Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[JapaneseKappa]

Well, no, the PSR and “its variants” are not based upon inductive reasoning. The PSR is recognized as a first principle of reasoning – which is why it is called the Principle of Sufficient Reason… In short, science, philosophy and logic are all grounded upon the truth (and acceptance) of the PSR, because without it we have no reason for thinking anything at all about anything at all. It is the dividing line between rationality and irrationality. Certainly, you are free to be irrational or to accept the unreal as real, but you would be doing that for no reason whatsoever except caprice. Good luck with that, but don’t expect anyone reasonable to be convinced…

First off, the negation of the PSR is not “nothing has sufficient reason” or “everything has insufficient reason” but rather “Not everything has sufficient reason.”

Second, it is called the Principle **of **Sufficient Reason, not The Principle Sufficient for Reasoning.

If you throw out the PSR “and its variants” then you have no grounds upon which to know that anything whatsoever is or can be true.

This is simply not true. If it were true, then the PSR would not be controversial among philosophers.

What you are mistaking is how the principle came to be recognized as a first principle – i.e., through human experience – with its logical necessity as the foundation for human reasoning. The truth of something does not depend upon how it came to be believed – genetic fallacy…

The PSR is axiomatic to reasoning. That is, if you subscribe to reasoning at all as a process for coming to know anything at all about reality then the PSR must hold, necessarily – just as mathematical axioms hold necessarily within their respective systems. The PSR is axiomatic within reason itself.

You seem to be mixing up a handful of different ideas.

First: It is perfectly reasonable to build up an axiomatic system on top of the PSR (i.e. to accept the PSR as an axiom.) However, that does not make it’s predictions about the universe valid. For example, we could build up a perfectly self-consistent geometry with non-euclidean axioms and make predictions about the real world based on that geometry. However, the predictions made by that geometry are not automagically accurate just because the system was self-consistent and had some successes elsewhere.

And so we are discussing two different things:
A: The PSR as an axiom
B: The PSR as the way the real world actually behaves

You are correct in saying that it would be wrong to reject A solely on the grounds that human experiences were involved. But we are not talking about A, we are talking about B. This kind of reasoning:

1. Assume the universe exists without a cause.
   2a. The PSR (or equivalent) says that everything has a cause.
   2b. Line 1 violates line 2a.
2. Therefore the universe must have a cause.

has the PSR making a claim about how the real world actually is. In order to do this, we need empirical evidence about how the real world actually is, and consequently inductive reasoning.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Consider a Jell-O (jelly). It sits there gently wobbling. Pour boiling water through a thin spout onto the center. Rivulets form as the water melts the gelatin. The directions of the rivulets are of course generally downhill but otherwise not predictable. But once a rivulet forms, the water tends to flow down it, making it deeper, rather than forming new channels. I’ve seen this used as an analogy to how patterns of thought develop.

The regularities self-organize by repetition. There are many examples of self-organization. I’ve not read Hume but believe he uses the idea of self-organization to argue against the intelligent designer of his day in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

In your opinion, is the thin spout of hot water, at least partially, the cause of the rivulets or not?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

has the PSR making a claim about how the real world actually is? In order to do this, we need empirical evidence about how the real world actually is, and consequently inductive reasoning.

Empirical evidence about how the real world actually is? Oh!..

By “real world” do you mean the world which is beyond any empirical evidence or one which is only accessible through a peculiar empirical evidence?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Empirical evidence about how the real world actually is? Oh!..

By “real world” do you mean the world which is beyond any empirical evidence or one which is only accessible through a peculiar empirical evidence?

Whichever one we’re talking about when we ask “Why Couldn’t the Universe Exist Without a Cause?”

 

[ynotzap]

Go to post 480 of this thread, my answer to DrTaffy. If it is possibly imaginary- it still has to have reality as a source from which to draw ideas from- no reality, no imagination, no non-fiction, no fiction. Possibly imaginary, possibly real. eg, Jules Verns “trip to the Moon, 20 thousand leagues under the sea” All classified as fiction when written. These stories are a mixture of subjective thought, and objective thought. There has to be a cause for a possibility.

The imagination is the ability of the mind to take impressions, ideas from the objective world and construct a world according to the desire, and ordering of the one imagining. Jules Vernes, H.G Wells wrote fiction stories that were prophetical in part simply because they were based in part on the real world. Jules wrote “from earth to moon”- l865, “Round the Moon”-l870 H.G.Wells wrote “First Men on the Moon”-l901 C.S,Lewis was inspired by H.G, Wells, which was especially visible in “Out of the Silent Planet”, it was the first book of his "Space Trilogy. Man actually landed on the moon in July 20, l969. Because of reality (the cause), a science fiction story(the effect) turned out to be true in part, prophetical. There can be no possibility without a cause, no non-fiction without fiction, no cause without an effect, and no effect without a cause, even in multiple universes. There are self-evident truths that shine by there own light, and do not need reasoning. These self-evident truths are found in the real, objective world, and stand on their own.

 

[Bradski]

There are self-evident truths that shine by there own light, and do not need reasoning. These self-evident truths are found in the real, objective world, and stand on their own.

Mmm. Like cause and effect. Like something from nothing. Like one thing being in two places at the same time. Like light receding from the observer. Like a child being older than her father. Like being able to observe something that doesn’t exist.

All self evident truths. Which just require common sense to understand. Unfortunately you need to check in your common sense at the door when dealing with certain aspects of physics.

 

[inocente]

Well, now you are reading into Jesus’ words far beyond warrant. YOU may not like legalists and YOU are not the slightest bit subtle about telling them, but I would venture that Jesus loves everyone, including legalists.

Jesus (aka God) counted the ultimate “legalist” – you know, Moses, the one who tipped every yodh and hooked every tittle in the Mosaic Law – among his closest human friends. He was invited to the Transfiguration event along with Elijah and only a select few of the Apostles.

Let’s stop you there as you don’t appear to know what legalism means.

In theology, legalism is any doctrine which claims that salvation is gained through adherence to moral and ritual codes alone, without any need for sanctifying Grace. It is therefore about outward strict observance of the letter of the law alone, there is no need for mercy or love or any change within (as in Matt 23:23-28).

As the Wikipedia article states (noting its reference to Matt 23): “Legalism refers to any doctrine which states salvation comes strictly from adherence to the law. It can be thought of as a works-based religion. Groups in the New Testament said to be falling into this category include the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Judaizers, and Nicolaitans. They are legalists because they emphasized obeying the Law of Moses, in the case of the Pharisees and Scribes, to the letter without understanding the concept of grace. Jesus condemned their legalism in Matthew 23. The Pharisees love of the praises of men for their strict adherence is said to be a prime example of legalism.”

As this Catholic Answers video says, it’s sometimes called pharisaism after the Pharisees.

But don’t take my word for it, google legalism and read through the Catholic articles which come up.

Now your post threw a lot of red ink at something which is off-topic, and whether or not that was intended as a smokescreen, I’ve not noticed your response to the on-topic posts #470 and #474. Does that mean you’ve seen the errors of your ways, or are you about to eagerly answer them?

 

[inocente]

They don’t believe it’s theopneustos.

You do.

And the ONLY way you know that Hebrews, for example, is the Word of God, is because you give your tacit submission to the Catholic Church.

Now, if you want to say that you have the same attitude towards the Bible as you would any historical text, that’s fine, but then you can’t say that God has revealed himself through a sacred text. It’s just some interesting neat stuff written by some folks who lived around the time of Jesus.

Is that your position?

When I was baptized, as an adult, I publicly submitted to Christ. So what do you mean by submitting to the Church: Is your master Christ or the Church? Do you want me to renounce my submission to Christ? Do you want me to serve two masters?

I asked you to cite where this requirement comes from and you haven’t. Where does your Church authorize you to demand that other Christians submit to its authority? After all you’re laity, where is your authority from the Church? Tell me explicitly, you can’t expect others to submit if you yourself don’t.

But what most concerns me is your motive. After all you know very little about me or the work God is doing in me. You’ve shown no interest in my soul, it seems you’re only interested in outward observance of some rule you invented. Does the Spirit move you to make such demands of other Christians, to try to sow confusion and doubt in other Christians? Does that sound like the Spirit to you?

btw you’ve tried this off-topic argument on me on other threads and it is, to put it politely, logically flawed, but your answers to the above would be interesting to get an idea of whether you have clarity of what good you think can come from such games.

 

[inocente]

There you go! Appealing to an authority to prove the appeal to authority is a fallacy.

Please try to reason better than Richard Dawkins can.

The entire source you quote reads as follows:

*An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious*; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.

So apparently your appeal to the authority you cite was fallacious.

I don’t know who the dude is your citing, but he seems not too swift on the fallacies.

I’ve no idea what that’s supposed to be about.

Mainly.

Gerald Schroeder in his book *The Science of God *(especially chapters 3 & 4) does an excellent job of interpreting Genesis as a master plan of intelligently designed creation that is generally consistent with the discoveries of modern science. He has a doctorate in physics from M.I.T., and is a respected biblical scholar in Israel.

But I’m afraid that’s more authority than you can stand so I doubt you will entertain any of his thoughts.

Yes, let’s ignore all other scholars and cherry-pick the one you like.

inocente;13622741:

Matthew 23 NIV. I won’t give the verse number because anyone who knows the quote will know that it is representative of the chapter, and anyone who is unfamiliar with it needs to read the whole chapter to get the context. Which is that Jesus really doesn’t like legalists and isn’t the slightest bit subtle about telling them.

Jesus detested those who like the letter of the law but despise the spirit of the law.

Jesus did not detest the law itself.

Sorry, I’m afraid I could never appeal to you as an authority on scriptural interpretation.

Legalism doesn’t mean not detesting the law. Please have a look at post #507 and comment on your understanding of what legalism means.

 

[inocente]

In your opinion, is the thin spout of hot water, at least partially, the cause of the rivulets or not?

The number, direction, widths, depths and gradients of the rivulets are all created by feedback within the system. So the water is, as it were, the First Cause, but it doesn’t design anything, everything interesting is self-organized within the system itself. The “First Cause” is reduced to an (name removed by moderator)ut of energy, a trigger, to (what I guess) might be termed an initial condition. I think that’s where Hume’s argument leads, you would need to check.

 

[DrTaffy]

Go to the Thread "Questions to Atheists about God of the Gaps, Post l04,and l05 Aug. 21, 015 in my posts.

Or you could give a link, like this.

However those posts don’t even give anecdotal evidence of a sentient mind existing without a body, space or time, just stories of you being lifted by two men and the like.

Even if we accepted that as ‘proof’ of levitation, that does not prove the existyence of bodiless mind outside of time and space.

Isn’t it true that non-fiction must precede fiction, even in a hypothesis which is an unproven theory? Is it not the creative imagination employed in hypothesis even if some parts of it’s creation employ known facts?

No idea what you are saying here, or in the rest of the post. For example, the two sentences I quote seem to contradict eachother - the first seems to agree with PR that the reality of a thing must be proven before one may speculate about it, the second seems to disagree.

To be clear, do you agree with PR that one may not speculate about something unless one has proof that it exists or not? Do you at least agree that the same standard should apply to theist and atheist hypotheses?

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;13616940:

The assertion that no atheist is capable of sacrificing his life for another is of course ridiculous and deeply insulting to atheist members of the armed forces and emergency services, at the very least.

Firstly, what is being asserted is that no atheist is capable of the great act of love done by Believers–as manifested by, say, a sacrificial giving of one’s life–NOT that atheists can’t be heroic.

No, what you asserted was that “no atheist could do what Maximilian Kolbe did–that is, offer to die in the place of another, out of love”. Again, to assert that (for example) atheist members of the armed forces and emergency services never do this is ridiculous and deeply insulting.

If anything the atheist who does not believe in the afterlife and does not expcect reward for his valor, yet still sacrifices his life for another is making a far greater gesture of love than the theist who expects both to live on after death and to be rewarded in the afterlife for his sacrifice.

Likewise I have much more respect for a group who do heroic, charitable or simply kind things and then just get on with their lives than I do for a group who do something heroic, charitable or kind and then bang on about it to wring every last ounce of gratitude and reward out of it.

Secondly, if you assert that atheists have done this, then please offer some names of atheists who have done this.

Another argument from ignorance from PR. You made the assertion, that atheists are incapable of such acts of love, you back it up. I am not building any argument on the assertion that atheists can feel and be motivated by love.

We will, of course, require some documentation:
-4 independent witnesses accounts of this act of sublime sacrificial love
-text from this individual attesting to his atheism

Great, so when you finally get around to providing concrete robust evidence that a mind can exist without a body, space or time, you will doubtless provide as much documentation yourself. I mean, you are going to back up your assertion eventually, aren’t you, seeing as it was your standard?

 

[DrTaffy]

Without any hope for finding scientific proof that something can exist without a cause, it would take a great leap of faith to believe in such a thing.

Then that surely holds true for God as well as for the universe? Except that in the case of God you are also hypothesising, for example, that a mind can exist and act without a body, space or time.

How could one prove that nothing existed before something existed?

What does that even mean if time is one of the things that ‘exist’? ‘Nothing’, by definition, does not ‘exist’. There is no time before time. In other words, the whole thing is a linguistic mess.

The mathematical models are at least explicit and clear. Albeit speculative (but not entirely unsupported.)

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Whichever one we’re talking about when we ask “Why Couldn’t the Universe Exist Without a Cause?”

“We”? The OP explicitly says that “we are used to a Universe where everything is caused”. Obviously, that Universe is our Universe. Do you include yourself within the “we” of the OP, or you belong to another “we”?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

The number, direction, widths, depths and gradients of the rivulets are all created by feedback within the system. So the water is, as it were, the First Cause, but it doesn’t design anything, everything interesting is self-organized within the system itself. The “First Cause” is reduced to an (name removed by moderator)ut of energy, a trigger, to (what I guess) might be termed an initial condition. I think that’s where Hume’s argument leads, you would need to check.

You have seen already that according to Hume there is no reason to expect similar “effects” from similar “causes”. I think he wouldn’t say that the hot water jet is the First Cause of the rivulets. According to him, if you think that it is the First Cause it is just because every time you have done the experiment you have observed that the formation of the rivulets follows the application of the hot water jet. “Custom” is his key word. But he lacked intellectual penetration or reflexivity because he could not see that “custom” already involves the causality that he wanted to explain by other means.

I agree with you, against Hume, that the hot water jet is part of the cause for the formation of the rivulets.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Are we accustomed to see light bent by the presence of a massive body? Did Albert Einstein discover this “Cause and Effect” relation by experience?

This is what Hume thought regarding this matters:

“This proposition, that causes and effects are discoverable, not by reason but by experience, will readily be admitted with regard to such objects, as we remember to have once been altogether unknown to us; since we must be conscious of the utter inability, which we then lay under, of foretelling what would arise from them. Present two smooth pieces of marble to a man who has no tincture of natural philosophy; he will never discover that they will adhere together in such a manner as to require great force to separate them in a direct line, while they make so small a resistance to a lateral pressure. Such events, as bear little analogy to the common course of nature, are also readily confessed to be known only by experience; nor does any man imagine that the explosion of gunpowder, or the attraction of a loadstone, could ever be discovered by arguments a priori. In like manner, when an effect is supposed to depend upon an intricate machinery or secret structure of parts, we make no difficulty in attributing all our knowledge of it to experience. Who will assert that he can give the ultimate reason, why milk or bread is proper nourishment for a man, not for a lion or a tiger?”

Elegant and entertaining words, aren’t they?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

When I was baptized, as an adult, I publicly submitted to Christ. So what do you mean by submitting to the Church: Is your master Christ or the Church? Do you want me to renounce my submission to Christ? Do you want me to serve two masters?

“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18

Presumably according to your logic the true Church is going to have hell prevail against it, because you seem to differentiate Christ from his Church in a way he never intended.

 

[PRmerger]

Great, so when you finally get around to providing concrete robust evidence that a mind can exist without a body, space or time, you will doubtless provide as much documentation yourself. I mean, you are going to back up your assertion eventually, aren’t you, seeing as it was your standard?

Don’t think I don’t notice the deflection.

Right now, what we are seeing is am amusing belief based on Faith Alone in a Phantom-Equivalent of St. Maximilian Kolbe.

“He exists! I just know he does! I believe this on Faith Alone, of course, because I have not a shred of evidence for this of course.”

I imagine a feverish search on Google has already happened, scouring for evidence of this person’s existence.

Alas, Taffy, I should have warned you that this would be a Big Waste O Time–many, many atheists have endeavored to try to find this Phantom…to no avail.

And yet they still insist on his existence.

Go figure.

#doublestandard

Just like the glaring double standard “The universe could exist without a cause! Something CAN come from nothing! Although I’ve never seen that before…ever…and no lab has ever been able to demonstrate it!”

#faithalone

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No idea what you are saying here, or in the rest of the post. For example, the two sentences I quote seem to contradict eachother - the first seems to agree with PR that the reality of a thing must be proven before one may speculate about it, the second seems to disagree.

To be clear, do you agree with PR that one may not speculate about something unless one has proof that it exists or not?** Do you at least agree that the same standard should apply to theist and atheist hypotheses**?

No, because the order of proof is radically different in each case.

No one pretends to offer proof of God in the same way you would offer proof of gravity.

As to the issue of causality, the contention of theists is that God created the principle of causality. So the idea that he is subject to his own creation is absurd. God is a necessary creator of the principle of causality, and so God cannot be caused.

 

[PRmerger]

Great, so when you finally get around to providing concrete robust evidence that a mind can exist without a body, space or time, you will doubtless provide as much documentation yourself. I mean, you are going to back up your assertion eventually, aren’t you, seeing as it was your standard?

Why do I need to do that?

“Concrete evidence” Alone is not MY standard.

** It’s your irrational standard. Not mine. Remember?

My new favorite saying is “Scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist”. And here is another great example of this fundamentalism.

I’ve had discussions with Fundamentalist Bible Believers who demand, “Show me in the Bible where your belief in A, B and C comes from!”

Why do I need to do that?

** It’s your irrational standard. Not mine.

Surely the Fundamentalist shouldn’t demand that I submit to his irrational [Fill-in-the-blank] ALONE ideology. It’s not my ideology.

And I’ve had conversations with Fundamentalist Traditionalist Catholics.

“The Mass should be in Latin Alone!”
“Now, PR, show me where the pope had the authority to change the Mass to the vernacular!”

Em…why do I need to that?

** It’s your irrational standard. Not mine.

Love the parallels among these folks who use ALONE Ideology for some irrational reason.
*
“I will drive on Highway 55 Alone to get home!”*
Ok. But there’s lots of ways to get to your house, but if that’s what you want to do, that’s fine.
“But you’re not driving on Hwy 55!”
Yep. Egg-zactly right. I use all sorts of means that are available.

Don’t hold me to your irrational ALONE standard.