Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[Pound_Coolish]

According to Aquinas’ five ways, anything nothing can be put in motion or exist without a cause. As he demonstrates, therefore, there must be something outside our universe that caused it.That is true of our own universe. What we are speaking of though, are things apart from our own universe.There must be something, yes, that led to the universe in some way, but not necessarily by causing it. It seems inconceivable to us because we are used to a universe where everything is caused.

But we don’t know what something outside of or before our universe was like. Whatever our universe came out of, the laws of thermodynamics may or may not have applied to it. Science has no claims about such a time and place. Such an existence might function entirely differently from the universe we know. Therefore, perhaps in such an existence, things could exist without being caused.

That is, before the Big Bang, there may have been a different set of rules from those we know. We don’t know what such a time and place would be like, because we have no way of observing it! So, how can we know there must be a First Cause?

 

[Hatikvah]

Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We use it every day, in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. If we saw a rabbit suddenly appear on an empty table, we would not blandly say, “Hi, rabbit. You came from nowhere, didn’t you?” No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one. Did the rabbit fall from the ceiling? Did a magician put it there when we weren’t looking?

(peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm)

It goes on to say that everything must absolutely have a cause. Although this may not be necessarily answering your question to the fullest it can be answered, I’m sure that one of the smart fellows of the Answers Forums will help.

 

[Bradski]

It also says, on the page which was linked:

‘The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical.’

Can you actually bend light? It’s entirely natural, intuitive and commonsensical that you can’t. Just that it is entirely natural, intuitive and commonsensical that the distance between two static objects cannot increase. That one object cannot be in two places at the same time. That something cannot be a particle and a wave simultaneously. That you cannot see something that doesn’t exist. That you cannot be older than your father.

If all you are going to use is intuition and common sense to try to understand the universe, then you will come up short every time. To quote Haldane, the universe is not just stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine.

 

[Pound_Coolish]

Yes, Hatikvah, I came across that when I Googled the question too. It’s as entertaining and fascinating as anything Kreeft writes. But as you said, it doesn’t really address my question.

It does make the argument that our instincts tell us all things require a cause. However, our instincts are often wrong. As Bradski demonstrated. To add further evidence to his/her claim, people believed through natural inclination for centuries the sun revolved around the earth.

 

[SPBlitz]

You mentioned that we don’t know what came before our universe - but the Big Bang seems to suggest that we do - there was nothing.

Remember, the Big Bang was the beginning of both space and time. Therefore, nothing can come ‘before’ the Big Bang, since the very word ‘before’ implies the existence of time. This would seem to suggest that the universe was truly created ex nihilo - from nothingness. Nothingness has no properties and no potential - it can’t create anything. The maxim ex nihilo, nihil fit - or ’ out of nothing, nothing comes’ is a metaphysical principal. It pertains across all universes (just like how a triangle necessary has three sides).

Also, the claim that we shouldn’t use logic, or intuition, to think about the universe sounds a lot like a skeptical threat argument to me.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

According to Aquinas’ five ways, anything nothing can be put in motion or exist without a cause. As he demonstrates, therefore, there must be something outside our universe that caused it.That is true of our own universe. What we are speaking of though, are things apart from our own universe.There must be something, yes, that led to the universe in some way, but not necessarily by causing it. It seems inconceivable to us because we are used to a universe where everything is caused.

But we don’t know what something outside of or before our universe was like. Whatever our universe came out of, the laws of thermodynamics may or may not have applied to it. Science has no claims about such a time and place. Such an existence might function entirely differently from the universe we know. Therefore, perhaps in such an existence, things could exist without being caused.

That is, before the Big Bang, there may have been a different set of rules from those we know. We don’t know what such a time and place would be like, because we have no way of observing it! So, how can we know there must be a First Cause?

Let’s suppose this: a) you are a scientist, b) there was a “before the Big Bang”, and c) before the Big Bang there was a different set of rules. In particular, let’s suppose that the principle of causality did not apply, as you want. So, if there was any change at any moment anywhere, it was not caused. If there were any entities, there was no interaction between them. So, as a scientist you would not be able to do any science about that. Such “reality” would be entirely unknowable, as if it didn’t exist.

Then, I guess what you are imagining is that, suddenly, out of nothing, a new set of rules which included the principle of causality started to exist. Is it how you conceive such “non-phenomenon”?

 

[Back2Church]

That is, before the Big Bang, there may have been a different set of rules from those we know. We don’t know what such a time and place would be like, because we have no way of observing it! So, how can we know there must be a First Cause?

Regardless of how little we know about such a time and place, we still know that our universe came out of it.

It really all boils down to: Something existed before the Big Bang and our universe came out of it, or nothing existed before the Big Bang and our universe came out of it. Either way, our universe is the product of some occurrence. Whether that occurrence was an intentional act, a natural process, or a chaotic anomaly is open for debate, but to say there might have never been such an occurrence is a bit absurd.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Regardless of how little we know about such a time and place, we still know that our universe came out of it.

It really all boils down to: Something existed before the Big Bang and our universe came out of it, or nothing existed before the Big Bang and our universe came out of it. Either way, our universe is the product of some occurrence. Whether that occurrence was an intentional act, a natural process, or a chaotic anomaly is open for debate, but to say there might have never been such an occurrence is a bit absurd.

If the occurrence was a “natural” process, then it was the “result” or effect of the unknown set of rules; but the principle of causality was not included in such set, according to Pound Coolish; so, it could not have been an effect or result of anything. In other words, Pound Coolish is saying that what existed before the Big Bang did not have any “power” at all. Also, it could not be said that there was a chaotic anomaly, because nothing could have being anomalous at that moment.

 

[Pound_Coolish]

You mentioned that we don’t know what came before our universe - but the Big Bang seems to suggest that we do - there was nothing.

Remember, the Big Bang was the beginning of both space and time. Therefore, nothing can come ‘before’ the Big Bang, since the very word ‘before’ implies the existence of time. This would seem to suggest that the universe was truly created ex nihilo - from nothingness. Nothingness has no properties and no potential - it can’t create anything. The maxim ex nihilo, nihil fit - or ’ out of nothing, nothing comes’ is a metaphysical principal. It pertains across all universes (just like how a triangle necessary has three sides).
/QUOTE]
It was the beginning of OUR time and space. We are considering what is or was outside the universe. We are not assuming here the something was God. We are considering what else might be. So, if we don’t know what it is, why do we assume it is God? If there were other circumstances that led to our universe we can know nothing of them because they led to our universe. We don’t know what those circumstances would have been like. We can guess. But we have only knowledge of our universe to work off of. “Out of nothing,nothing comes” is a metaphysical principle in our universe.

Also, the claim that we shouldn’t use logic, or intuition, to think about the universe sounds a lot like a skeptical threat argument to me.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

It was the beginning of OUR time and space. We are considering what is or was outside the universe. We are not assuming here the something was God. We are considering what else might be. So, if we don’t know what it is, why do we assume it is God? If there were other circumstances that led to our universe we can know nothing of them because they led to our universe. We don’t know what those circumstances would have been like. We can guess. But we have only knowledge of our universe to work off of. “Out of nothing,nothing comes” is a metaphysical principle in our universe.

We should use logic. As for intuition, we should use it but we can only rely so far on it.

If something led to our universe, then we could know it, but how could something which is not subject to the principle of causality lead to something else?

Which rules of logic do you think would apply before the Big Bang, and why?

 

[SPBlitz]

But your very use of the word ‘led’ suggests a state of affairs that exists before the universe - before time. What you’re saying is that there was an event before the first event, which is nonsensical. There could not be an event that leads to the first event. The most we could say is that the universe’s cause coincided with its creation.

The definition of a metaphysical principal is a logical law that exists across all universes, not just our own. It describes the very nature of reality. Saying that logic can be different across universes is like saying that there exists a universe with a four-sided triangle - it’s nonsensical. The claim that logic doesn’t hold across all universes requires a hefty burden of proof.

And I think you misunderstood what I meant by a skeptical threat argument. It’s a specific type of argument that argues that logic either doesn’t exist or isn’t constant across all universes. The problem with this type of argument is that it is indefensible - the only way you could defend the claim is to make an argument that uses logic, but the very claim is that logic doesn’t exist (or is radically different from how we understand it). Either way, the very argument that you use to support the claim requires logic to exist (and that we are capable of knowing these laws).

 

[Back2Church]

If the occurrence was a “natural” process, then it was the “result” or effect of the unknown set of rules; but the principle of causality was not included in such set, according to Pound Coolish; so, it could not have been an effect or result of anything. In other words, Pound Coolish is saying that what existed before the Big Bang did not have any “power” at all. Also, it could not be said that there was a chaotic anomaly, because nothing could have being anomalous at that moment.

I get that, I’m just saying it doesn’t work. Let me try to clarify my original point.

If there was some time or place prior to the Big Bang, then such a time or place was the environment from which the Big Bang came from. Either the different set of rules of this pre-Big Bang environment could explain the occurrence (natural process) or they couldn’t (random anomaly). The other possibility is that of a divine creator.

Time, as we know it, is not part of this pre-Big Bang environment, of course. When we think of “cause and effect”, we instinctively include chronology as part of the process. Our concept of chronology may not apply to the pre-Big Bang environment, but it does apply to us. Whatever occurrence brought about the Big Bang (natural, chaotic, or divine), it still happened before (or we could say at the beginning) of our time. This occurrence is the cause for our universe’s existence.

 

[inocente]

If something led to our universe, then we could know it, but how could something which is not subject to the principle of causality lead to something else?

Which rules of logic do you think would apply before the Big Bang, and why?

As I’ve seen it, the argument is that there is no logical necessity for physical causal chains, no logical necessity why they can never propagate faster than the speed of light. Rather, it’s an empirical observation, a product of the laws of nature. It’s not illogical to imagine other worlds where the laws of nature are different, where for instance there is no light or space, where causal chains propagate differently or don’t even exist.

And we know of such a world, since in the singularity of the big bang, physics as we know it breaks down in the contraction of space to the theoretical zero. So, the argument goes, causality itself breaks down. As soon as space expands, the laws of nature we know apply, so we can say that the big bang causes the universe. But we can’t say what caused the singularity, or even that it had a cause, since without space, without the laws of nature we know, there’s no logical necessity for physical causality.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

The further back you trace it, the nearer you get to one or more causer(s) of causes. If it’s all infinite, you may get nearer though not “there”.

Scientists are already talking about, outside the present universe (and its several twins), a sort of macro-universe where there are no fewer than four dimensions of space alone, without counting time.

It’s long been thought that gravity is akin to magnetic force.

When is a wave a particle and when is a particle a wave?

What’s the qualitative difference between what’s in the “middle” of matter and what’s in the “middle” of vacuum or space?

Why does personality impact reality?

Even if there were kinds of logic we haven’t discovered yet (and I don’t mean the kind the politicians try and palm off on us ) it would have some kind of distant analogy with what we know of logic, i.e it would be “logic and more so” or “logic writ large”. Likewise, there may turn out to be what could be explained to the fictional character Jim as “it’s a cause, but not as we know it”!

We don’t have to know “how far” back - or sideways - this “has to” be traced. It will always reward the intellectual effort.

Even random anomalies exist on some sort of principle.

Even if one were to state “there may or may not be some things, some of which may exist and some of which may not exist”, it doesn’t rule out that there may be some pattern we haven’t pinned down yet. How many “kinds” of “existence” are there?

Things grew out of what they grew out of, certainly. There’s always going to be more work to be done investigating that.

I was made to exist so that I can study philosophy and enjoy my dinner (the oven just went ping!)

 

[thinkandmull]

God bringing someone out of nothing is barely comprehensible in itself, so how is something coming from nothing with no cause at all?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is, before the Big Bang, there may have been a different set of rules from those we know. We don’t know what such a time and place would be like, because we have no way of observing it! So, how can we know there must be a First Cause?

There was no “before the Big Bang” because time was created with the Big Bang.

This is why any attempt to argue the multiverse must fail. This is the only universe we know. If this is truly the only universe that exists, it was created according to mathematical laws that appear to have been intelligently designed for it by a Mastermind or Intelligent Designer.

This is how Einstein viewed it:

“I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.”

 

[Bradski]

If this is truly the only universe that exists, it was created according to mathematical laws THAT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED for it by a Mastermind or Intelligent Designer.

Indeed. It does appear that way, doesn’t it.

 

[Pound_Coolish]

The definition of a metaphysical principal is a logical law that exists across all universes, not just our own. It describes the very nature of reality. Saying that logic can be different across universes is like saying that there exists a universe with a four-sided triangle - it’s nonsensical. The claim that logic doesn’t hold across all universes requires a hefty burden of proof.

And I think you misunderstood what I meant by a skeptical threat argument. It’s a specific type of argument that argues that logic either doesn’t exist or isn’t constant across all universes. The problem with this type of argument is that it is indefensible - the only way you could defend the claim is to make an argument that uses logic, but the very claim is that logic doesn’t exist (or is radically different from how we understand it). Either way, the very argument that you use to support the claim requires logic to exist (and that we are capable of knowing these laws).

Well and good, but we are not speaking of logic, and this is not a skeptical threat argument. We are speaking of science. I made no claims regarding logic. If I ever used the word logic, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to use that word, must’ve been in a late hour haze.
There’s a distinct line between scientific thinking and logic. Logic is a branch of philosophy that does not equal science nor the scientific method. Logic proceeds from logical claims. Science proceeds from the scientific method.
I was speaking of cause and effect, of thermodynamics, of science. Would any of those necessarily exist the same way before the Big Bang? If we cannot know, indeed, if we cannot really know anything about such a state of affairs for sure, then how can we be sure things would require a cause?

There was no “before the Big Bang” because time was created with the Big Bang

Time exists in our universe. But it mightn’t everywhere. Again, we are familiar with time here. But we don’t comprehend how things could exist without time (such as souls in Heaven) precisely because we have no way of observing, studying or in any way learning about it. (Not a perfect analogy because people have given accounts of Heaven and we have symbolism in the Bible and whatnot.) Point being, why is an infinite God who exists without time more probable than a pre-Big Bang that existed without time? Or something that had its own time which ended, or who knows?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Point being, why is an infinite God who exists without time more probable than a pre-Big Bang that existed without time? Or something that had its own time which ended, or who knows?

We might choose which is more probable rather than hang forever by the thread of uncertainty.

What we know from our own experience is that the universe seems to follow a logical set of mathematical principles, as Einstein points out in his quote given above. We also know that we were created with the power to understand those principles. The probability for me is that a Mastermind created both those mathematical principles and the mind that is able to understand them. The improbability is that the mathematical principles and the mind capable of understanding them just came about purely by accident along with the creation of the universe, which also apparently came in to being by accident according to the atheist point of view.

As to the possibility of a pre-bang that existed without time and without God, I don’t even understand the concept. It almost sounds like a square circle. How would you get to a pre-bang that existed without time and God?

“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." Isaac Newton

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Hi again, Inocente! I hope you are doing well this new year.

This is a difficult matter, surely you know it is.

As I’ve seen it, the argument is that there is no logical necessity for physical causal chains, no logical necessity why they can never propagate faster than the speed of light. Rather, it’s an empirical observation, a product of the laws of nature. It’s not illogical to imagine other worlds where the laws of nature are different, where for instance there is no light or space, where causal chains propagate differently or don’t even exist.

Though I am not terribly imaginative, I don’t see why someone else cannot imagine other world with different interactions going on in it, and with different regularities. Leibniz even conceived a harmonious world of monads, which didn’t have any interaction between them. However, in his conception, it was God who had caused such world. In other words, there was causality for Leibniz.

My question would be this: How could our reality (peculiar as it is) be originated in another which had no causal power?

And we know of such a world, since in the singularity of the big bang, physics as we know it breaks down in the contraction of space to the theoretical zero. So, the argument goes, causality itself breaks down. As soon as space expands, the laws of nature we know apply, so we can say that the big bang causes the universe. But we can’t say what caused the singularity, or even that it had a cause, since without space, without the laws of nature we know, there’s no logical necessity for physical causality.

My knowledge about the Big Bang theory is reduced practically to zero for the moment. So, when you say that in the singularity of the Big Bang the laws of physics break down, I understand absolutely nothing, to be honest. I wish hecd2 would be around to assist me on this, explaining -if that is really the case-, how it is that the Big Bang theory describes such a break down, and what it means. Would it mean, for example, that the momentum in a given system was not constant then?

Now, even if it were true that there were other regularities in the singularity, or no regularities at all, it does not imply that there was no causality. How do you go from the statement “the physical interactions that we know today, did not exist in the singularity” to this other “there were no physical interactions in the singularity”.