of the journey. One is the front door; the other could be called the back door.

jd

 

[agangbern]

Speaking as someone who does have difficulty wrapping my head around theoretical physics, I would again say there is a gulf of knowability between theory drawn from observation of the known universe and theory based on entities outside the known universe - one is at least able to be understood in known terms; the other is, at least through human logic, theoretically unknowable. I would say that in theory, there is nothing within the universe that cannot ultimately be understood with human reason - I would not presume to make such a claim for anything supposed to exist outside the universe.

But a correct observation and study of the “known universe” would inevitably lead a person to the conclusion that there simply must be entities outside the known universe, which unfortunately for the time being, man may not have the equipment to observe and study in the manner that he does to the entities inside the known universe.

The fact, for example, about living things. We understand based on studies and experiments conducted since “unknown” time that life simply cannot come forth from purely non-life. But life exists. This observable fact inevitably gives rise to the conclusion that there must have been a living entity existing outside of the known universe.

 

[Sair]

But a correct observation and study of the “known universe” would inevitably lead a person to the conclusion that there simply must be entities outside the known universe, which unfortunately for the time being, man may not have the equipment to observe and study in the manner that he does to the entities inside the known universe.

The fact, for example, about living things. We understand based on studies and experiments conducted since “unknown” time that life simply cannot come forth from purely non-life. But life exists. This observable fact inevitably gives rise to the conclusion that there must have been a living entity existing outside of the known universe.

There may well come a time when humanity is in a position to observe phenomena occurring outside our universe - whether such phenomena turn out to be other universes with physical laws, absolute nothingness, or a transcendent creative being, or all of the above. I don’t anticipate it in my lifetime, but you never know! At present I would certainly agree that we lack the tools to be able to know anything outside our universe and independent of matter and physical phenomena as we know them.

As to the life question - this is the one thing that keeps me wondering about the presence of a spiritual aspect to the universe, or what may practically be called a soul. My speculation leads me to wonder if this ensouling spirit is in fact what makes living things live. To the best of my knowledge, scientists have managed to synthesise and assemble the components of living organisms in a laboratory environment, but they have not been able to make life. Part of me hopes they never will.

 

[TheWhim]

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.

Well, we’ve certainly reached a level of rather difficult considerations.

There was no physical change occuring before the first event(otherwise it obviously wouldn’t be termed the first event). And in principle it is very true that anything that is physical requires a state of potentiality. However, in the physical universe we come to think of such a state of potentiality as preceding the effect in time. This law cannot be applied to the first event in the universe because time itself began with the first event and there was no time to precede it, thus there was no potentiality to precede it and to require that such a potentiality should have existed preceding the first event is to require for something that is a logical contradiction in itself. It’s virtually the same like asking: Why didn’t God create the world sooner? The answer is all too obvious: because there was no sooner. You demand: There must be potentiality preceding the first event! Again, the reply is all too obvious: there was no potentiality to precede it.