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

[R_Daneel]

“The universe simply exists, therefore it needs no explanation” sounds a lot like the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion to me. It does nothing to address the question. All it does is seek to divert attention away from the question. It’s as fallacious as “The human race simply exists, therefore we need no explanation.” Or “The earth simply exists, therefore it needs no explanation.”

You misquoted what I said: “The universe simply exists. It needs no explanation”. I did not say or imply your other quotes.

The number of irrelevant questions is infinite. A sample: “why is there something, rather than nothing?”, “why does the Sun and the Moon seem to be identical in size when looked from the Earth?”, “why does the hydrogen atom have one proton and one electron?”, “why can only be two electrons of the innermost electron orbit?”, “why is light both particle and wave?”, “why does the carbon atom have 4 chemical bobds?” … ad infinitum. These are all nonsensical questions.

On the other hand, questions like “why is a polished diamond translucent, and graphite is not?”, “why does a pencil look ‘broken’ or disjointed, when put into a glass of water?”, etc… are valid, useful questions.

And one more: “why should anyone be concerned about nonsensical questions, when there are so many valid ones?”. Most people grow out of the nonsensical “why???” questions when they reach the age of five…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Black rose

Do you really want to start another thread on this? The last one got closed because of the excessive anti-evolution rhetoric by the posts and the copious references to intelligent design.

Now isn’t that a cheap shot?

I was refuting a statement on evolution made by another poster. Abiogenesis simply does not fit into the theory of evolution, though the point is constantly made by atheists that all life forms, without exception, are the product of evolution. How could the first life form to exist have evolved from a prior life form?

 

[Alindawyl]

You misquoted what I said: “The universe simply exists. It needs no explanation”. I did not say or imply your other quotes.

The number of irrelevant questions is infinite. A sample: “why is there something, rather than nothing?”, “why does the Sun and the Moon seem to be identical in size when looked from the Earth?”, “why does the hydrogen atom have one proton and one electron?”, “why can only be two electrons of the innermost electron orbit?”, “why is light both particle and wave?”, “why does the carbon atom have 4 chemical bobds?” … ad infinitum. These are all nonsensical questions.

On the other hand, questions like “why is a polished diamond translucent, and graphite is not?”, “why does a pencil look ‘broken’ or disjointed, when put into a glass of water?”, etc… are valid, useful questions.

And one more: “why should anyone be concerned about nonsensical questions, when there are so many valid ones?”. Most people grow out of the nonsensical “why???” questions when they reach the age of five…

Fair enough, I did add the word therefore. But only because it seemed to me you were stating that the second sentence followed naturally from the first. However, I never claimed you said the other two things I placed in quotes. I only gave them as examples of how to word irrelevant conclusions in a similar manner.

Maybe I’m stupid, but I still don’t get the reasoning behind your claim that it’s nonsensical to question how the universe came to be. It just sounds like the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion no matter how I look at it.

 

[bogeydogg]

The cosmological argument, or the first cause argument asserts that “everything that has a beginning must have an external cause for its existence” (premise). It says nothing more, nothing less. It also includes the assertion that an infinite past cannot be traversed, starting at minus infinity. Now, I deny the first part.** But, for the sake of argument**, I am willing to examine the corollaries of the assumption that this premise is true, and see where does it lead.

The result: If we accept that the universe requires a creator, (because it started to exist), then we can concentrate on the realm where this creator dwells. The creator acted at least once, when it created the universe. That is all we can say about it. The act of creation includes the change that universe came into existence. A change includes a “before” and an “after”, so the existence of time in the realm where the creator dwells, is established.

This leads to the question: does the time in the realm where the creator dwells extend infinitely into the past (eternal) or did it have a beginning? If it extends infinitely into the past, then the problem of traversing the infinity raises its ugly head, so we can eliminate this possibility. If it had a beginning, then - by the assumption of the cosmological argument - it needs a creator, and so we have an infinte regress of creators.
This is the whole argument. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a fully philosophical argument, which does not assume anything “special” of the creator - except that this creator acted at least once, when it created the universe.

To emphasize: I don’t “dislike” the inclusion of God. It is simply premature at this stage. The philosophical arguments cannot establish the existence of the Christian God, at best they could establish the existence of a generic, faceless creator. If they were successful, it would be a huge step toward establishing the claims of theists (any kind of theists). Don’t confuse the issue by “dragging” in the Christian God. Stick with the purely philosophical argument, please.

Once again the notion that the Creator began to act is foreign to the idea of a self existent being. This is the point you are refusing to argue.

God Bless

 

[Luke_K]

Sure there is. An action without a change cannot be told apart from non-action. And so, action does lead logically to a before and an after.

You can distinguish between the eternal cause and eternal effect because the being which cannot exist in and of itself requires the other and is thus the effect.

There is nothing illogical about the premise that if there is a Creator and creation, no change need occur. Nothing, I repeat, nothing changed into something.

bogeydogg:

Once again the notion that the Creator began to act is foreign to the idea of a self existent being. This is the point you are refusing to argue.

Exactly.

 

[R_Daneel]

Once again the notion that the Creator began to act is foreign to the idea of a self existent being. This is the point you are refusing to argue.

Certainly I do, because we are not talking about “the Creator” or a “self-existent being”. The cosmological argument talks about “a faceless, generic creator” and fails to establish it as a logical corollary to the assumed beginning of the universe.

Think about the possible set of “generic creators”, of which the Christian God is but one. Since the generic set cannot be established, the element of the set cannot be established either.

 

[bogeydogg]

Certainly I do, because we are not talking about “the Creator” or a “self-existent being”. The cosmological argument talks about “a faceless, generic creator” and fails to establish it as a logical corollary to the assumed beginning of the universe.

Think about the possible set of “generic creators”, of which the Christian God is but one. Since the generic set cannot be established, the element of the set cannot be established either.

Fair enough, but the problem is that you deny that I can include timelessness as a part of explaining how such a Creator could be because you declare it to be an attribute of that creator which must remain generic.

BUT…

Then you say that the cosmological argument fails because that creator acts and therefore is subject to time.

AND…

Since timelessness is an attribute which disallows my interpretation of this generic creator, then your assertion of being constrained by time must also be an attribute and therefore, far from invalidating the cosmological argument, would in fact invalidate your objection to it by force of your own objection.

So stop telling me why you think your “pure rationality” is without supposition because that is twaddle. Everyone comes to any argument with presuppositions and any thoughts about the nature of any creator generic or otherwise will be informed by those presuppositions.

That, once again, is why I say this is a theological argument. Which is why I also contend, again and again, that you need to tell me how my understanding of the Creator is invalid by “pure rationality” and argue the point instead of complaining that I refuse to accept your presuppositions as fact.

I understand your objection perfectly. The problem is it is invalid.

God Bless

 

[Luke_K]

R Daneel and bogeydogg, I’d like to know what you think of this argument, which I’ve formed from reading this thread.

First a definition:
state of the universe- the particular spatial arrangement and form of ALL and each type of matter/energy in all of space, in contrast to another unique/particular spatial and formal arrangement (basically, a snapshot of the universe frozen in time, but I’m trying to avoid temporal words in the definition)

1 (Premise). Each state of the universe we have had experience of has been dependent on another state of the universe for its existence. That is to say, the atoms in the chair I’m sitting on would not exist in the way and position they are now, nor would they exist at all, unless another state of the universe made that possible. Basically, this is a conclusion based on experience that the existence of every state of the universe is caused by another state.

1. The state of the universe we experience right now is not the state which made itself possible. Also, the state that made this state possible clearly does not exist now. This is also true of every state of the universe we have had experience of.
2. Therefore, every state of the universe has been dependent on a state of the universe different from itself which does not exist. But this is absurd, because if the state of the universe we are experiencing right now depends on non-existent state for its existence, then this state would not exist. But clearly it does.
3. Therefore, the state of the universe we exist in now, as well as every other one we have had experience of, must depend on its existence from something which is not part of the universe. This thing must also be what makes each state of the universe related logically to another state (our experience of causality), because to think otherwise yields an absurdity, as shown above.

To summarize:

1. This state of the universe depends on another, different state in order for it to exist. (Causality)
2. The state it is dependent on does not exist, yet this state does exist. This is absurd.
3. Therefore, this state’s existence must NOT depend essentially on another state, but on a thing which is not a part of the universe.

To summarize even MORE:
Assuming that each state of the universe depends on another state of the universe for its existence yields an absurdity. Therefore, each state’s existence depends on something which is not a part of the universe, and any causality between states can only be a result of the logical ordering of the states by that thing which is apart from the universe.

Just so you know, this is consistent with Catholic teaching that God sustains creation at each and every moment of its existence. (Catholic Catechism paragraph 301) I also realize that this argument means that causality in the universe only exists because God decided to make the universe that way, not because it was necessary to.

 

[bogeydogg]

Yup

God Bless

 

[neophyte]

I did not say that the change occurs IN the creator, though it is inescapable. To talk about action without SOME kind of change is nonsense…

That is merely a philosophical presupposition on your part.

By “definiton”? You cannot define the “creator”. We can say nothing about the creator, except that it acted once, when created the universe. Anything else is beyond the scope of the premises.

Those are more philosophical presuppositions. With these presuppositions you to define out, in advance, any risk of having to face the idea that you might be wrong in the conclusion you wish to draw. It’s question-begging.

I suggest you study St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[R_Daneel]

Fair enough, but the problem is that you deny that I can include timelessness as a part of explaining how such a Creator could be because you declare it to be an attribute of that creator which must remain generic.

The reason for this is simple. It is not the cosmological argument. The argument only says that if something began to exist, then it needs an external cause for its existnce. It makes no further assumptions, it does not add some extra attributes to the concept of creator. For all we care the creator is not even a conscious being, it may be an inanimate cause. (I need to add one thing. I do not accept this premise, I only granted it a provisional acceptance, to show that is also leads to an impossible solution.)

Then you say that the cosmological argument fails because that creator acts and therefore is subject to time.

Yes, that is exactly what I said. A timeless action is absurd. An action without consequences is not an action.

Since timelessness is an attribute which disallows my interpretation of this generic creator, then your assertion of being constrained by time must also be an attribute and therefore, far from invalidating the cosmological argument, would in fact invalidate your objection to it by force of your own objection.

No, “timelessness” is not a logical corollary. It is a “contrived” addition, which only has one purpose: “to rescue the cosmological argument”. And not only is this addition absurd, but it also tries “to squeeze” God into the premises, which it was supposed to achieve at the end only.

So stop telling me why you think your “pure rationality” is without supposition because that is twaddle. Everyone comes to any argument with presuppositions and any thoughts about the nature of any creator generic or otherwise will be informed by those presuppositions.

I am not making “extra premises”, I stick within the parameters of the argument. And your addition of “timeless action” is simply an absurdity.

 

[R_Daneel]

R Daneel and bogeydogg, I’d like to know what you think of this argument, which I’ve formed from reading this thread.

First a definition:
state of the universe- the particular spatial arrangement and form of ALL and each type of matter/energy in all of space, in contrast to another unique/particular spatial and formal arrangement (basically, a snapshot of the universe frozen in time, but I’m trying to avoid temporal words in the definition)

1 (Premise). Each state of the universe we have had experience of has been dependent on another state of the universe for its existence. That is to say, the atoms in the chair I’m sitting on would not exist in the way and position they are now, nor would they exist at all, unless another state of the universe made that possible. Basically, this is a conclusion based on experience that the existence of every state of the universe is caused by another state.

1. The state of the universe we experience right now is not the state which made itself possible. Also, the state that made this state possible clearly does not exist now. This is also true of every state of the universe we have had experience of.
2. Therefore, every state of the universe has been dependent on a state of the universe different from itself which does not exist. But this is absurd, because if the state of the universe we are experiencing right now depends on non-existent state for its existence, then this state would not exist. But clearly it does.
3. Therefore, the state of the universe we exist in now, as well as every other one we have had experience of, must depend on its existence from something which is not part of the universe. This thing must also be what makes each state of the universe related logically to another state (our experience of causality), because to think otherwise yields an absurdity, as shown above.

To summarize:

1. This state of the universe depends on another, different state in order for it to exist. (Causality)
2. The state it is dependent on does not exist, yet this state does exist. This is absurd.
3. Therefore, this state’s existence must NOT depend essentially on another state, but on a thing which is not a part of the universe.

To summarize even MORE:
Assuming that each state of the universe depends on another state of the universe for its existence yields an absurdity. Therefore, each state’s existence depends on something which is not a part of the universe, and any causality between states can only be a result of the logical ordering of the states by that thing which is apart from the universe.

Just so you know, this is consistent with Catholic teaching that God sustains creation at each and every moment of its existence. (Catholic Catechism paragraph 301) I also realize that this argument means that causality in the universe only exists because God decided to make the universe that way, not because it was necessary to.

First of all this is not the cosmological argument or the first cause argument. This is the so-called “Sustaining Cause” argument, which is different. Before we even start to examine it, I would suggest we conclude the original one. Wouldn’t you agree that it is better to find conclusion to a problem, before we start a new one?

 

[R_Daneel]

That is merely a philosophical presupposition on your part.

Those are more philosophical presuppositions.

Certainly they are. But then, so is the assumption that “everything that has a beginning must have an external cause for its existence”. Shall we start questioning that, too? I am willing. No argument can “float” somewhere in mid-air, some original presupposions cannot be avoided. And to declare that action without consequences is not an action, it cannot be told apart from a “non-action” is not much of a presupposition which is hard to accept. Is it?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

First of all this is not the cosmological argument or the first cause argument. This is the so-called “Sustaining Cause” argument, which is different.

You are just making it up as you go along, aren’t you.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

And your addition of “timeless action” is simply an absurdity.

It depends what you mean by a timeless act. It is certainly absurd if we are speaking about a physical cause of all things.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Certainly they are. But then, so is the assumption that “everything that has a beginning must have an external cause for its existence”.

Out of nothing comes nothing. So long as nothing is truly nothing, we cannot rationally expect anything to come from it. It is impossible. All bachelors are unmarried. So long as you understand what a bachelor is you cannot rationally expect to find one that is married. It is impossible. This is a logical necessity which cannot be denied without resigning to a position that is fundamentally irrational. Thus also, everything that begins to “exist” must have an external cause for its existence. So long as we understand that before the thing existed it was absolutely nothing, we must accept that it received its existence from something else that already had existence and had the power to give actuality to the contingent being in question. We must accept this as being logically necessary. Once we understand the terms existence and nothing, one must realize that a thing cannot begin to exist from absolutely nothing, or bring itself in to existence from a point where it had no existence and thus no power to do so. You obviously don’t have a sufficient understanding of existence and nothing and how those words apply to objective facts. You have a poor grasp of logic. Either that, or you perhaps you don’t agree that logic applies to objective reality. But then if that’s the case, then the theist has no reason to take any of your objections seriously; since you seem to deny rationality but at the same time try to reason to us that our arguments are rationally flawed!! Disgraceful.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Out of nothing comes nothing. So long as nothing is truly nothing, we cannot rationally expect anything to come from it. It is impossible. All bachelors are unmarried. So long as you understand what a bachelor is you cannot rationally expect to find one that is married. It is impossible. This is a logical necessity which cannot be denied without resigning to a position that is fundamentally irrational. Thus also, everything that begins to “exist” must have an external cause for its existence.

By your own logic, everything must mean everything. The Universe, everything that exists, cannot have an external cause. If there is something external to everything, then everything is not everything and the law of non contradiction is broken.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

By your own logic, everything must mean everything. The Universe, everything that exists, cannot have an external cause. If there is something external to everything, then everything is not everything and the law of non contradiction is broken.

What are you talking about? This really is a joke. I cannot believe that you have resorted to groundless semantics in order to escape the necessary consequences of my argument. The word everything is one contextual definition of the physical universe; but it is not a necessary implication of deductive or inductive logic that physical reality is synonymous to the word everything. To say that it is on the ridiculous basis that it has been defined as everything, is really to reveal how unwilling you are to accept reality.

In any case your argument is a straw-man of my real argument. I never spoke of “everything” needing a cause. I meant “anything” that begins to exist needs a cause. I am not saying “everything” needs a cause. In other words, if a thing begins to exist, it needs a cause. If that happens to necessitate, to your dis-pleasure, that there must be something more to existence than physical reality, then tough cheese. Live with it. I apologize if you were confused by the word “which”. I should have used the word “that”. My fault.

 

[Luke_K]

First of all this is not the cosmological argument or the first cause argument. This is the so-called “Sustaining Cause” argument, which is different. Before we even start to examine it, I would suggest we conclude the original one. Wouldn’t you agree that it is better to find conclusion to a problem, before we start a new one?

Well the original problem is the title of this thread, but that’s fine. I need to edit and improve my argument anyways. I’ll start a new thread about it if I want to discuss it again.

Also, I think if any progress is to be made between the two parties here, an agreement has to be made as to what “time” is and what “existence” means. That’s probably a whole other discussion though.

May the peace of Christ be with you.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

By your own logic, everything must mean everything. The Universe, everything that exists, cannot have an external cause. If there is something external to everything, then everything is not everything and the law of non contradiction is broken.

Apologize. I realize why you made the error. You thought i was saying everything needs a cause. But i would have thought that the absence of a comma would have led you to think otherwise. Anyway my fault. Bad gramma.

But as for my actual argument. It is indestructible logic.