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

[Moonstruck888]

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.

Strange, I learned about thermodynamics in Physiscs class too… I don’t recall the lesson when they taught us to apply our religious beliefs to it.

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

It might be better to wait until one example of a energy conversion that does not cause an entropy increase has ever actually been observed before considering the reasons for it.

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.

In other words, now that someone has called me out I’m going to stamp my feet loudly in a strop before running off like a whippet out of trap three…

 

[Moonstruck888]

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

You should stick to physics 301, because Biology is clearly not your strong suit. There isn’t one lifeform on Earth that has been found to deviate from the nested set proposed by Darwin. Out of billions of lifeforms, not one…

Do you believe that could be a coincidence?

 

[Bill_Marshall]

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.

You got me there! I meant matter not energy. I’m certain the theory of relativity will bear this out. When the atoms in matter stop moving the energy that is produced stops with it.

Also note that science has determined that the Universe is shrinking. Think about that.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

greylorn,

It seems to me that somewhere along the way, on your journey through the pages of CAF, someone has deeply wounded you in some way. That is the only possible reason, that I can think of, that would make you so angry that you would make disparaging remark after disparaging remark toward Christianity, and especially the Catholic Church and her adherents herein. Not only do your remarks seem to be made in anger, but, it doesn’t appear that you care about your reputation while making them. Otherwise, you would seek the truth, and relate them to it

As you well know, many more Catholics (or, at least, Catholics-in-name-only), have been booted from CAF for being inhospitable toward atheists, Protestants and those of unknown religious persuasions than any other groups. Also, there is much less freedom for us Catholics than for other groups to give even the appearance on impropriety herein. I don’t know whom or what has offended you so, but, I will apologize for me, first, if I ever have, and my brothers and sisters, second, and hope it is not repeated.

God bless you,
jd

 

[R_Daneel]

As you well know, many more Catholics (or, at least, Catholics-in-name-only), have been booted from CAF for being inhospitable toward atheists, Protestants and those of unknown religious persuasions than any other groups. Also, there is much less freedom for us Catholics than for other groups to give even the appearance on impropriety herein.

I certainly have not made any statistical observations, but by general observation I can agree that there is a very commendable general attitude toward all dissenters. I have never felt any discrimination by the moderators on account of having declared myself atheist. And, yes, sometimes I was astonished that self-proclaimed Catholics have been suspended and even banned. So I cannot complain at all about the way I have been treated here. It is true that I have been personally attacked by a few posters on a few occasions, but that has to be expected and these posts were few and far between. After all I am advocating ideas which go against the generally accepted ideas. As they say, if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

So, don’t worry. The board is hospitable, welcoming and creates a good environment for the exchange of ideas.

 

[jkiernan56]

Also note that science has determined that the Universe is shrinking. Think about that.

Shrinking? Actually all I have read and heard is that the Universe is expanding and picking up speed. Can something expand and shrink at the same time?

 

[JDaniel]

I certainly have not made any statistical observations, but by general observation I can agree that there is a very commendable general attitude toward all dissenters. I have never felt any discrimination by the moderators on account of having declared myself atheist. And, yes, sometimes I was astonished that self-proclaimed Catholics have been suspended and even banned. So I cannot complain at all about the way I have been treated here. It is true that I have been personally attacked by a few posters on a few occasions, but that has to be expected and these posts were few and far between. After all I am advocating ideas which go against the generally accepted ideas. As they say, if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

So, don’t worry. The board is hospitable, welcoming and creates a good environment for the exchange of ideas.

Thank you for your considerate response. As you rightly point out, it is tough, but, it strengthens one’s character. I’ve noticed that you always seem to be a consummate gentleman. Bless you for that.

God bless,
jd

 

[bogeydogg]

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.

I don’t know that to include Scripture is to eliminate rationality.

However the point (ha ha I originally spelled pint) I am making is that the cosmological argument does hold because God does not change. A self existent being would of necessity be uncaused (since to have a cause would eliminate self existence) eternal (because to have a beginning would lead to causation) all powerful (because such a being would have to exist of his own power) and unchanging (because to change implies motion which does away with eternality etc). This is the God which the Bible postulates and such a God is not irrational.

“Ah,” the critic says, “but what about the Law of Causality?”

Well what about it?

The Law of Causality need not demand an uncaused cause be irrational, only that an uncaused effect be irrational.

Of course this does throw wide open the door to the idea that if the universe is no effect then it need no cause, and that of course is true. However I would object given that everything which we see around us (and I freely admit we see only what we see and not more and I am open to further discovery because after all I am not omniscient) does rigorously obey the Law of Causality even if such causes are not always clearly defined.

That being so, the cosmological argument comes into play. We know the universe is expanding and subject to time. We know the universe began to exist. We know that all around us everything we have seen so far that is subject to time and changing and began to exist had a sufficient cause, therefore it is not out of left field to assume that the universe too has a sufficient cause. Also all of these things being true seem to place the universe under the Law of Causality and militates strongly against the universe being self existent.

And if the universe is not self existent then it must have a cause sufficient in power and will to bring it into existence.

Of course such a cause is impossible to know clearly from the physical universe which is exactly why the Church appeals to revelation in order to know about God because apart from revelation any meaningful understanding of God is impossible. Which is why I say these arguments ultimately come down to questions of faith. If we can postulate a Creator from Creation then we need to learn things about said Creator as well, but such knowledge must be alien to us and therefore dependent on revelation. So the question then becomes what sort of revelation is to be believed?

And to that end I again point out (of course) that I am a Christian and therefore argue from a Christian viewpoint. Of course I could do no other. But from that rich tradition we have the wisdom of Augustine who said that since God is eternal and therefore cannot change, then one could not speak intelligibly about time from God’s perspective since time was a means of measure for the physical, finite universe. Therefore to say “When did God create the universe?” is a non sense question since from God’s perspective the universe eternally is since there could never be a “time” when God had not purposed to create, and since everything which God purposes comes to pass, therefore from a certain perspective the universe is eternal.

Just not from our perspective.

God Bless

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Einstein, who wanted the universe to be eternal and without cause, introduced the “cosmological constant” into his equations, thereby obtaining the result he wished to see. However, George LeMaitre corrected Einstein’s math. In a letter to LeMaitre admitting as much, Einstein said: “Since I have introduced this term I have always had a bad conscience.” (September 26, 1947)

Einstein goes on to say, in so many words, that he had violated Ockham’s Razor by introducing a needless element in to his equations that was a direct violation of their simplicity.

The entire scenario of Einstein versus LeMaitre is well documented in John Farrell’s The Day Without Yesterday, (2005).

 

[R_Daneel]

Thank you for your considerate response. As you rightly point out, it is tough, but, it strengthens one’s character. I’ve noticed that you always seem to be a consummate gentleman. Bless you for that.

Thank you very much for your kind words.

 

[R_Daneel]

I don’t know that to include Scripture is to eliminate rationality.

I did not say that it did. I only said that it is not necessary, since the Cathecism itself asserts that one can know God’s existence on fully rational grounds. For me this means without resorting to faith, that is on fully secular grounds, and that is precisely what the cosmological argument is supposed to do.

This is why I only speak of a “creator”, and an “act of creation”. The whole argument I presented is based on these two entites. If there is an act, then there is a change. If there is change, then there is time. If there is time, it either extends infinitely into the past, or it had a starting point. If it extended inifinitely into the past, we have the problem of traversing an infinity. If it had a starting point, then (by the cosmological argument) it needed an external cause and thus the process leads to an infinite regress. That is all.

There is no need to hypothesize about the possible attributes of the purported creator, before the existence of this creator has been established. Therefore to drag God into the question is not allowed, especially since God’s supposed existence is the awaited end point of this argument. It would be a logical error to introduce God’s attributes into one of the premises.

 

[JohnDamian]

There is no need to hypothesize about the possible attributes of the purported creator, before the existence of this creator has been established. Therefore to drag God into the question is not allowed, especially since God’s supposed existence is the awaited end point of this argument. It would be a logical error to introduce God’s attributes into one of the premises.

Absolutely.

To introduce God’s attributes or parts of God; or ideas about God into the premises as proof for the conclusion would be to beg the question.

 

[neophyte]

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

Please define what you mean by “the universe”, and provide a valid argument which demonstrates that everything subject to time is found within it.

 

[Luke_K]

This is why I only speak of a “creator”, and an “act of creation”. The whole argument I presented is based on these two entites. If there is an act, then there is a change. If there is change, then there is time. If there is time, it either extends infinitely into the past, or it had a starting point. If it extended inifinitely into the past, we have the problem of traversing an infinity. If it had a starting point, then (by the cosmological argument) it needed an external cause and thus the process leads to an infinite regress. That is all.

But it’s not appropriate to say that creation changed something. It changed nothing. In order to change something you need that something in the first place, but creation involved the making of a whole being from nothing.

What changed when the universe was created? Nothing.

Please define what you mean by “the universe”, and provide a valid argument which demonstrates that everything subject to time is found within it.

The universe is time, space, and all that is subject to those dimensions.

 

[neophyte]

…The universe is time, space, and all that subject to those dimensions.

So then because everything you observe is in the universe and subject to time, you conclude that everything subject to time is in the universe?

Bit of a logical fallacy there.

 

[Luke_K]

So then because everything you observe is in the universe and subject to time, you conclude that everything subject to time is in the universe?

Bit of a logical fallacy there.

I’m not sure you understand my position or have read this thread thoroughly. I’m not arguing against a creator or non-physical reality.

Nevertheless, it’s still true that time was created, and that humans and everything physical are subject to it, in contrast to God. This is basic Catholic theology.

 

[R_Daneel]

But it’s not appropriate to say that creation changed something. It changed nothing. In order to change something you need that something in the first place, but creation involved the making of a whole being from nothing.

What changed when the universe was created? Nothing.

Oh, come on. According to the theist picture, there was just the creator, dwelling in its realm. Then the act of creation took place, and then there was the creator, still dwelling in its realm, and also there was the brand new entity, our universe in its own realm. How can you say that there was no change? Originally there was one realm, after the creation there were two realms, both existing. If that is not a change, I don’t know what is. The point is that the creator acted. This action separated the creator’s realm into two segments, one when the creation did not take place yet, and another one, when the creation was complete. That fact introduces “time”, with all the corollaries I already described.

 

[Luke_K]

Oh, come on. According to the theist picture, there was just the creator, dwelling in its realm. Then the act of creation took place, and then there was the creator, still dwelling in its realm, and also there was the brand new entity, our universe in its own realm. How can you say that there was no change? Originally there was one realm, after the creation there were two realms, both existing. If that is not a change, I don’t know what is. The point is that the creator acted. This action separated the creator’s realm into two segments, one when the creation did not take place yet, and another one, when the creation was complete. That fact introduces “time”, with all the corollaries I already described.

You seem to be arguing in circles. You’re using temporal words like “and then, after, originally” and concluding that those imply a change. Quite simply, there is the universe, and there is God. The universe requires God for its existence, and not the other way around. From God’s perspective, since he “simply is”, the act of creation is an eternal one. God is just as present at the beginning as he is 100 billion years in our future.

This is not a cheap argument. If there was nothing to change, then nothing changed. Simple. You can’t treat the concept of nothingness like it actually is something which changed.

 

[R_Daneel]

You seem to be arguing in circles. You’re using temporal words like “and then, after, originally” and concluding that those imply a change.

On the very contrary. These words are the necessary corollaries of an act.

Quite simply, there is the universe, and there is God. The universe requires God for its existence, and not the other way around. From God’s perspective, since he “simply is”, the act of creation is an eternal one. God is just as present at the beginning as he is 100 billion years in our future.

You try to bring in God again into one of the premises, and also posit it as the end result. This is a logical fallacy - called question begging.

This is not a cheap argument. If there was nothing to change, then nothing changed. Simple. You can’t treat the concept of nothingness like it actually is something which changed.

It is an irrational argument. Originally there was the creator, then an act of creation took place, and finally there was the creator and the creation - accrding to the cosmological argument, of course…

 

[neophyte]

I’m not sure you understand my position or have read this thread thoroughly. I’m not arguing against a creator or non-physical reality.

Forgive me, Earlier you said “The word “universe” does not mean “all of reality”, only all that is physical.”

Nevertheless, it’s still true that time was created, and that humans and everything physical are subject to it, in contrast to God. This is basic Catholic theology.

Yes. That does not mean that non-physical beings aren’t subject to it as well; I don’t know that they are or not, just drawing the boundaries of the logical conclusions that can be drawn from what I know.

Perhaps St. Thomas has a good discussion of whether or not angels are subject to it as well. My initial gut feeling is that they are, but I’m quickly getting in over my head.

Originally you said that “Time is a property of the universe, so everything that comprises the universe has existed at every moment of time that has existed.” That assumes that time began at the beginning of the universe, but there remains the possibility that it began earlier with the creation of the angels unless they were created simultaneously with the physical order. I’ve always assumed that they were, but that doesn’t mean I’m correct.

So then if angels are subject to time and are outside of the universe as implied by your statement (with which I agree) that the universe includes only that which is physical, then time is not a property of the universe in the sense that everyting subject to time is within the universe.