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

[JDaniel]

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).

Hmmm. That’s interesting.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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

What must be remembered is that the universe was NOT CAUSED, rather, it was CREATED. I’ve defined “creation” in another thread for MindOverMatter, just recently. I defined it as, “bringing something into being where nothing was before.”

God bless,
jd

 

[bogeydogg]

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.

I think the biggest problem is that neither of us accepts the other’s definition of Creator. You insist on a creator who experiences time as we do, while Scripture tells us the Creator very specifically does not experience time as we do but rather is all present without change. So it is not that we disagree over whether or not the universe has a cause but what the nature of that cause is. Since the being of God is inextricably wrapped up in the nature of God it is impossible to argue about the necessity of a Creator if one insists the other adopt his definition which I am not willing to do and I suspect you are not either.

But I notice that on your heading you say you are Roman Catholic. As such the Church has very clear Doctrine concerning the nature of God and His very timelessness. That being said I wonder how you have come to define Creator with such a non Roman Catholic understanding.

God Bless

 

[Bill_Marshall]

The Old Truck Driver wants to take a stab at this too.

The property that leads us to conclude the need for a cause is simple.
The Universe will end. Atomic movement will stop as the energy burns up.
Finite is its end and therefore it had a beginning.

God ! Who by definition needs neither time nor matter. He is All in All

Thanks be to God for All he has blessed us with.

 

[greylorn]

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

Yeah, human nature is great. We’re the only species that cheats its fellows at cards and business. Were it not for chimpanzees, we’re the only species whose individuals frequently murder one another, often by ganging up on the helpless. We steal from one another at every chance— I can’t even let “friends” in the house without something of value growing legs.

We are sure a fine lot. Our members often rape and brutalize their fellows for the sheer “fun” of it. We rape and molest our own children, and these days, openly operate lucrative pornography networks featuring children. To facilitate this, we have developed computer and satellite technology so that dirty old men don’t have to twiddle their thumbs awaiting downloads of pictures of children being raped. The ACLU openly defends NAMBLA, the National Man-Boy Love Association, to insure the rights of rotten old men to rape children. It’s all about free speech, of course. Sometimes we capture child rapists and send them to trial, where a fat scumbag of a judge sentences them to a few years probation. Don’t even wonder why. But we have a justice system, sort of. Where else but on the Supreme Court of the world’s most powerful nation can one find Judges who vote like a jerked knee against the Constitution they swore to defend. Where else can one find a Justice who looks and dresses like a vulture?

But humans are great organizers. The only species that forces or pays large numbers of young men to wage war against other groups of similarly organized young men. Americans are the best, and clever too. Which of our brilliant immigrant settlers thought of eradicating the troublesome natives by giving them free blankets— that had been used by smallpox victims?

But we have our redeeming values. We’ve invented religion. Here’s a quiz, which of the two religions currently regarded as a “great, worldwide religion,” invented the Inquisition, an organized instrument of heinous torture and repression of free thought? Which one teaches its followers to take over foreign lands by force (that means, organized and unjustified murder of its citizens) and subsequently kill remaining citizens who refuse to convert?

IMO human beings, with a very few exceptions, are an ignorant, untrustworthy, and bloodthirsty lot. Plus, they are too opinionated to ever learn anything. You are certainly right that human nature has a non-material dimension not found elsewhere.

I’m looking for that “elsewhere.”

 

[greylorn]

The Old Truck Driver wants to take a stab at this too.

The property that leads us to conclude the need for a cause is simple.
The Universe will end. Atomic movement will stop as the energy burns up.
Finite is its end and therefore it had a beginning.

God ! Who by definition needs neither time nor matter. He is All in All

Thanks be to God for All he has blessed us with.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and does not burn up. It does not have an end, and therefore energy does not have a beginning.

If God did not need time or matter, why did He create the junk?

You may have parked your truck in the wrong forum. This is supposedly about philosophy, not reiteration of dogma or the invention of your own physics.

 

[Windfish]

But we have our redeeming values. We’ve invented religion. Here’s a quiz, which of the two religions currently regarded as a “great, worldwide religion,” invented the Inquisition, an organized instrument of heinous torture and repression of free thought? Which one teaches its followers to take over foreign lands by force (that means, organized and unjustified murder of its citizens) and subsequently kill remaining citizens who refuse to convert?

lol, you’re wrong about Catholicism AND Islam, here!

 

[greylorn]

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?

This is easily answered, but the answer would be way off-topic. The context of the answer can only occur in the consideration of a pre-universe state capable of generating its creator.

Until the, ah, “philosophers” on this thread figure out the answer to the age-old philosophical question, “If a tree fell in the forest on the head of a philosopher too dumb to move aside, would anyone care?” don’t hold your breath waiting for any of them to tackle what is essentially a physics question.

Besides, since you’ve not bothered to reply to post #36, what’s the point of honoring any question of yours with a serious answer? Why ring the doorbell when the sign out front says, “Nobody’s home?” What’s your answer to your own question?

 

[greylorn]

lol, you’re wrong about Catholicism AND Islam, here!

I only provided the details. You connected them with names.

Great riposte, sending along a cartoon image of a childish nitwit with his tongue hanging out, maybe awaiting a fly. Are you posting here as a remedial kindergarten course requirement?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

By the “stuff” of the universe, I’ll assume that you are speaking of energy, which according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, cannot be created or destroyed. This law validates your premise.

The stuff itself cannot have a cause.

However, the universe is an interesting place because the stuff (energy) is structured into different forms (electric charge, mass, motion, radiation, etc.) The existence of each of these represents an ordering of the stuff contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The most elementary study of classical physics will show that we live in a cause-effect universe. Without cause, there are no effects. A finite being is clearly an “effect,” and not its own cause.

Interesting question, by the way.

Hello greylorn!

You seem to be a controversial figure on the Catholic Answers forums. I, personally, find your views very interesting, even if I don’t share them, and I have no quarrel with you.

But I’m curious, you seem to deny that there’s a creator in this post, unless I’m misunderstanding-which I probably am. How exactly ARE your views theistic?

For the record, I know next to nothing about physics, so bear with me.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I only provided the details. You connected them with names.

Great riposte, sending along a cartoon image of a childish nitwit with his tongue hanging out, maybe awaiting a fly. Are you posting here as a remedial kindergarten course requirement?

I think he posted that particular emoticon to show that he meant no offense with what he said.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

But we have our redeeming values. We’ve invented religion. Here’s a quiz, which of the two religions currently regarded as a “great, worldwide religion,” invented the Inquisition, an organized instrument of heinous torture and repression of free thought? Which one teaches its followers to take over foreign lands by force (that means, organized and unjustified murder of its citizens) and subsequently kill remaining citizens who refuse to convert?

My problem with this is that it has nothing to do with the possible truthood or falsity of said religions.

I’m not sure if those are actual words, but you get my gist.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Lot of different concepts here. With the original OP sounding straight out of Stephen Hawking’s Brief History of Time.

First the Big Bang 13.7 million years ago. What still remains true a constant is SPACE existed before the big bang.

With space existing we must also have some concept of time. Though this concept of time may be very different that that which we perceive it to be

What was here before the Universe as we know it? Planets, Solor Systems, Galaxys etc. Well if nothing else there must have been Space, Gas and Time. How could you conclude otherwise to come to the Big Bang? So all which existed, already existed just in another form.

In other words, if there is no time. Then there is nothingness, no movement, everything is at perfect stand still this moment, as the one before, and as the moment to come. This would explain “no time”. How could no-time exist in order for anything to happen? No cause and effect could possibly exist.

No one denies there was “something” here before the Big Bang. This is the first wrong assumption. You can’t create something from nothing? There was not a Universe as we know it today. But there was something. Space, Gas and Time existed.

Theres one other force which we are missing…Gravity. We know that gravity is intimately related to space and time And Gravity is the biggest challange of the 21st century. Without gravity, space and time would vanish.The 1915 Theory by Einstien, General Relativity. After over 90 years of detailed study of this theory, no error has yet been found. On the contrary many of its predictions have been confirmed.

I conclude everything that begins to exist, must have a cause and effect . If the universe began to exist which it did. Then it also must have a cause. The findings regarding deep space today without a doubt make the belief of God much more accepable than 100-years ago the idea that God created the universe is a much more respectable hypothesis now. Hey lets face it, not everyone was estatic about the ripples observed from the Big Bang. Even in the face of all this evidence, many still believe in the steady-state theory? And many scientists are offended by the mere thought that their conclusions are colored by religious belief.

Time is the dimension in which Cause and Effect take place. If times beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the Universe as the Time/Space therom states.Then the cause of the Universe must have some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent and pre-existent to the time dimension of the universe. An EFFECT. Thats a powerfully important conclusion to our understanding to who God is and who God isn’t. For one its tells us the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the limits of our universe. It tells us GOD is “not” the universe itself. And it tells us God is NOT contained by the Universe?

Whats else is there to conclude from that which we know?

 

[Luke_K]

Okay, I am going to give you a chance, because you claim to be catholic and willing to learn.

Firstly; terms like before and after, certainly imply time. However they can be used in a different context that is just as relevant to objective reality. For instance, before I can think I must first have a brain. Before I can see, I must have eyes. Before i can be concious of my being i must first exist. Thus we see clear evidence that terms like “before” can be used in the sense of function, sufficiency or ontology, rather than in the sense of time.

Secondly, before we can move on, you keep saying there is no before time, which appears on the surface to be meaningful and consistent. But you do not explain what you mean by time. What do you mean when you say time?

This answers the most recent two questions I asked about cause-effect outside of time. I’m sorry I did not read this carefully earlier, thanks.

I’ve read most of what everyone has posted here, and here is what I’ve concluded (for now):
-The property of the universe that leads us to conclude that the universe is contingent is that it changes.
-To say that something “simply is” is to say that the answers to the questions “Is it?” and “What is it?” are the same. Its essence is its existence.
-If this “simply existing” being were to change, the only thing that could change is its transition from existence to non-existence.
-Since the universe and all that is in it changes, yet does not cease to exist that means it does not simply exist.

What do I mean by time? I suppose I mean “The dimension which allows change, in contrast to dimensions of space which allow extensibility.” When I say “there is no time when the universe did not exist” I’m viewing time as a line and saying we can’t point to a spot on the line where the universe did not exist.

By the “stuff” of the universe, I’ll assume that you are speaking of energy, which according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, cannot be created or destroyed. This law validates your premise.

The stuff itself cannot have a cause.

However, the universe is an interesting place because the stuff (energy) is structured into different forms (electric charge, mass, motion, radiation, etc.) The existence of each of these represents an ordering of the stuff contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The First Law is more about bookkeeping than a philosophical assertion that matter-energy was never created. It just tells you that any change in the internal energy of a system has to be accounted for by heat or work, not the spontaneous generation of stuff. I guess we could say that since the system of the universe was created along with the energy and matter, it avoids the problem of violating the law. But I think it’s silly to say that the creation of the universe could violate the universe’s laws anyways.

The existence of those things you listed is not contrary to the 2nd Law. The 2nd law just limits the availability of energy and the ways in which it can be used and converted. However much available energy there was for useful work at the beginning of the universe, it will irreversibly decrease as time goes on. It’s fine for stuff to be ordered and useful now, but eventually the engine we call the universe will run down.

 

[greylorn]

Hello greylorn!

You seem to be a controversial figure on the Catholic Answers forums. I, personally, find your views very interesting, even if I don’t share them, and I have no quarrel with you.

Curious. I figured that my views are largely ignored. “Interesting,” works for me, since that is how I hold my own ideas. I appreciate a good argument, and you’ll be treated kindly if your arguments come from your own mind and your heart, representing ideas you have not only given honest thought to, but ideas which you care about. I’m really here to teach, and to learn, not to quarrel.

But I’m curious, you seem to deny that there’s a creator in this post, unless I’m misunderstanding-which I probably am. How exactly ARE your views theistic?

Here’s the relevant post section, for reference:
"greylorn:

By the “stuff” of the universe, I’ll assume that you are speaking of energy, which according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, cannot be created or destroyed. This law validates your premise.

The stuff itself cannot have a cause.

However, the universe is an interesting place because the stuff (energy) is structured into different forms (electric charge, mass, motion, radiation, etc.) The existence of each of these represents an ordering of the stuff contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The most elementary study of classical physics will show that we live in a cause-effect universe. Without cause, there are no effects. A finite being is clearly an “effect,” and not its own cause.

This post implies the opposite of what you inferred. Without a Creator, there would be no structure.

However, if you came to this from the conventional beliefs in the nature of God, your misinterpretation is understandable. Those beliefs assume the illogical existence of a Creator who had no origin and Who cannot have a creative thought (precluded by the omniscience property), yet Who created from nothing something which by its intrinsic nature cannot be created (energy). These beliefs have no logical basis.

My God-concept is explained in my soon-to-be-published book, and details are not appropriate here. Put simply and succinctly, God is:

• Several.
• Logic limited.
• Constrained by the First and Third Laws of Thermodynamics, but not the Second.
• Limited in knowledge and power.
• Looking after His own long-term self-interest.
• As “benevolent” as Nancy Pelosi.
• Means us no particular harm, or happiness.
• Did not create us, and therefore cannot be blamed for our pitifully small intelligence.
• Does not give a hoot about any human as individual.
• Is probably unaware of the existence of our silly planet, except as His planet managers have reported back.
• He created the universe from energy, and did not need to create energy, since it has always existed.

These concepts and others are not consistent with religious beliefs, but are consistent with the laws of physics, the evidence of evolution, and, in fact, every bit of evidence we have available, including religious, spiritual, psychic and past life feedback, the ranges of human intelligence, etc.

For the record, I know next to nothing about physics, so bear with me.

The only posters I have trouble with in this respect are the nitwits who don’t know any physics but have watched the documentary networks and maybe read a pop-science magazine or two, and fancy themselves knowledgeable. I love to teach those who care to learn. Admitting ignorance is an honest first step. Been there, had to do that, and will repeat those processes.

 

[greylorn]

I think he posted that particular emoticon to show that he meant no offense with what he said.

When I genuinely mean no offense, I say so, or post a smile.

Once upon a time a jerk posted, in real life, his bare buttocks. I took him at his :“word,” figuring that he had no better way to express whatever passed in him for thoughts. He has healed.

 

[Luke_K]

You are playing a linguistic trick and committing the logical error of equivocation.

You are saying

A> At no time did the stuff in the universe not exist

B> Time is a property of the universe

C> Since time is a property of the universe, and at no time did the universe not exist, therefore the universe has always existed.

The statement is true by force of irresistible logic, you are basically saying the universe exists because it exists. Even a Theist would agree with this.

You make a good point here that I just realized now that I have actually defined “time” for myself. When I say that there was no time when the universe did not exist, I’m really just saying that there was no state of the universe in which the universe did not exist. But I might as well just say that something cannot be in a “state” of non-existence, which is obvious.

I really do not follow the rest of your post, however.

 

[R_Daneel]

I think the biggest problem is that neither of us accepts the other’s definition of Creator. You insist on a creator who experiences time as we do, while Scripture tells us the Creator very specifically does not experience time as we do but rather is all present without change. So it is not that we disagree over whether or not the universe has a cause but what the nature of that cause is. Since the being of God is inextricably wrapped up in the nature of God it is impossible to argue about the necessity of a Creator if one insists the other adopt his definition which I am not willing to do and I suspect you are not either.

Yes, I guess, that is a good reason why we have a disagreement. Well, the Cathecism explicitly states that pure reason is sufficient to know God’s existence. Of course it stops right there, and does not present an argument, just what that pure, logical argument might be. Which is rather disappointing.

However, one of the alleged “proofs” for God’s existence is the cosmological argument, which starts from the observation of the Universe, and makes inferences from it, allegedly pointing to some external creator. While it is true that such an argument cannot lead to the Christian God, it is supposed to lead some unspecified creator - which would be a huge step toward establishing theism. Once that “unspecified” cause would be established through reason only, one could start a new line of investigation, and see where that would lead.

So, yes, I did not take the Scripture into account. I am staying strictly on rational ground as I was supposed to do. The generic concept of “action” is tied to the concept of “change” which does lead logically to the existence of “time”. And that leads to the problems I delineated in the previous posts. (Mind you, this would not disprove that if this creator would turn out to be the Christian God, then he would be outside our time and thus have all the attributes associated with him.) All I am proving is that whereever this external creator “dwells”, there is a succession of events, and therefore there is time. This result is based upon the postulated “creation”, nothing else.

Which means that the cosmological argument fails, and moreover, the cosmological argument actually disproves the necessity for the existence of an external creator - leading to the atheistic idea that the Universe needs no cause, it is self-sufficient.

But I notice that on your heading you say you are Roman Catholic. As such the Church has very clear Doctrine concerning the nature of God and His very timelessness. That being said I wonder how you have come to define Creator with such a non Roman Catholic understanding.

I am sorry, but that is a misunderstanding. I presented no religious affiliation. I am an atheist who does not believe in any kind of supernatural, or deity.

 

[greylorn]

The First Law is more about bookkeeping than a philosophical assertion that matter-energy was never created. It just tells you that any change in the internal energy of a system has to be accounted for by heat or work, not the spontaneous generation of stuff. I guess we could say that since the system of the universe was created along with the energy and matter, it avoids the problem of violating the law. But I think it’s silly to say that the creation of the universe could violate the universe’s laws anyways.

The existence of those things you listed is not contrary to the 2nd Law. The 2nd law just limits the availability of energy and the ways in which it can be used and converted. However much available energy there was for useful work at the beginning of the universe, it will irreversibly decrease as time goes on. It’s fine for stuff to be ordered and useful now, but eventually the engine we call the universe will run down.

You make up your own opinions about the first law of thermodynamics, labeling it bookkeeping and philosophy. I first learned this law in Physics 301a and have always thought of it as a principle of fundamental physics. Then you apply your religious beliefs to the principle.

Next, you parrot entropic dogma without considering the useful possibility of a Creator’s interference.

I’ve had discussions with guys like you before, and until I learn how to catch small eels in large snot-buckets, I’ve no interest is re-engaging another unimaginative dogmatist. Sorry. I’d thought better of you initially.

 

[greylorn]

My problem with this is that it has nothing to do with the possible truthood or falsity of said religions.

I’m not sure if those are actual words, but you get my gist.

I’m glad that you brought up this pernicious perspective.

Consider that no one has ever had to threaten or murder people to get them to recognize a better idea. Force is used to get people to live with bad ideas and false principles. Good ideas eventually win their own place.

Christianity was so superior to Roman paganism that it found its own way. It did not begin with Christians murdering Romans and raping and torturing their pet lions.

An honest Christian might ask how it came to be that Christ’s teachings needed to be preserved and enforced a few centuries later by the torture, degradation, and murder of Christians or anyone else.

But by the time of the Reformation and Inquisition, the Church had adopted policies and dogmas which departed from Christ’s original teachings, Intelligent men questioned these. Martin Luther did not have to torture people to acquire followers. Calvin’s adherents accepted his teachings on their merit, not because of coercion. Etc.

It has been suggested that the Church’s greatest shame was its threatening of Galileo. I regard it a greater shame that Copernicus withheld his ideas from publication until after his death, for fear of retribution from the Church he had served his entire life.

You’ll note that mathematical logic is universally accepted, around the world, and across all belief systems. 2+2=4 is not in disagreement in any ideology, and is as useful for illiterate fish mongers as for NASA rocket scientists.

You’ll also note that physics is similarly accepted. While there is some inquiry at high levels about the implications of quantum mechanics, and other esoteric topics, these are most often conducted without thumbscrews or automatic weapons. You might also notice that our enemies (Islam, communism, etc.) employ the exact same laws of physics in the construction of their weaponry as we do. Nations living under absurd belief systems may compel the behavior and beliefs of their citizens by force, but seem content to have their engineers study Western physics.

The differences between religions and science have only to do with truth, and the inherent value of logic and honest evidence over belief. I submit that your premise is entirely incorrect, and that EVERYTHING has to do with the truth or falsity of religions, as with anything else.

If our religions were any good, they would all have followed Galileo out of the dark ages and into a world ruled by truth. By dragging their minds behind, they have lost all but the pretense of valid moral authority among educated people, having given it up to the atheistic principles which Darwinism inevitably fosters.

Note that the kind of force which is keeping the concept of Intelligent Design out of your kids’ and grandkids’ textbooks, forcing them to learn Darwinism as truth, is the same coercive force used by various religions to promote their own beliefs.

If our religious beliefs were valid, they would not be struggling against such an illogical, irrelevant, and absurd belief system as Darwinism.

Note that Darwinism has become such a powerful and intimidating force, that threads devoted to its discussion are banned from this Catholic site.