elevator

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Please elaborate.

What basis do you have for claiming that the universe is transient? You were the one who introduced M theory into the discussion to begin with. Why is it so difficult to imagine a non-transient universe? Afterall we can imagine an infinite procession of effects. It is much easier to imagine an infinite procession of effects than to imagine a final effect in which all causes converge. We have no problem accepting that there is no highest number. Why then can't we imagine an infinite regression of causes?

The point I am desperately trying to make is that you must explain the creator by introducing him as an uncaused cause. If something can be uncaused (by your definition God), why then is it so hard to imagine the universe itself to inhabit this exact same property of eternal existence?

George S

Of course there could be no reality outside of fiction.

Wouldn't that be strange? To be a character in a tale?

We are, you know.

We are each the Author of a Life. Just One.

What kind of a character will you create?

sschlichter

I will create a 13th century monk called Thomas Aquinas who concludes that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself.

1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause.

elevator

I know this post was directed at George, but I feel I answered it above. The cosmological argument has been discussed into infinity on this board and in numerous philosophical papers and books. There are numerous objections to the argument including, but not limited to; if you assert that there must be an uncaused cause, why can't we just assert that the universe itself is uncaused? After all you have just admitted that something eternal must exist? Why can't this just be the universe itself?

George S

A life is an ongoing process as I am sure you recognize.

It is that dynamic nature of this ongoing process of which I speak. No one is the Author of his own beginning (as this is logically impossible, even for a god, but never mind). No one can be. When the self-aware being first becomes aware of being alive -- a life -- there was a preexisting self to become aware of.

You are the Author who, as a Moral Agent, takes responsibility for some of the state of the Universe. A Cause in the web of human causes.

Edit to add: Thou art the Author of just Thou, you know. Aquinas was an Author, too.

sschlichter

well said.

sschlichter

no, it was directed at everyone. I just do not know how to use the multi-quote. It is not a stand alone argument, though. The 5 ways work together.

George S

And isn't there a razor lying around to slice for simplicity?

The series A: (0)-->[god]-->{Universe}
The series B: (0)-->{Universe}

Not only could it be (series B) the Universe itself, but the uncaused event being a Universe of all Reality is more parsimonious. It takes less steps. It is a simpler explanation, really. Postulating a [god] is postulating an infinite complexity. Why not postulate infinite simplicity instead.

elevator

No it is not a stand alone argument (at least not to argue that God exists). But all the argument assumes is that something eternal must exist. It is absurd to use this argument to "prove" existence of God. It might just as well "prove" the existence of an eternal universe.

elevator

I completely agree.