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

[Alindawyl]

Okay. So, keep it simple. Why not conclude that it is the “stuff” which is uncaused?

Concluding that stuff is uncaused does not keep it simple. It means stuff is eternal, without a beginning, first in the chain of causality. That flies in the face of scientific observation, which tells us that stuff didn’t exist until approximately 14 billion years ago (give or take a billion). Space, time, matter, energy… all of it came into existence with the Big Bang.

If stuff was really eternal, it would have remained a singularity for all of eternity. And yet it did not. Some force or entity or whatever outside of stuff itself had to have acted upon stuff to cause the Big Bang, making stuff not really the first cause and therefore not really eternal.

One could argue that stuff is still eternal and was just acted upon by some other eternal thing to cause the Big Bang. That has a multitude of logical problems. But even if it didn’t, it would still tell us that there’s more to reality than what we’re able to observe.

 

[JDaniel]

Tony,
I hate to agree with Moonstruck out of general principles, but he has gotten lots of things right, including this one.

Conservation of energy is not only an effective working principle, it is theoretically elegant.

It also has another fundamentally interesting property that I realized while discussing this issue on CAF, which I’m saving for the book. It is a property that you might appreciate.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks to me that what is important to you and most every Catholic who cares to think about such issues, is the preservation of certain items of dogma. For example, the omnipotence and omniscience of God, and the belief that He created the universe from nothing.

I once was a devout Catholic. I cannot express the internal dismay I felt upon realizing the full implications of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Two of them limit God. I do not expect you to even approach any agreement with this at the moment, but here are some things to consider. And I trust that you will consider them, rather than simply react.

The ideas which men hold about the nature of the Creator were devised by men who had not looked through either a telescope or a microscope. They were good men who did their best with the tools and knowledge available. They invented ideas which they believed valuable and right. It is only a shame that after their time, other men came along and declared these ideas to be Absolute Truth, the Revealed Word of God.

I admit to the existence of only one Bible certain to have been written by God, and that is the physical universe itself. If God’s certain Bible contradicts the Bibles, Kuran’s, and various other writings of men, guess which one I, someone who believes in a created universe, chooses to trust?

Imagine that you had been raised agnostic, with the same education otherwise, and that you had a spiritual or mystical experience which compelled you to investigate the truth or falsity of atheism. You might investigate a number of religions, and without your previous indoctrination, have found things within each which made little sense.

Yet suppose you chose to believe that ours is a created universe, and sought to learn about the creator on your own. Might you not employ the same Bible as mine? If so, that Bible would teach you that energy, the stuff of the universe, cannot be created.

You might come to the conclusion that the creator did not manufacture the universe from nothing. Why should he, with this handy and malleable substance around that can be shaped into a variety of interesting and interactive forms?

Greylorn:

With all due respect, especially since it appears that a few misinformed Catholics may have misinformed you, the concept of Creation is not that God, “created the universe from nothing.” Rather, it is the understanding that the universe was created where there was nothing before. The latter is a remarkably different statement which has been the official teaching of the Church for quite some time.

Ontologically speaking, the infinite existence of God is involved inextricably with no material, or, perhaps it is better said, mobile beings. God creates, and suddenly, in a singular and simultaneous Act, the Universe - and all that it contains - comes to be. Understanding the Creation this way removes the thermodynamics blockage.

It is easily seen that the idea of creation can, and does, have several modalities, or meanings. On the one hand, it can mean - as it does, in Physics - that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. But, this Law has a codicil or two. One of them is, that it be understood that for this experiment to be valid, that the attempted creation or destruction is to occur in a closed system (or, closed universe). No system or universe of any kind was evident or postulated as an environment for the big bang.

Now, it would seem that even this might be an inconsistency except that the revealed word of God got recorded for 2,500 (or more) years, by well in excess of a couple of men, in 50-some books from ontologically very different times and places. One can assert that all of these guys conspired to defraud, but, that would be, at best, an unfounded assertion.

Greylorn, if you can somehow find it in your heart to blend Christian Truth into your book, you might just sell some of them to us.

Good luck,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

I know it’s a fact that energy hasn’t been created or destroyed in 13.7 thousand million years. Not once.

If it ever is in the future, you’d better be very quick about gloating before both of us near instantaneously cease to exist.

You still have not faced up to the problem of induction. In the context of eternity even a trillion years are insignificant. Your view is parochial and unbalanced, attributing too much importance to the past at the expense of the future. That is why you regard the universe as purposeless. You single out the Big Bang as more significant than its consequences yet an atomistic view of any process is inevitably misleading. Your reasoning itself is purposeful yet you discard purpose as an insignificant byproduct… Very odd…

 

[Moonstruck888]

You still have not faced up to the problem of induction. In the context of eternity even a trillion years are insignificant. Your view is parochial and unbalanced, attributing too much importance to the past at the expense of the future. That is why you regard the universe as purposeless. You single out the Big Bang as more significant than its consequences yet an atomistic view of any process is inevitably misleading. Your reasoning itself is purposeful yet you discard purpose as an insignificant byproduct… Very odd…

A hundred years can be more significant to one than the rest of eternity combined if it happens to be the hundred years in which one is alive.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I am afraid that as it is you who are making the positive claim of the extrapolation of an observed principle to the totality of reality itself is the one who needs evidence. My negation of your statements merely indicates that I do not believe that you have sufficient evidence to make the universal claim about the conservation of energy. This is particularily in light of the impossibility of numerical infinites.

Give me an example of energy not being conserved in a closed system then. That’s all you have to do to prove your point. One example.

Because infinity is not a number. We can never acheive infinity by adding one number to another; or multiplying one number by another; so then it is impossible for us to attain with numbers the figure “infinity”. Therefore this figure has no place in mathematics.

I’m not a mathematician as such so I can’t comment on that, but I can assure you it has place in physics though. Even if it is not a number, one can learn a lot from understanding the concept of infinity.

In all sciences; the verification of an act occuring comes before working out how that act happens. If in medicine a patient dies; the question “is he dead” logically comes before the question “how did he die?”. We cannot ask how something happens until we know what has happened - that would be absurd.

I’m sorry John, but that is absolute bollocks. The hypothesis comes first in science and then the act of verifciation by experimental testing occurs. If the hypothetical predictions concur with the experimental results then bingo! You have a theory.

I merely admit that some of the acts that God has been claimed to have done (such as the Virgin Birth) are materially detectable. However; unlike yourself I do not extrapolate from this one act; this one sample to the whole of God’s actions. You would do well to be more academically precise when dealing with articles such as the “law” of Conservation of Energy.

My understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is actually pretty precise John. In order for God to make any event occur in this Universe, he has to act in a physical way with this Universe. That is detectable.

Interacting with the world is not an essential characteristic of the Catholic understanding of God. God does not interact with the world necessarily; but so of his own volition. If God were to choose not to interact with the world; he would still be God.

I was under the impression that the virgin birht was a pretty essential characteristic of the Catholic understanding of God?

Scientific data can only apply to entities and events that are numerically simplifiable or quantifiable. Your approach to asking for proof of God is very close minded; it is very arrogant to presuppose that quantatative data is able to verify all things; that would constitute a fallacy.

Would it indeed? Well, as I’ve said before, that fallacy created high technology and vastly expanded the frontiers of knowledge and understanding.

You seem to be unaware of a posteriori reasoning. It is analytic and not speculative; and the investigation is simple to repeat - and the results are always the same - it is necessary for a single; timeless; necessary creator.

Not at all. I merely assert that a posteriori reasoning must be scrutinized with physical experiments to test it’s validity, otherwise it is surmise.

 

[Alindawyl]

I’m sorry John, but that is absolute bollocks. The hypothesis comes first in science and then the act of verifciation by experimental testing occurs. If the hypothetical predictions concur with the experimental results then bingo! You have a theory.

Actually, the hypothesis doesn’t come first. A hypothesis is a proposed answer to a question. Before one can formulate an answer, one must first define a specific question to be answered.

All of science begins with one or more observations, then a question based on what has been observed, and THEN a hypothesis to hopefully answer the question. Those initial observations take place before we know the details about how what is being observed has come to be.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

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

The fact that at one time it did not exist. Science 101!

 

[Moonstruck888]

Actually, the hypothesis doesn’t come first. A hypothesis is a proposed answer to a question. Before one can formulate an answer, one must first define a specific question to be answered.

I never meant it came “first” as in before anything else. I meant that it came “first” before the experimental verification. I can attest that you have no cause to reprimand me on this point.

All of science begins with one or more observations, then a question based on what has been observed, and THEN a hypothesis to hopefully answer the question. Those initial observations take place before we know the details about how what is being observed has come to be.

And then the EXPERIMENT COMES AFTER THE HYPOTHESIS TO TEST IT’S PREDICTIONS!

 

[hazcompat]

Jesus Christ Is our Fathers simple plan for salvation SINCE BEFORE TIME BEGAN.

 

[JohnDamian]

Give me an example of energy not being conserved in a closed system then. That’s all you have to do to prove your point. One example.

I refer you to the undeniable nature of the infinite recess to demonstrate the creation of energy.

Even if it is not a number, one can learn a lot from understanding the concept of infinity.

Would you care to give an example? As far as I am concerned; infinity is a meaningless concept.

I’m sorry John, but that is absolute bollocks. The hypothesis comes first in science and then the act of verifciation by experimental testing occurs. If the hypothetical predictions concur with the experimental results then bingo! You have a theory.

Observation - Hypothesis - Experimentation - Theory?

Surely; before one can even create a hypothesis; one must have a general knowlege of what it is that exists before we can come to understand how that thing exists / operates.

My understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is actually pretty precise John. In order for God to make any event occur in this Universe, he has to act in a physical way with this Universe. That is detectable.

Would you care to elaborate on what specific element of thermodynamics necessitates the presence of discernible and verifiable data for the existence of a particular function?

I was under the impression that the virgin birht was a pretty essential characteristic of the Catholic understanding of God?

God did not have to incarnate Jesus in Mary. According to Catholic thought Jesus existed before his incarnation (eternally begotten…etc.) and so it is by no means necessary that God had to incarnate him.

It is only with certain theories of “atonement” that some people believe that Jesus incarnation is necessary. Personally I would subscribe to the Fransiscan “acceptance theory” which does not pronounce Jesus’ incarnation as necessary although it was sufficient.

Would it indeed? Well, as I’ve said before, that fallacy created high technology and vastly expanded the frontiers of knowledge and understanding.

Hogwash! This is mere sophistry! It is not the claim that science is all knowing that has given birth to the wonderful technologies of today; but the claim that science is a practical and useful thing. There is a clear difference between these positions.

Not at all. I merely assert that a posteriori reasoning must be scrutinized with physical experiments to test it’s validity, otherwise it is surmise.

Then; I ask you with the utmost Charity; to give me physical evidence of the validity of scientific method without referring to a posteriori or a priori arguments.

And then the EXPERIMENT COMES AFTER THE HYPOTHESIS TO TEST IT’S PREDICTIONS!

But the hypothesis does not come from some nebulous “thought” the hypothesis comes from a real idea or opinion; which is THEN subjected to a critical analysis; followed by experiments.

 

[tonyrey]

You still have not faced up to the problem of induction. In the context of eternity even a trillion years are insignificant. Your view is parochial and unbalanced, attributing too much importance to the past at the expense of the future. That is why you regard the universe as purposeless. You single out the Big Bang as more significant than its consequences yet an atomistic view of any process is inevitably misleading. Your reasoning itself is purposeful yet you discard purpose as an insignificant byproduct… Very odd…

You are changing the subject - which is the problem of induction and the significance of what has happened in the past. “what is significant to one” is irrelevant. You have also failed to refute the other points I have made…

 

[Moonstruck888]

I refer you to the undeniable nature of the infinite recess to demonstrate the creation of energy.

Very droll John. Now, a real example please, one that I can verify or falsify.

Would you care to give an example? As far as I am concerned; infinity is a meaningless concept.

One example would be mass theoretically becoming infinite at light speed, proving that no object with non zero rest mass can ever outtrace light.

Observation - Hypothesis - Experimentation - Theory?

Surely; before one can even create a hypothesis; one must have a general knowlege of what it is that exists before we can come to understand how that thing exists / operates.

That’s where the “observation” comes in. And like you said, surely we must, which renders every vapid null-statement that has been made about God on this thread void.

Would you care to elaborate on what specific element of thermodynamics necessitates the presence of discernible and verifiable data for the existence of a particular function?

Would you care to elabortate on why this has anything to do with what we’re discussing? It’s not the existence of the function that we’re talking about here, it’s what we can claim to know about it.

God did not have to incarnate Jesus in Mary. According to Catholic thought Jesus existed before his incarnation (eternally begotten…etc.) and so it is by no means necessary that God had to incarnate him.

Jesus had to atone for the sins of mankind. To do so, he had to be a man. That is the quintessence of Christian Doctrine.

Hogwash! This is mere sophistry! It is not the claim that science is all knowing that has given birth to the wonderful technologies of today; but the claim that science is a practical and useful thing. There is a clear difference between these positions.

I’ve never claimed that science was all knowing. Frankly, I think the glass ceilings over human knowledge are now clearly in sight. Science is practical and useful. It’s the only method of systematic reasoning that is.

Then; I ask you with the utmost Charity; to give me physical evidence of the validity of scientific method without referring to a posteriori or a priori arguments.

Alright. How about the very computer screen your looking at right now. That is a testament to the validity of the scientific method. If Quantum Theory was invalid, your monitor wouldn’t work.

But the hypothesis does not come from some nebulous “thought” the hypothesis comes from a real idea or opinion; which is THEN subjected to a critical analysis; followed by experiments.

It starts with a question, followed by guesses. The guesses that are poor are weeded out and the salient ones become a hypothesis. The hypothesis is then tested by controlled experiement.

 

[rvilbig]

One example would be mass theoretically becoming infinite at light speed, proving that no object with non zero rest mass can ever outtrace light.

FYI: the photon actually has a measurable mass:

pdglive.lbl.gov/popupblockdata.brl?nodein=S000M&inscript=Y&fsizein=1

And can travel faster than the speed of light in a gravitational field:

speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

I struggle to understand these things myself.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Moonstruck888]

FYI: the photon actually has a measurable mass:

What I said was that it’s rest mass is equal to zero. A photon has a measurable virtual mass because it never is at rest. From the moment of it’s inception to the moment of it’s termination it moves.

That is elementary…

 

[JohnDamian]

One example would be mass theoretically becoming infinite at light speed, proving that no object with non zero rest mass can ever outtrace light.

This is incorrect. No mass can ever be infinite according to the laws of physics; for mass is itself a property of matter; and as a finite and discernible property it can never reach an infinite number; even if it were multiplied or subjected to addition for all eternity.

If you disagree; tell me which number specifically preceeds infinity; so when after that number; by addition or multiplication an infinity is composed.

That’s where the “observation” comes in. And like you said, surely we must, which renders every vapid null-statement that has been made about God on this thread void.

How tired; just because you are unable to understand logic and ontology does not mean it is incorrect.

Would you care to elabortate on why this has anything to do with what we’re discussing? It’s not the existence of the function that we’re talking about here, it’s what we can claim to know about it.

You brought it up; with the claim that God must have discerible evidence if he acts within the physical world. This is not the case.

Jesus had to atone for the sins of mankind. To do so, he had to be a man. That is the quintessence of Christian Doctrine.

That is a very nice idea; where in Christian Doctrine is this stated? I know full well that I subscribe to the Acceptance theory of atonement which is consistent with Catholic Doctine and does not make this odd claim you seem to be voicing.

I’ve never claimed that science was all knowing.

Good. Then why do you ask for scientific evidence for God; making the odd assumption science can verify this particular entity.

It’s the only method of systematic reasoning that is.

Do you disregard mathematics and logic as not systematic reasoning? Science has NO reasoning in it. It merely applies the reasoning of philosophical empiricism (ie; Hume etc.) - but does not have any reasoning itself; it is merely a mechanical appliance of the philosophy of science.

 

[Alindawyl]

I never meant it came “first” as in before anything else. I meant that it came “first” before the experimental verification. I can attest that you have no cause to reprimand me on this point.

I was merely pointing out that you were misunderstanding what JohnDamian was saying. He was talking about the initial observation or observations as necessarily coming before we begin to ask the question of how what is being observed came to be. You leaped to the incorrect assumption that he meant experimental observations rather than initial observations.

 

[greylorn]

Concluding that stuff is uncaused does not keep it simple. It means stuff is eternal, without a beginning, first in the chain of causality. That flies in the face of scientific observation, which tells us that stuff didn’t exist until approximately 14 billion years ago (give or take a billion). Space, time, matter, energy… all of it came into existence with the Big Bang.

Nonsense. To begin with, the Big Bang is a theory derived from inferential evidence. It has not been observed.

The precursor to the BB (i.e. the thing that went poof) was composed of stuff. Unless you prefer to believe that “nothing” blew up and created the universe. If you’ve not noticed, that’s pretty much identical to current religious beliefs about creation.

If stuff was really eternal, it would have remained a singularity for all of eternity. And yet it did not. Some force or entity or whatever outside of stuff itself had to have acted upon stuff to cause the Big Bang, making stuff not really the first cause and therefore not really eternal.

Since there is no such thing as a physical singularity, only mathematical singularities, it probably did indeed remain a “no such thing” for all of pre-eternity.

Your comment that something had to act upon the BB’s precursor (if the presumption that it had been previously stable is correct) is right on. Unusually perspicacious, IMO. Next, you’ll need to figure out what that was.

(Bringing God into that picture generates a lot of difficulties, so if that is the direction you want to take, be sure to analyze them in the context of whatever theory you come up with. Don’t forget motivation.)

One could argue that stuff is still eternal and was just acted upon by some other eternal thing to cause the Big Bang. That has a multitude of logical problems. But even if it didn’t, it would still tell us that there’s more to reality than what we’re able to observe.

You got onto a good track, so why are you trying to get off-road? Suppose that you assume (correctly IMO) that stuff (i.e. energy) always existed. Assuming that something else interacted with it actually solves a number of logical problems, such as the one you brought up earlier about what lit off the Big Bang.

There is more to reality than we are able to observe.

 

[Nael]

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?

Dear Luke,
The universe does not have to have a cause unless you believe in an all loving Father. And as Catholics we do believe in an all loving Father. Wouldn’t an all loving Father leave clues simple enough for His children to understand? If you do believe that God is an all loving Father, then yes, an all loving God would leave clues simple enough for His human children to understand. From simple observations we can safely conclude that everything does need a cause to exist. Therefore, the universe also needs a cause to exist. It’s not just a matter of whether the universe has a property that leads us to conclude that it requires a cause to exist. Rather, it also depends on what you believe inside. If one is an Atheist and has come to the conclusion that the universe requires no cause, then no one is able to refute him. If one believes that we can’t know if the universe was created or not, then that person does not believe in an all loving Father, simply because an all loving Father would not be so cruel as to leave His children in the dark like that. So, basically it depends on the property that YOU give to the universe through your faith, whether it is in God or nothing, or in a loving God or a cruel one. I hope this at least partially answers your question. May God bless you.

 

[Alindawyl]

Nonsense. To begin with, the Big Bang is a theory derived from inferential evidence. It has not been observed.

The precursor to the BB (i.e. the thing that went poof) was composed of stuff. Unless you prefer to believe that “nothing” blew up and created the universe. If you’ve not noticed, that’s pretty much identical to current religious beliefs about creation.

This conjectural “precursor to the BB” which you posit was composed of stuff has also not been observed. Where is your evidence that such a thing exists?

Since there is no such thing as a physical singularity, only mathematical singularities, it probably did indeed remain a “no such thing” for all of pre-eternity.

Your comment that something had to act upon the BB’s precursor (if the presumption that it had been previously stable is correct) is right on. Unusually perspicacious, IMO. Next, you’ll need to figure out what that was.

(Bringing God into that picture generates a lot of difficulties, so if that is the direction you want to take, be sure to analyze them in the context of whatever theory you come up with. Don’t forget motivation.)

Based on various testimony, ranging from the example of the Disciples to miracles to reason, I believe that that something which caused the Big Bang is God.

Bringing an eternal universe into the picture generates a lot of difficulties. If that is the direction you wish to take, be sure to analyze that in the context of whatever theory you come up with. Don’t forget motivation.

You got onto a good track, so why are you trying to get off-road? Suppose that you assume (correctly IMO) that stuff (i.e. energy) always existed. Assuming that something else interacted with it actually solves a number of logical problems, such as the one you brought up earlier about what lit off the Big Bang.

There is more to reality than we are able to observe.

That “something else” according to Catholic teaching is God. That “something else” according to your teaching is… what? Some undefined part of this “eternal universe”, a thing which we can neither observe nor interact with.

That’s all fine and dandy, but why should anyone accept your wishful thinking on this? Has this unobserved cause of the Big Bang spoken to you? Revealed itself to you? Told you anything about itself? If it hasn’t, how do we know it’s there? I mean, we can’t observe it. Our observations of the universe only go back 14 billion years or so, give or take a billion. It would HAVE to reveal itself to us for us to know it exists.

No thanks. The testimony of the Disciples, especially their example, carries a bit more weight than the testimony of greylorn.

 

[Moonstruck888]

You are changing the subject - which is the problem of induction and the significance of what has happened in the past. “what is significant to one” is irrelevant. You have also failed to refute the other points I have made…

Significance is an absolutely ridiculous choice of word here, and I have refuted every point you’ve made. If you can’t see that energy conservation is intrinsic to the Universe, then I suggest you change your optician.