Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[Charlemagne_III]

We’ve had this tired old conversation many times before, I can’t get interested in repeating it yet again, thanks all the same.

All the same, the same, the same, the same reply is why it’s a tired old thing.

 

[inocente]

All the same, the same, the same, the same reply is why it’s a tired old thing.

Baiting is still prohibited.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Stay on topic.

 

[DrTaffy]

I’m not interested in the plate issue,

Then why interject on it? The point is that we were asked to present an example of ‘something coming from nothing’ in the same sense as a turnip appearing on PR’s plate.

This we have done, despite the fact that the burden of proof is not on us. The theist side, on the other hand, has gone to great lengths to avoid backing up their assumptions.

Bear in mind that this is a discussion about a proposed proof of God. So the burden of proof is on those proposing the proof.
If your proof relies on the assertions that:
atheist theories necessarily propose that something comes from nothing
something cannot come from nothing
it is reasonable to assert that a mind exists without a body, space or time
…then it is up to you to defend those assertions. Merely presenting the assertions and demanding that we disprove them or accept them as true is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

 

[DrTaffy]

You keep claiming the right to re-define things.

Nope. You claim that right, and the right to put words in others’ mouths, apparently.

Not sure what your point is.

Surprise.

It *sounds *like you’re asserting that if a person can’t identify “exactly” how the universe came to exist then this means that God doesn’t exist?

Is that your point?

Obviously not, but then you knew that. If you assert that God created the universe but can give absolutely no explanation of how, or explanation of how such a being is a reasonable hypothesis, then by your own explicitly stated ‘paradigm’, ridicule is the appropriate response, according to you.

Yet you are the one ridiculing us while refusing to support your point of view.

Physicists, on the other hand, have very detailed models with extensive supporting evidence (note that I say supporting evidence, not absolute proof) and which require neither a disembodied sentient timeless God nor necessarily something coming from nothing.

 

[DrTaffy]

Also, space, time, quantum fabric, the laws of physics. These are all something. When a metaphysician says the universe cannot come from nothing, he means nothing. Space is a thing. Time is a thing. A law of physics is a thing.

It is highly debatable whether the laws of physics are ‘something’ - are the laws of logic and maths also ‘something’?

Likewise highly dubious to assert that ‘metaphysicians’ prior to modern day physics meant anything other than ‘vacuum’ by ‘nothing’ - and, as pointed out, what we were actually asked for was clearly answered by our example.

Finally, if you count ‘time’ as ‘something’ then trivially there cannot have been a time at which there was ‘Nothing™’, as at any time there was time. So there cannot have been a time at which there was ‘Nothing™’ then a time a moment later at which there was something.

So what do you mean by something coming from nothing?

The correct response isn’t to claim that something can come from nothing by pointing to a vacuum. A more consistent response would be to declare that the vacuum (or something) is eternal. I believe that itself has flaws, but it would seem to more accurately reflect your claims, at least.

You don’t seem to understand the argument, even leaving to one side the whole issue of PR not having originally demanded an example of something coming from absence even of space and time. If you make the effort to try to follow the arguments of cosmologists like Krauss you will see how they do (at least try to) show how combining QM and GR could lead to space time being self generated/necessary/‘coming from nothing’ or however you want to phrase it, in the same way that quantum foam is necessary/self generated/‘comes from nothing’ in a vacuum.

To be honest I think you really have to follow the math, not popularisations in English, to understand the nuances. But if you at least tried to address actual arguments presented by actual cosmologists, and say where you disagree, that would be one way to advance the debate. Merely making assertions and demanding that we disprove them will not do so.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I am trying to conceive your hypothetical world, JK: to be consistent, I would need to eliminate “2.” or change it for “there is no possible physics for this world, and it has no properties”. Would you agree?

No. After all, we’ve already stipulated that it had certain properties by the time we get to #2.

Concerning your last paragraph…, metaphysics is not derived from physics.

Meta-physics, when done correctly, is reasoning about physics as a whole. You can certainly provide your own definition of metaphysics if you like, but in my mind, meta-physics always follows physics. If there is any contradiction between physics and metaphysics, we can treat the metaphysical position as a suggestion, but it is ultimately up to physics to sort things out.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You basically asked “what caused God?”

But theists reject the idea that everything must have a cause. What we say is that “what comes into existence must have a cause,” or “what is contingent must have a cause.”

Which is fine. But you still haven’t solved your problem. After all, I can ask “What caused God to cause the world to come into existence?” And subsequently “what caused the thing that caused God to cause the world to come into existence.”

Now perhaps you will say that God’s “actions” have the same properties as God himself, and that God’s actions did not come into existence either. That is fine, too.

But now we have an interesting situation. We have a cause which never came into existence. Doesn’t that mean that it’s effect (i.e. the universe) must also have never come into existence? If you deny this, then I will simply ask: what caused God’s decision to “kick in” when it did?

Therefore, barring a successful answer to the above question, we must conclude that the universe did not actually come into existence, or rather, that the universe is necessary.

But that conclusion means it is logically possible for the universe to be necessary and therefore we can’t assert that it must have a cause in the first place.

 

[Aloysium]

When I think about nothing, I consider what I see through the back of my head.
Where there should be only that perception, an entire universe now exists.
But there’s more to what I understand by the term ex nihilo.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”

God, within each moment, encompassing all moments, beyond all moments, is.
Perfect relationality within Himself, He brings creation into existence, from its beginning to its end not as part of Himself, but as something other, which He loves and which can love Him in turn.

We have a sense of how the universe unfolded physically at the beginning, how it was transformed in the smallest fractions of time and over eons into its current state. Through the contrast, these formulations bring to light the mystery of what now exists.
And, what does exist, exists as itself, as distinct from what it is not, defined by its nonexistence.

Empirical study can only reveal so much, circumscribed as it is by that which still remains of what once was.
We do have revealed in words that speak to all people, in all times the Genesis of the world as it took place in step-wise fashion, the new adding to and building on what was, culminating in the creation of man.

It is now, as it was, ex nihilo. We as individual persons, while fashioned by the very stuff of the universe about us, are ultimately brought into existence as other to everything else. It is through love, which is what this is all about, that we commune with what is real and the Font of that reality.

 

[ynotzap]

It is highly debatable whether the laws of physics are ‘something’ - are the laws of logic and maths also ‘something’?

If the laws of physics were nothing, they don’t exist, if they exist they are something, ideas representing objective reality, they are not material, something you keep fighting, but they exist and are not material, but non-material, another word for it is “spiritual” a reality denied by so many.

DrTaffy:

Likewise highly dubious to assert that ‘metaphysicians’ prior to modern day physics meant anything other than ‘vacuum’ by ‘nothing’ - and, as pointed out, what we were actually asked for was clearly answered by our example.

It is highly dubious that metaphysicians knew much about what science now calls vacuum, and logical that what they meant by nothing, was, non-existent . The only way that we can express something that doesn’t exist since we have nothing to refer to, is in a negative way, and say non-existent.

DrTaffy:

Finally, if you count ‘time’ as ‘something’ then trivially there cannot have been a time at which there was ‘Nothing™’, as at any time there was time. So there cannot have been a time at which there was ‘Nothing™’ then a time a moment later at which there was something.

Time, as we know it is a measurement of change, a mathematical concept imposed on the ever-changing world we live in, it is a concept to give the change in the world some measurement Our measurement comes close, but not perfect because the very instrument used to measure time, is changing ever so minutely, the closest is the atomic clock.

DrTaffy:

So what do you mean by something coming from nothing?

See my answer above even though it wasn’t addressed to me I believe you will find it consistent with members of the Philosophy forum.

DrTaffy:

You don’t seem to understand the argument, even leaving to one side the whole issue of PR not having originally demanded an example of something coming from absence even of space and time. If you make the effort to try to follow the arguments of cosmologists like Krauss you will see how they do (at least try to) show how combining QM and GR could lead to space time being self generated/necessary/‘coming from nothing’ or however you want to phrase it, in the same way that quantum foam is necessary/self generated/‘comes from nothing’ in a vacuum.

When I am aware of the concept “self-generating”, I immediately reject it as “impossible” If a thing was self-generating, it would bring itself into existence, it would be subsistent. That would mean it would have existence as it’s nature, and there is only One Being that has existence for His Nature, “The I Am, Who Am” You are very methodical in your thinking, but I find so much that is highly questionable in your answers.

 

[PRmerger]

No, you are wrong. I am saying that one thing can exist in two places not because it is logical and common sense, but based on experimentation. These things are NOT logical and do NOT conform with our common sense, but these common perceptions are trumped by the reality of physics. Likewise receding light beams or virtual particles.

But YOUR argument is that because something appears to counter common sense and appears to be illogical, then YOU must be right, simply because of that fact. If you are right, then we can use your argument to re-write quantum physics and relativity. PR says it’s not logical, THEREFORE Feynman and Bohr et al are wrong. PR says it’s not common sense, THEREFORE Einstein and Hubble are wrong.

This is extraordinarily simple to put to rest. Just answer the following:

Can the fact that a particle can be in two places at the same time be described as common sense? Can it by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever be described as logical?

Now you know that there’s only one answer to that. And I know that you know that there’s only one answer. And everyone reading this knows it as well. But I can’t see you answering it because the moment you do you dismantle your own argument.

I am really scratching my head at this argument being presented.

“We can’t use logic and reason” when it comes to arguing for God’s existence because physics has some counterintuitive propositions. But atheists can use logic and reason to assert that we can’t use logic and reason.

And we atheists can use logic and reason when we say “A good God wouldn’t let my grandma die of cancer. That’s not what a good God does.”

I suppose, Bradski, you wouldn’t countenance a Believer saying, “Well, sometimes when we discuss God’s reasons for allowing a grandma to die of cancer we can’t use logic and reason”.

I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t cut it with you.

Nor should it.

It’s pretty lame to say “We don’t have to follow the rules of logic and reason”.

For both sides.

 

[PRmerger]

Fair enough. You imply that it’s the arguments presented that matter. I agree with you. But where is ‘opening your heart to the god of Sikhism’ in this? I don’t see it. I also don’t see why it’s necessary to grant the existence of the god of Sikhism before you can digest the arguments put forward for that god’s existence.

I would NEVER assert that I don’t understand what opening one’s heart to the god of Sikhism because I don’t believe in the god of Sikhism.

I would understand that belief in this god isn’t necessary to be able to think in the abstract.

Just like, to bring this on topic, we Believers assert that if one opens one’s heart to the God who created this Universe (which, clearly, began to exist, and, clearly, and LOGICALLY, needs a CAUSE for its existence), one can begin to think a bit more clearly.

 

[PRmerger]

We’ve had this tired old conversation many times before, I can’t get interested in repeating it yet again, thanks all the same.

And it’s a good one for which there is no response except: because I give my tacit submission to the authority of the Catholic Church.

And, to segue nicely to the OP, it’s appropriate to note that each and every time a Believer brings up the question: why is there something rather than nothing (the TRUMP CARD of the Believer) and has anything, ever, begun to exist without a cause, when an atheist responds, “Oh, it’s just this same old question again”…we know that the point has been made by Believers…and unable to be refuted.

 

[Bradski]

“We can’t use logic and reason” when it comes to arguing for God’s existence because physics has some counterintuitive propositions. But atheists can use logic and reason to assert that we can’t use logic and reason.

That is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of what has been discussed.

Nobody has ever said anything about not using reason or logic (and reason was not even mentioned at all). They are the two most powerful tools that we have to try to discern what this existence is all about. The discussion has been about what appears to be common sensical and what appears to be logical.

I have explained at length and I think it has been comprehensively shown that you cannot use either to prove a case.

You are wrong, and you have been shown to be wrong, in that you cannot use just common sense and what appears to be logical to determine what can and cannot happen even in areas where the laws of physics hold. And yet you insist it’s perfectly acceptable to do the same in areas where the laws of physics themselves break down.

You can’t be serious…

 

[PRmerger]

That is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of what has been discussed.

Nobody has ever said anything about not using reason or logic (and reason was not even mentioned at all). They are the two most powerful tools that we have to try to discern what this existence is all about. The discussion has been about what appears to be common sensical and what appears to be logical.

I have explained at length and I think it has been comprehensively shown that you cannot use either to prove a case.

You are wrong, and you have been shown to be wrong, in that you cannot use just common sense and what appears to be logical to determine what can and cannot happen even in areas where the laws of physics hold. And yet you insist it’s perfectly acceptable to do the same in areas where the laws of physics themselves break down.

You can’t be serious…

You are saying that we don’t have to use logic and reason when looking at physics.

All I’m doing is saying that if you are permitted to say that, then surely you can’t oppose Believers saying that as well.

Any question you have regarding God will be met with: logic and reason don’t necessarily have to apply.

 

[Bradski]

You are saying that we don’t have to use logic and reason when looking at physics.

You are being purposely obtuse, PR. Reason, again, wasn’t mentioned. And for the very last time, as I am really tired of repeating myself:

You cannot use what APPEARS to be common sense and what APPEARS to be logical as the only methods to determine aspects of reality within physics and you MOST definitely cannot do it when the rules of physics do not even apply.

You have the field. I am withdrawing. There’s no more I can say on this particular matter.

 

[PRmerger]

You are being purposely obtuse, PR. Reason, again, wasn’t mentioned. And for the very last time, as I am really tired of repeating myself:

You cannot use what APPEARS to be common sense and what APPEARS to be logical as the only methods to determine aspects of reality within physics and you MOST definitely cannot do it when the rules of physics do not even apply.

You have the field. I am withdrawing. There’s no more I can say on this particular matter.

I am sorry that you feel that you get to have a double standard.

What you permit for yourself, you ought to permit Theists.

But, then, that’s just logical, isn’t it?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I’m not familiar with formal logic. But if you are and want to prove that it is not illogical, then be my guest. I’ll do my best to follow.

Of course, Bradski. I will try to do it this weekend, during my spare time.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Ask yourself how an animal or infant learns that flames hurt. One possibility is that it experiences pain from one flame, and then constructs a logical argument. This is unlikely, since animals and infants don’t have language or the tools of logic. Far more likely is that seeing a flame causes the memory of pain inflicted by a previous experience to be recalled. This would seem to be a more probable hypothesis for how animals and infants learn - by experience, not by constructing a priori arguments.

And this is exactly how the scientific method works: it starts with observations, with experiencing the world, and only then constructs an a posteriori argument. And that argument is indeed a hostage to fortune, as it may need to be replaced if later observations conflict. All scientific knowledge is provisional. And causality itself is also subject to the scientific method - by observation we conclude that singing does not cause the tide to rise, etc. There is no possibility of an a priori argument to prove which events cause others in all possible universes.

If Hume was right the infant will learn by custom, that is to say, when it gets hurt several times in contact with the flames, until the repeated experience causes a behavioral pattern in him. But if he apprehends the structure of the interaction and establishes the causal relation between the flame and the pain, then he will learn the first time he experiences the pain. No need for a logical deduction, nor repeated experiences that could destroy his body before causing a behavioral pattern in him.

I partially agree with what you say in your second paragraph. What I don’t accept is your statement that causality itself is also subject to the scientific method. That seems even absurd to me. Causality precedes and is a base for the scientific method, not a result of its application. Certainly, the knowledge of each interaction is practically by definition an a posteriori knowledge, but the apprehension of the interaction’s structure can be immediate. If Humeans see the tide rising every time a beautiful woman sings, the repeated experience will cause in them the belief that the singing causes the tide to rise; but normal intelligent people will look for the cause somewhere else from the beginning, no matter how many times they have seen the woman singing while the tide is rising. Probably they too will make mistakes, but the important thing is that they will look for a cause, and some of them even might use the scientific method in their search. Strict Humeans will not produce any science, because they will think that what they have observed till now, might change the next moment; but normal intelligent people will tend to think that given a similar structure in an interaction, the results will be similar in all possible worlds (if by chance they happen to think on all possible worlds during their quotidian life). All scientific knowledge is provisional not because perhaps there is no causality in the world, but because of the idealizations we need to develop in order to represent the interactions in which we are involved (directly or indirectly) and because from time to time we are involved in novel interactions.

 

[Bradski]

Thanks. I’ll be interested to see how it’s done.

Maybe it’ll prompt some study on my part.