ARISCE

I would state that the events we currently observe ALWAYS have a cause. Can you provide some causeless events? I am not aware of any but I am willing to listen and learn.

MrWhy

I just put in the word "usually" because some that know quantum mechanics may suggests there's uncaused stuff going on. From our limited view there's always a cause. Some say all behavior has a cause, but we should not go there on this thread.

Butters

Hello Tremendoustie!

Events have causes within spacetime. There is how can cause and effect operate separate of space and time? If space and time began with the universe, there is no reason to accept it had a cause.


If you mean the four dimensional, observable universe, then yes. But, if you are trying to claim some “cause�? for this universe, then you must postulate a meta universe, whose properties we can’t even guess at. There is no reason to speculate that if some causal agent exists, that it is not subject to entropy.

What kind of system do you think it is?

Atheos

Since this particular forum deals with discourse relating to "Existence of God(s)" it is generally expected that a proposition such as you made in the OP would somehow relate to the existence or non-existence of some deity. If you are interested in a purely academic scientific discussion of theories partaining to the origin of the universe you'll probably have better luck in the "Science & Skepticism" forum of IIDB rather than this one.

Be that as it may, I still maintain that historical precident suggests there is always a perfectly reasonable and natural explanation of every observable event in nature. Just because we (currently) lack the sophistication to explain an observed (or perceived) phenomenon doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly rational explanation for said phenomenon without resorting to the supernatural. I have yet to see a positive, debatable argument for any deity that is not simply another argument from ignorance or incredulity. (Non-debatable arguments would include such things as claims of personal contact with God).

-Atheos

Alf

This is wrong. You assume "always" means "indefinitely in the past" or "infinite past". This is not necessarily so. I believe that the universe has "always" existed but that this "always" do not necessarily stretch indefinitely in the past. I.e. the universe has a certain age X and you cannot go further back in time than X X is in this respect a boundary in time for the universe and you cannot find a valid point in time that is before X. You might possibly not even find a valid point in time that is at X either and so only valid points in time is less than X, i.e. you can go less than X into the past.

Put it this way, if we envision that the age of the universe as measured from us can be given a value T then we can go back in time (in our mind) to yesterday and find a lower value for T - namely T - 1 day. Thus, T represent the age of the universe in some sense. Now, it is quite possible that the only valid values of T are values that are strictly positive, i.e. T > 0 is the only valid points in time. This means you can pick any valid point in time T and you can find an earlier time such as T/2 or T/100 but you will always end up with times that are strictly positive. Thus, the set of valid times form an open interval of values.

Since There is a certain value 0 that you cannot reach and certainly not go beyond to negative values it is easy to see that the universe has not existed "forever" and thus your conclusion does not hold. However, it can still be said to "always" exist since "always" refer to all valid points in time of the past and the universe existed at those times.

Since in this model there never was a time 0 at which point the universe did not exist, it did not need to be created either.

This is problematic. If you have a valid point in time and space then you also have matter and energy at that time and thus you have a universe. Thus there never can be a valid point in time at which the universe did not exist.

Exactly.

The first one is obviously true. There are observed effects that occur without cause in the labs.

The second one is also reasonable.

The third one is also reasonable if you assume there is something apart from the universe. Since we can then simply redefine the universe to include that external agent, this option seems rather artificial.

Also note that the first and second do not conflict with each other, they may very well both be true and the first one is demonstrably true in the lab today so it is not a disputed finding.

Why? Are you saying that quantum mechanics is all bunk? Are you saying the Casimir effect is just an illusion?

No, it doesn't. QM has observed uncaused effects for years and science has had no problems with it.

Tell that to HRG and Sven and others who work in physics labs.

Actually, we have no valid reason to claim it does apply to the universe. The law is a formulation of observed effects inside the universe and it would be a category error to claim it must necessarily hold for the universe itself.

See above. Since it is a logical error to claim it must hold it is unproblematic that it doesn't. What evidence are you referring to?

Fair enough. Howver, since your premises are faulty it doesn't actually follows that I will necessarily agree with your conclusion.

That question presupposes a creator. If the universe were not created there is no why. If you see a man or a cat walking along a path and then suddenly turn left, you will ask yourself why he did so, because you know that the man or the cat had some intent - a purpose. Thus, it is reasonable to ask why he suddenly turned left.

If you observe a plastic bag flying along the wind along the same path and then suddenly the wind causes it to turn left you won't ask why did the bag want to turn left. The bag has no intent, it goes wherever the wind takes it.

So, if the universe was not created, it is meaningless to ask why it bothers existing.

So Stephen Hawking was wrong. The guy cannot be right in everything.

I agree with you there and I hope you feel welcome here in IIDB. Even if I disagree with some things you said above doesn't mean that I have anything personal against you. I hope you see that goes for all of us.

Alf

Alf

Read up on quantum mechanics. Check out in particular things such as quantum fluctuations, casimir effects etc.

I believe also HRG has a good example that he told us about once.

It is a particle which has no spin but is unstable and then decays into another particle that does have spin. Where did that spin come from? It has no cause, it is an effect without cause.

These things has been observed in the lab.

Alf

ARISCE

Thanks for the info. I will certainly read about QM. Can you suggest a "Beginner's" book that is easy reading. Looking forward to your response.

Stephen T-B

So, whatever "caused" the universe to come into existence is itself exempt from entropy?
To cause a physical event requires energy. This "spiritual creative entity" which we seem to be discussing therefore posseses an energy which can be translated into a physical process.
Is it observed in the universe we know; in other words, do we see "spiritual" powers having physical effects?
Well, it is certainly claimed that we do, but every claim, it turns out, requires a willingness to believe that the "effect" was indeed caused by shere spiritual, or supernatural power. History shows us that rigorous investigation of such claims shows them to be fraudulent or misunderstood. Indeed, Mr James Randi is waiting even now, with a prize of $1m for the person who can demonstrate a spiritual or supernatural force which can produce physical effects.
No-one has been able to.

Film goers are familiar with supernatural powers doing all sorts of wonderful things, but the films in which they are seen are works of fiction - and in fiction anything at all is possible. Because something is depicted on the screen, and looks real, doesn't mean it is.

It should not be beyond the power of an all-powerful deity to provide incontrovertible evidence of its ability to interact with the physical universe.
The reason it doesn't, we're told by religionists, is not because no such entity exists (the rather obvious explanation) but because this all-powerful deity chooses not to demonstrate its power in case we should be coerced into believing it exists. We must have "faith" that it exists, and having "faith" is so commendable, apparently, that those who possess it will be rewarded with an eternity of heavenly bliss.
This "supernatural creator being" certainly seems to be on the quirky side, because what it values above all else is a person's imaginative powers.

And when we use our imagination, as we see in films and read in books about the supernatural, anything is possible. It is even possile that a being which is not of our universe and has existed for ever, created our universe.

Discerning the difference between fiction and reality is something religionists don't seem to be very keen on.

Alf

I am afraid I don't have any such suggestion. The ones I read when I started to read up on QM was hardly what you would call "beginner's books".

However, if you go to any bookstore that sell books on physics I am sure they can help you and often the people in such bookstores have lots of knowledge about which books are recommendable and not - at least this is the case in Norway.

I would believe there are other posters who probably also might recommend some for you. HRG and Sven are two posters here who study these things. I am sure they would know of some books.

Alf

Barefoot Bree

ARISCE, you might also want to check out the Recommended Reading sticky at the top of the Science and Skepticism forum - they'll have good recommendations in there.