What property of the universe leads us to conclude that it required a cause to exist?

[Alindawyl]

The simple assumption is that the Universe needs no cause, no explanation. The whole question of “how did the Universe become as it is” is meaningless and unnecessary. The Universe simply exists. And it is complex enough to fill up our foreseeable future with real research. No need to waste time on empty speculation, unless we realize that it is merely a fun pastime, when we have some free time to “waste”.

So let me see if I understand. You don’t believe an uncaused being (ie, God) exists. You appear to see the logical problems with claiming the universe is uncaused. You also appear to see that there is no logical answer to the question of what the cause of the universe might be in the absence of God. Therefore you reexamine the idea of belief in God…

No, wait. You declare the question meaningless and unnecessary so that you don’t have to reexamine the idea of belief in God.

Nice dodge

 

[R_Daneel]

So let me see if I understand. You don’t believe an uncaused being (ie, God) exists. You appear to see the logical problems with claiming the universe is uncaused. You also appear to see that there is no logical answer to the question of what the cause of the universe might be in the absence of God. Therefore you reexamine the idea of belief in God…

No, wait. You declare the question meaningless and unnecessary so that you don’t have to reexamine the idea of belief in God.

I wonder if you had read the whole post. I am saying that IF there are any logical problems with the Universe as an uncaused entity, the positing of a creator does not solve them.

Nice dodge

Ugh… I drive a Toyota, never a Dodge.

 

[In_Spiration]

What property of the universe leads us to conclude that it required a cause to exist?

The property of its essence not being identical to existence itself. Anything that would not require a cause for its being would have to be utterly simple and immutable.

 

[Alindawyl]

I wonder if you had read the whole post. I am saying that IF there are any logical problems with the Universe as an uncaused entity, the positing of a creator does not solve them.

I did read the whole post. I was questioning why you would state that the universe needs no explanation.

 

[R_Daneel]

I did read the whole post. I was questioning why you would state that the universe needs no explanation.

Very well. I did not mean to belittle you. It is a basic stance. Explanation is the process to reduce something new unto something previously known. I hope we can agree on this basic concept. Now, how could the Universe be reduced onto something else? Theists say that God is the basic principle, and God does not need any explanation nor can God be explained. God just “is” or God “simply exists”. Atheists say the same thing about the Universe, so the two positions are formally indetical - they both posit “something” as the most basic entity that exists.

The question of this thread was: “what is the property of the Universe which would necessitate an ‘outside’ explanation” - which is essentially the cosmologial argument. The answer is: “none”. If you are interested in the details, you might want to read the whole thread. In a nutshell this usually boils down to the “finite amount of time which elapsed since the Big Bang”. I gave my reasons within the thread.

At the end I showed that even if one accepts some kind of an outside creator, the same problems (these are not real problems, of course) happen in that scenario. This makes the God-hypothesis completely unnecessary. That is all.

 

[Alindawyl]

I guess I still don’t understand. How do we know that the universe exists without the need for an external cause?

 

[R_Daneel]

I guess I still don’t understand. How do we know that the universe exists without the need for an external cause?

I did not say we “know”. I said that the assumption of an external cause is not necessary. Why would there be a “need” for external “cause”? What is the propery of the Universe that would necessitate an “external” cause? Besides, since the Universe means “all there is”, the very concept of “external” anything is incoherent. There is nothing outside the Universe, there is nothing “before” the Universe. These categories have no meaning.

 

[Luke_K]

I did not say we “know”. I said that the assumption of an external cause is not necessary. Why would there be a “need” for external “cause”? What is the propery of the Universe that would necessitate an “external” cause? Besides, since the Universe means “all there is”, the very concept of “external” anything is incoherent. There is nothing outside the Universe, there is nothing “before” the Universe. These categories have no meaning.

The word “universe” does not mean “all of reality”, only all that is physical. If you deny the possibility of anything existing which is not physical, then any discussion here is pointless.

Interestingly, the position you hold (as well as most atheists/agnostics today it seems) was recognized by St. Thomas 800 years ago as one of two objections to the existence of God (the other being evil):

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.
…
Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

Whether or not you find the reply convincing, I just think it’s interesting that the modern atheist movement is really nothing new.

 

[Windfish]

R Daneel, please don’t break up my posts. It would make it easier to respond to you.

I meant to say that the big bang takes place at t=0 and in the immediately proceeding moment. That was a simply typo.

It is not a contradiction to say that the singularity is infinitely dense and nothing because to begin with, infinite density implies nothing. If something is so dense, that it doesn’t even have dimensions, it is nothing.

Now the next paragraph will probably be the most important:

You almost completely ignored my defense of P2 in order to attack my use of the word “thermodynamics”. I was just listing a proposed ways in which the universe will die. My point is that because the universe has not died yet, all possibilities have not been realized. Further, you ignored my point about how since the following moment to the present has not yet occurred, all possibilities have not been realized. P2 still stands, and in turn, so does my conclusion.

First of all, I am not proposing a hyperverse or hypertime apart from time. The act of creation begins at t=0 and not a moment prior. That is when I am arguing God began creating. We can say that the first cause was sentient by considering the fact that this cause must be transcendent to spacetime. The only things that can exist outside of spacetime are abstract objects (which do not act) and disembodies minds. There are also other good reasons to assume the creator was sentient; for example, by considering the basis of objective morality.

I see you like to throw around scary words like"magic," but as far as I’m concerned, that is simply a game of semantics and I am not deterred. A transcendent mind which is not bound by the normal physical limitations of our universe could accomplish tasks which we might call magic. This does nothing to undermine the fact that deductively, the cause must be transcendent and sentient.

 

[Alindawyl]

I did not say we “know”. I said that the assumption of an external cause is not necessary. Why would there be a “need” for external “cause”? What is the propery of the Universe that would necessitate an “external” cause? Besides, since the Universe means “all there is”, the very concept of “external” anything is incoherent. There is nothing outside the Universe, there is nothing “before” the Universe. These categories have no meaning.

The only way something can have no external cause is if it is infinite, eternal… however you wish to express the concept of not having a beginning (or end). So I guess that’s the property you’re looking for. The universe isn’t eternal. By all observations, it appears to have a rather definite beginning.

 

[jkiernan56]

Your question is good. As you pointed out later in the thread, the concept of time cannot be applied to the Universe, since it is the property of the Universe. The phrase “the Universe had a beginning” which is just a different form for the phrase “there was a time when the Universe did not exist and then there was a time when the Universe existed” is a nonsensical proposition - because it assumes a time outside the Universe. The Big Bang is not the “beginning of the Universe”. It is the beginning when the “stuff” we call the Universe assumed its current form.

But the problem goes even deeper. Causation is also undefined for the Universe, it is only defined within the Universe. Causation is a physical interaction of particles.

Strangely enough the position of the theists and atheists is exactly indentical - formally. They both stipulate an uncaused entity.

The atheists say: “the Universe simply exists, without a need for an external cause”.
The theists say: “God simply exists, without a need for an external cause. God created the Universe”.

Apart from the fact that this second view introduces the assumption of an external entity (God), it also introduces “magic”. Just how did God create the universe? Matter cannot be created or destroyed. To say that God simply “willed” the Universe exist is not an explanation - it is a thinly veiled assumption that we cannot know. It is just another form of saying: “an unknowable being using unknowable means made it somehow happen” - which is just “magic”.

Using Occam’s razor, we can say that the assumption of God is not necessary, for two reasons. One, it adds no new knowledge, and two, this assumption is unnecessarily complicated. It adds another level, which is by definiton unknowable, and it introduces a “magical factor”. Physical beings interact, and this interaction is explained by the natural sciences. There are no non-physical entities which can act on physical things - at least we have never seen it. Of course, Occam’s razor is not a tool to choose between two hypotheses, it cannot decide of one hypothesis is right and the other one is wrong. It is just a tool to decide if a hypothesis should even be entertained. And so the hypothesis of “God created the Universe” merits no attention.

Of course, the reason to believe God’s existence does not come from some philosophical speculation, it is based upon an alleged “revelation” - which is a whole different ballgame. It is interesting to realize that pretty much everyone believed is “some god’s” existence, before philosophers attempted to “prove” it. It all went downhill from that moment onwards.

That unknowable God you speak of is not unknowable anymore. At the center of the Christian faith is a PERSON - the WORD made FLESH. All that God is, thinks, feels, knows is seen and heard in this one WORD. Get to know Him and you won’t have to wonder what God is like anymore … you won’t have to wonder by looking at beautiful sunsets or whatever else you find most beautiful … .you will know in your own heart and mind there is nothing more beautiful than the Person of Jesus - kind, tender, humble, forgiving, smart, funny, hard on those who think themselves above others, gentle to those with broken hearts/spirits. Jesus is the priceless pearl worth giving your whole life, heart, mind, and soul to. He is the power, the wisdom, and the love of God now visable to human eyes and minds. And Ooo … can I introduce you to His mother Mary yet? smile

 

[grannymh]

There is no point in time when the “stuff” that comprises the universe did not exist. Why must it have a cause? Or, why must a finite being be caused by something else in order to exist?

The property is human nature which clearly has a non-material dimension not found anywhere else.

 

[R_Daneel]

R Daneel, please don’t break up my posts. It would make it easier to respond to you.

Sorry, I like to separate logical parts, and reply to them accordingly.

It is not a contradiction to say that the singularity is infinitely dense and nothing because to begin with, infinite density implies nothing. If something is so dense, that it doesn’t even have dimensions, it is nothing.

If that is the case (and I don’t agree) then God is even “more nothing”, since he does not even have denstity.

You almost completely ignored my defense of P2 in order to attack my use of the word “thermodynamics”. I was just listing a proposed ways in which the universe will die. My point is that because the universe has not died yet, all possibilities have not been realized. Further, you ignored my point about how since the following moment to the present has not yet occurred, all possibilities have not been realized. P2 still stands, and in turn, so does my conclusion.

The “death” of the universe or “heat death” is dependent on the second law of thermodynamics. But that is not all. You posited some death, and that is unfounded. For all we know when the Big Bang occurred, it might have only “released” a finite piece of matter/energy from its infinite supply.

First of all, I am not proposing a hyperverse or hypertime apart from time. The act of creation begins at t=0 and not a moment prior.

T=0 pertains to our time. But unless you say that God created himself at the same “time”, there must be some realm in which God dwells - which is separate from our universe. In that realm God acted. And an act without time is logically incoherent. Therefore from the fact of creation it follows that the realm where God dwells must have some kind of “time”.

That is when I am arguing God began creating. We can say that the first cause was sentient by considering the fact that this cause must be transcendent to spacetime.

Sentience does not follow from that.

The only things that can exist outside of spacetime are abstract objects (which do not act) and disembodies minds.

I don’t accept a-priori the concept of “abstract objects”, and “disembodied minds”. That is what you are supposed to prove, not simply posit.

There are also other good reasons to assume the creator was sentient; for example, by considering the basis of objective morality.

Total bogus.

I see you like to throw around scary words like"magic," but as far as I’m concerned, that is simply a game of semantics and I am not deterred. A transcendent mind which is not bound by the normal physical limitations of our universe could accomplish tasks which we might call magic. This does nothing to undermine the fact that deductively, the cause must be transcendent and sentient.

No, it does not. My proposed alternative: the eternal singularity is neither sentient, nor transcendent. And it is as good an explanation as yours, even better, since it does not assume anything special. It is just a singularity, without any features we can detect, and it “emitted” our universe. Since it has an infinitely density and thus infinite amount of matter/energy, it could emit another one.

Mind you, I don’t suggest this seriously, only as a refutation to your argument.

 

[bogeydogg]

Then it is feasible that our observable universe is just a “black hole” in some “hyperverse” (this has nothing to do with the multiverse theory). And that “hyperverse” may also be just a “black hole” in some “superhyperverse”. Who knows? What I mean is that the “finiteness” of the Universe is merely an assumption.

I would like to point out that any and suppositions of hyperverse or multiverse are equally far fetched to the supposedly far fetched notion of the existence of God, and the reason why is simple.

Kant pointed out that to reason from nature to God is inherently flawed because any observations made in the physical universe are necessarily observations of the universe. Therefore to say that we can know something about God or that physical reality can tell us anything about God in a concrete empirical fashion is false because to study the universe is to study the physical and not the transcendent.

Please note I do not think this undoes the classic proofs because Kant and Hume both misunderstood causation in their basic assumption, but insofar as the phenomenal cannot tell us empirically about the nuomenal I think Kant is right.

In the same to say that studying this universe can tell us things about the multiverse or whatever you wish to call it is to make the same mistake.

The difference is that the multiverse theory is propounded by those who wish to get around Hume’s problem of infinite regress and it does not do that at all because then the question is immediately begged, “Well what caused the multiverse?” The answer to which usually comes, “Well maybe it is part of a larger hyperverse.” etc until you have arrived at “turtles all the way down” (Obscure joke inserted for the amusement of the poster)

The point is that what the multiverse theorists are trying to do is insert the much needed infinite timeless cause into their cosmology without calling it God, which I think is intellectually dishonest especially coming from those who say that God is a cop out used to fill the gaps in theories of existence of those who don’t wish to think about them very hard.

If your cosmology has an efficient sufficient infinite cause that acts exactly like a creator but you refuse to call it a creator because your first premise is there is no creator no matter what logic demands, then your theory is, by force of logic, irrational because your first premise refuses to allow for rationality if you find the answer unpleasant.

God Bless

 

[R_Daneel]

I would like to point out that any and suppositions of hyperverse or multiverse are equally far fetched to the supposedly far fetched notion of the existence of God, and the reason why is simple.

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

Windfish proposed that the universe was created at the time of the Big bang. This assertion is based upon two things. One is that the concept of the time extended infinitely into the past suffers from the problem of “traversing an infinite (temporal) distance” - meaning that the “present” cannot be reached when starting from an infinite past. (He did not actually elucidate this, but the argument is very common.) The other is that the universe will “eventually” decay into some hypothetical “end-state” and it has not reached it “yet”. (This is unproven - since it rests on the second law of thermodynamics, which is inapplicable to the whole universe.) Therefore the universe was only around for a finite amount of time. His argument is that from this it follows that the universe was “created”, it needs a “creator”. The “creator” does not dwell in out universe, which is obvious.

Now, my counter-argument is this. From the assumption of “creation”, it follows that the creator “acted”. No matter what the particulars of this “creation” might have been (let there be light… or whatever else), one thing is certain: “there is some time in the realm where the creator dwells”. An “act” (or action) without a before and an after, an act without change, an act without some kind of a “time” is nonsensical. Therefore there is some kind of a “time” in God’s realm. From that it follows that the same problems are evident for that “time” which are supposed to be for our “time”. It cannot extend infinitely into the past, so it had a “beginning”. If everything that had a beginning requires a “creator”, then we are confronted by infinite regress. As you said: “it is turtles all the way down”, which is a venerable old joke.

Summing up: the positing of an external creator does not solve the problem.

 

[bogeydogg]

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

Windfish proposed that the universe was created at the time of the Big bang. This assertion is based upon two things. One is that the concept of the time extended infinitely into the past suffers from the problem of “traversing an infinite (temporal) distance” - meaning that the “present” cannot be reached when starting from an infinite past. (He did not actually elucidate this, but the argument is very common.) The other is that the universe will “eventually” decay into some hypothetical “end-state” and it has not reached it “yet”. (This is unproven - since it rests on the second law of thermodynamics, which is inapplicable to the whole universe.) Therefore the universe was only around for a finite amount of time. His argument is that from this it follows that the universe was “created”, it needs a “creator”. The “creator” does not dwell in out universe, which is obvious.

Now, my counter-argument is this. From the assumption of “creation”, it follows that the creator “acted”. No matter what the particulars of this “creation” might have been (let there be light… or whatever else), one thing is certain: “there is some time in the realm where the creator dwells”. An “act” (or action) without a before and an after, an act without change, an act without some kind of a “time” is nonsensical. Therefore there is some kind of a “time” in God’s realm. From that it follows that the same problems are evident for that “time” which are supposed to be for our “time”. It cannot extend infinitely into the past, so it had a “beginning”. If everything that had a beginning requires a “creator”, then we are confronted by infinite regress. As you said: “it is turtles all the way down”, which is a venerable old joke.

Summing up: the positing of an external creator does not solve the problem.

I disagree because the theist position is not that God created the universe in sometime past but that God created the universe by His own will and power.

The Bible is unclear about how God experiences time except to say that God is eternally constant and unchanging. Thus it follows that God experiences all present and past and future simultaneously and it flows from this that all history is the outworking of the purpose of God’s will is sovereign as it is His own. The clearest evidence of this assertion is found in the Divine Name YHWH or “I Am”. That is God’s purpose is never future but constant and sure.

Thus theologians have always asserted that God transcends time. This does not mean that God lives above our heads, but rather that God experiences being in a fashion which we do not and thus it is incomprehensible to us. In order to give us hints about Himself God must condescend to our level and speak to us about Himself in analogical language ie the eyes of the Lord the Arm of God the Lord walks on the sea the Lord rides on the storm. This does not mean that God requires physical reality to have experience nor does it mean that God has eyes, arms, feet or a body in which to ride, but rather that God’s power is expressed tangibly to us in terms we are able to understand to give us an analogy of that which is finally incomprehensible.

However paradox and finite human understanding is not the same thing as actual contradiction because Scripture never says God has a body and no body, but rather God acting in our time and space expresses Himself in ways we can understand but do not convey univocal reality between our experience and Hid being.

So what is God’s experience?

God’s experience is that He experiences Himself, and in His perfect being is perfect expression lacking nothing and therefore His knowledge of and experience of time is impossible for imperfect contingent beings to grasp fully.

So what do we make of God’s acting in an unchanging being?

I think the best answer comes from Augustine. He said (City of God) that since God experiences all time as now, then it follows that, time being a measure of the universe, has no meaning for God at all and thus, in a sense, one could argue that the universe has no beginning and has existed eternally since it could never be argued that God began to purpose that the universe should be.

So, in other words, the question of “when” is our question, the question concerning the Creator is “that” He purposed to do so and when is an irrelevancy to His being. So the question is not does the universe have a beginning to its existence, but rather does the existence of the universe demand a Creator?

And to that question I think asserting the eternality of the universe does not cut the knot but rather avoids it altogether.

God Bless

PS Glad you liked the joke

 

[R_Daneel]

I disagree because the theist position is not that God created the universe in sometime past but that God created the universe by His own will and power.
PS Glad you liked the joke

Yes, I did, even though I heard it before, but such good insights are “timeless”

Regarding your post, we are not on the same wavelength. I am not taking about God. I am talking about this hypothestical “creator”, who does not dwell in our universe. Nevertheless, it must dwell in some “realm”. In that realm it acted. It performed the act of creating our universe. I am making no other assumptions.

From that assumption I can conclude that there must be some kind of “time” in that realm. The act of creating something divides that “time” into a “before” and an “after”, thereby introducing a past, a present and a future. Since there is a past there, that past is either infinite or not. If it is infinite, we are faced with the problem of traversing an infinity. If that past was finite, it either requires an another “super-creator” or it is uncaused. If it is created, we have an infinte descent (those turtles just keep coming back, don’t they? ) or that realm is finite in the past, yet uncreated. And in this case why assume the creator of our universe? If it is possible that there exists something, which is finite in the past, yet uncreated, then the whole argument for this creator collapses.

That is what I am saying.

 

[Luke_K]

The act of creating something divides that “time” into a “before” and an “after”, thereby introducing a past, a present and a future.

You seem to be raising the counterpoint that I still wonder about, myself. So I open this up to the philosophers here to answer:

How can we distinguish between a timeless cause and a timeless effect, when we only have experiences of actions that have a time delay between cause and effect?
-OR-
How does it make sense to have a cause-effect relationship outside of time?

 

[R_Daneel]

You seem to be raising the counterpoint that I still wonder about, myself. So I open this up to the philosophers here to answer:

How can we distinguish between a timeless cause and a timeless effect, when we only have experiences of actions that have a time delay between cause and effect?
-OR-
How does it make sense to have a cause-effect relationship outside of time?

It does not make any sense. Time is usually viewed as a measurement for change. An action without a change is not an action. And, of course the act of creation of a Universe is a change.

 

[JDaniel]

I guess I still don’t understand. How do we know that the universe exists without the need for an external cause?

Alindawyl:

Because, to the best of our knowledge and belief, the universe is contingent. That means, it is dependent on something else. Not only for its coming-to-be, but also, for its sustainment (if that’s a word!). Since it is contingent and dependent, there had to be something else that brought it into existence and upon which it depends - a “creator”, as, that which is contingent and dependent cannot bring itself into existence, nor sustain itself.

Further, it must be external because if it was in the universe, it would be a part of the universe. Any part of the universe would be as contingent as the rest of it. Therefore, it, too, would necessitate an external cause.

God bless,
jd