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

[Luke_K]

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?

 

[Windfish]

First of all, can you explain your first thought? How can energy or matter exist in a state of no (or negative) space and no (or negative) time?

 

[Luke_K]

First of all, can you explain your first thought? How can energy or matter exist in a state of no (or negative) space and no (or negative) time?

Time is a property of the universe, so everything that comprises the universe has existed at every moment of time that has existed.

 

[bibleguy180]

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?

Before the big bang the stuff in the universe did not exist. It has to have a cause because things don’t randomly POOF! out of nowhere. Finite beings have to be created by something, they can’t just pop up either.

 

[Windfish]

Time is a property of the universe, so everything that comprises the universe has existed at every moment of time that has existed.

But it didn’t exist pre-Big Bang did it? Are you saying pre-Big Bang is not the universe?

 

[Luke_K]

Before the big bang the stuff in the universe did not exist. It has to have a cause because things don’t randomly POOF! out of nowhere. Finite beings have to be created by something, they can’t just pop up either.

This is where everybody trips up. You cannot talk about “before” the big bang. It just doesn’t make sense. Then you might as well talk about before-before the big bang, and before that, until you have an infinite series. Time is part of the universe, so you can’t apply it to that which is not the universe.

How do you know that finite beings cannot “just exist”? That’s what I’m asking here.

 

[AdriannaJean]

It’s a simple deduction:

A) The Universe is a finite, physical entity.
B) Every other finite physical entity has a cause.
C) Therefore the Universe should also have a cause.

There just doesn’t seem to be sufficient cause (no pun intended) to assume that the universe is any different from every other finite physical entity.

 

[DOShea]

Well there are a few different arguments here.

IF your argument is that the universe (and presumably everything in it) is eternal, what is the proof you are offering for this argument?

St. Thomas Aquinas made at least one argument against this notion, and it had to do with probabilities and death. His premises were, given infinite time, all possibilities that could occur would. Also, unless any living thing had the power of self-existence, once something died it could not remain alive or come back to life. Aquinas argued that, if the universe was infinite in time, and everything has the probability to die off, then everything would die off. They haven’t.

The other argument appears to be about existence or being. I’ve never seen any proof (even bad proof) for infinite being, meaning life existing as far back as we could possibly look, yet it should be there if existence has been eternal. If it has not been eternal, then it had to be created since “poofing” into existence would violate the law of non-contradiction. Another way to state that is that if at one time there was nothing, left on its own there would never be anything but nothing since there isn’t anything that can come from nothing. But there is something now. That suggests the only two possibilities are: it always was (eternal), or it was created. If it was created - from nothing - it would take a self-existent being to do that. We call that being God.

What sort of proof would you offer for the idea that it was eternal rather than created?

 

[Luke_K]

It’s a simple deduction:

A) The Universe is a finite, physical entity.
B) Every other finite physical entity has a cause.
C) Therefore the Universe should also have a cause.

How do you know B? I assume your line of thinking is that “I didn’t always exist, but then I did because I was caused.” The arrangement of the stuff that comprises your body has not always existed, but the stuff always has (by “always” I mean at no point in time did it not exist). That is the same for every cause-effect we observe. They are all relationships in which one arrangement of stuff changes to another. There are no cause-effect relationships we have observed in the universe in which “stuff” which exists has caused other stuff to exist.

 

[bibleguy180]

This is where everybody trips up. You cannot talk about “before” the big bang. It just doesn’t make sense. Then you might as well talk about before-before the big bang, and before that, until you have an infinite series. Time is part of the universe, so you can’t apply it to that which is not the universe.

How do you know that finite beings cannot “just exist”? That’s what I’m asking here.

No, you can talk about before the big bang. The universe we live in did not exist prior to that.
So the question becomes what did God do before? I see no problem in Him having multiple universes running, being able to do everything.

 

[Luke_K]

Well there are a few different arguments here.

IF your argument is that the universe (and presumably everything in it) is eternal, what is the proof you are offering for this argument?

St. Thomas Aquinas made at least one argument against this notion, and it had to do with probabilities and death. His premises were, given infinite time, all possibilities that could occur would. Also, unless any living thing had the power of self-existence, once something died it could not remain alive or come back to life. Aquinas argued that, if the universe was infinite in time, and everything has the probability to die off, then everything would die off. They haven’t.

The other argument appears to be about existence or being. I’ve never seen any proof (even bad proof) for infinite being, meaning life existing as far back as we could possibly look, yet it should be there if existence has been eternal. If it has not been eternal, then it had to be created since “poofing” into existence would violate the law of non-contradiction. Another way to state that is that if at one time there was nothing, left on its own there would never be anything but nothing since there isn’t anything that can come from nothing. But there is something now. That suggests the only two possibilities are: it always was (eternal), or it was created. If it was created - from nothing - it would take a self-existent being to do that. We call that being God.

What sort of proof would you offer for the idea that it was eternal rather than created?

I’m not asserting that the universe is eternal. I’m asserting that the universe is finite. What I’m asking is why a finite universe needs to be caused in order to exist.

---

There was no time when there was no universe. This is not the same as being eternal*** I’ve explained why already.

 

[Luke_K]

No, you can talk about before the big bang.

No, you can’t, because terms like “before” and “prior” are all based on time, which is an intrinsic property of the universe and does not exist outside of it. Look at it this way, was there any amount of time between when God willed the creation of the universe and it was created? No. Therefore, since God and his will are eternal, there was no time before the universe existed.

 

[Windfish]

No, you can’t, because terms like “before” and “prior” are all based on time, which is an intrinsic property of the universe and does not exist outside of it. Look at it this way, was there any amount of time between when God willed the creation of the universe and it was created? No. Therefore, since God and his will are eternal, there was no time before the universe existed.

Surely, there had to be some state which preceded the Big Bang? Or are you suggesting that it was suspended at that BB moment, and then, suddenly, exploded? Weren’t we just talking about a pre-universe in the other thread? Throw us a bone here, and try to work out, for yourself (since you seem to have some grasp of the knowledge), how what we’re saying is possible.

 

[bibleguy180]

No, you can’t, because terms like “before” and “prior” are all based on time, which is an intrinsic property of the universe and does not exist outside of it. Look at it this way, was there any amount of time between when God willed the creation of the universe and it was created? No. Therefore, since God and his will are eternal, there was no time before the universe existed.

Which is where the multiverse theory comes in

 

[ChristianSurfer]

No, you can’t, because terms like “before” and “prior” are all based on time, which is an intrinsic property of the universe and does not exist outside of it. Look at it this way, was there any amount of time between when God willed the creation of the universe and it was created? No. Therefore, since God and his will are eternal, there was no time before the universe existed.

Stop hurting my head! :hypno:

this is some serious brain food here

 

[Nan_S]

No, you can’t, because terms like “before” and “prior” are all based on time, which is an intrinsic property of the universe and does not exist outside of it. Look at it this way, was there any amount of time between when God willed the creation of the universe and it was created? No. Therefore, since God and his will are eternal, there was no time before the universe existed.

You’re right. The closest way to semi-accurately describe “before time” is to say “outside of time.” Time could have already existed before the universe existed. But all we can say for sure is that starting at the moment of creation (the Big Bang) time had to also exist.

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

Just this - we have two contradictory statements:

1. The universe had a beginning. At a certain moment (which we can date) and a certain place (which we can trace), an infinitely large volume of matter suddenly emerged from an infinitely small singularity.
2. Matter can not create itself. Matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed, only transformed (according to the laws of physics which operate within this universe).

Question: How can you have the beginning of something which can not create itself?
Answer: Something else was behind it. Something else caused it.

 

[JimG]

I would say that the property of the universe which leads us to conclude that it must have a cause, is the property of contingency. It is a contingent being, as are all its component parts.

Contingency is the property of not having existence as the essence of a being.
(God, on the other hand, has an essence which is existence. He could not “not be” because existence is his essence.

Contingent beings, like humans, rocks, cats, and molecules have existence only contingently. They exist, but they might not have existed. They don’t exist necessarily; they might not exist. They possess their existence only contingently. So we postulate a non-contingent being as their cause.

As for the universe possibly being eternal: No good theologian would ascribe eternity to the universe or to any mutable being. The universe is subject to change, and time is a measure of changes.

Philosophically, eternity is the property of not having any extension in time. It is the property of possessing one’s existence all at once rather than piecemeal over a temporal series.

There’s no particular reason, however, why the universe could not exist as an infinite series. An infinite series is not eternal, but temporal. And it would still need a cause.

(I do not think that the universe does extend in time both backward and forward as an infinite temporal series, but see no particular objection to it. In any case, the Big Bang theory has a certain elegance to it.

 

[R_Daneel]

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?

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.

 

[JohnDamian]

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.

Ockhams razor cannot be used to deny putative entities; only to elect a restraint of positive positioning. The razor is not a tool of negation; but a tool of restraint. This is clear in his Summa Logicae.

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

This is a posteriori incorrect. No observable functions in the universe happen nessecarily.

 

[Windfish]

Interesting, RDaneel. I enjoyed your line of logic, but I must disagree.

No one should say that “there was a time when the Universe did not exist.” That is indeed an incoherent statement, primarily because the universe IS time but also space, so that they form a fabric and contain all matter and energy. That sum total of time, space, matter, and energy is the universe.

Rather, and more appropriately, I would affirm the statement, “A finite time ago, our universe came into existence.” This more accurate statement does not assume time before the universe. In fact, the initial moment of time, which we indicate using a singularity, marks the edge of spacetime so that space and time literally come into being in the immediately proceeding moment.

This is the standard model among cosmologists, which is why you will often hear the universe being called 13.7 billion years old. That is the “finite time ago” I am referring to in the statement I affirm.

You cannot rightly suggest that the universe has always existed because this would commit the fallacy of infinite regress. In an infinite time, all possibilities would be realized in our universe. There are several problems that this would create if true, but suffice it to say that an infinite of anything can never be realized in spacetime. despite what you seem to be suggesting. If our universe has always existed, then an infinite amount of events have already occurred, which is impossible.

You argue that atheists and theists essentially submit similar statements with the theistic statement being unnecessarily more complex and therefore unnecessary on whole as an explanation. Good use of Occam’s Razor, but the premises it is built on are false.

1. You argue that the universe–that is, spacetime and the sum total of all matter and energy–simply exists and does not need a cause. I have shown already that in fact it does need a cause*, it did come into existence, and scientists know roughly how long ago it came into existence. Since the universe is a created being, it requires a cause.
2. God exists outside of the universe–including spacetime. This is not simply an arbitrary assertion, but a necessary reality! Why? Because if God was bound by spacetime, or even just space or time, he could not be the cause of the universe, which has spacetime as a component. Something which is among the universe cannot cause the universe without committing the fallacy of begging the question.

So God exists outside of the universe and because of that he really does not require a cause. For how can we speak of a cause outside the context of time? The terms “before,” “after,” “cause,” and “effect” only make sense within the context of time, just as you cannot go left without space to turn left within! Therefore, since these terms mean nothing outside of time, the question “What caused God?” is incoherent and thus negligible.

Therefore, the atheist statement dissolves into error, and the theistic explanation is vindicated by deductive reasoning; no Occam’s Razor needed here.

The existence of God can be proven by philosophical means because it is an intrinsic truth. Just as you do not need to be Christian to see that murder and rape are evil, all humans ought to be able to perceive God through their faculties of reason and sense. Some things have indeed been revealed to us by God, such as the deep truths of the Christian faith especially regarding Christ, but first we must establish the basic reality that a God exists.

*To reiterate:

1. If the universe was not caused, so that it has always existed, then certain incoherences arise. For instance, in a universe which extends into the past ad infinitum, all events in the present have been realized. However, we see that this is not the case and so the universe could not have always existed. I could go on, but suffice it to say that this assertion is so problematic, it has been termed “the fallacy of infinite regress”.
2. According to empirical evidence, the universe is actually relatively young, dating in age about 13.7 billion years. You must realize that the standard model adopted by cosmologists places a singularity 13.7 billion years ago, representing the reality that the universe did not always exist and in fact came into existence at that time (t=0).

For these reasons, we understand that the universe requires, not only a cause, but a transcendent cause which is free from the bounds of spacetime (in order to avoid circular reasoning).