kevin-francis

I believe that we can't just be without something to put us here. I can't see how everything "just happened." Despite of this, I do not see any intervention that "God" has had in the lives of people (Christians, Muslims, Atheists) that it hasn't had in mine.

tommyc

If the universe didn't "just happen", and there is a creator, then you are suggesting of course that he "just happened"? Can you elaborate on this point please? Im not sure what you are trying to say.

cheers
Tom

Ron Singh

Is this not deism?

E_muse

Sorry to chip in but I find this sort of debate very interesting and would like to add some thoughts.

The origins of the universe will always be a matter for faith because we can never perceptually verify what happened.

I agree with you and share your incredulity.

Everything we observe has had a beginning, from ourselves even to the universe itself. Everything we observe owes its existence to something that has existed before it. We describe such phenomena as contingencies.

What this simply means is that they are not essential being. It is difficult to put into words but simply means that anything that has a beginning cannot be the ground or foundation of being and owes its existence to something else.

I think that we end up thinking like this for the reasons I've given - everything we observe is contingent.

However, if the universe was caused then whatever caused it existed outside of it. This yields some interesting thoughts.

Firstly, time has no meaning outside of the universe and so whatever existed prior to the universe is not dictated to by time. Can something that exists outside of time have a beginning?

I see three alternative:

1. The universe just popped into being.
2. The universe was caused by something that itself had a cause and so on into an infinite regress of contingencies (caused entities).
3. The universe was caused by something that had no beginning but just was. It was non-contingent meaning that it did not rely on anything else for its existence. I refer to this as the 'ground of being'. The entity that makes all other existence possible.

I think that 1 gives most people a problem because it contradicts everything that we experience and know to be true.

2 is also problematic because time has no meaning outside of our universe. As above - could something outside of the universe have a beginning, either by being caused or just popping up? Is there any concept of beginning and end outside of time?

3 seems the most plausible to me. I am not saying that it is God but if God does exist he would have to have the characteristics of a number 3 entity.

Christians etc don't seem any different from anyone else? In what ways?

Automaton

E_muse, you make some typical outrageous theistic claims that I think deserve a rebuttal: Can you "perceptualy verify" that there exists a continent known as Antarctica (assuming you've never been there), or that Aristotle was an actual person? Of course not, but that doesn't mean we have to lump those things we cannot directly verify with our senses in the Christian notion of faith: "Belief without any, or contrary to, evidence." There are such things known as evidence, and inductive logic, which allows us to get a fairly good picture of what happened in the overall history of the universe.
You know, when I was young, my fellow children liked to argue with incredulity that presents couldn't just "happen" without Santa, no matter how many times I persisted in the alternative hypothesis, that their parents were the bestowers of presents instead.
Things don't just begin or end, (with the exception of quantum events), the sum of the universe remains constant and matter and energy within it is only rearranged to form what we perceive as new, distinct entities.
Please explain the distinct, deterministic, spatiotemporal cause of quantum virtual particles.

And how does this demonstrate God exactly? Because the causal chain must end at something, it is extremely non sequitur to then claim that this something must be a thinking, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being that has done X and Y [insert random religious dogma here].
Please explain, without equivocation between the many different definitions of contingency, why the universe is contingent.
The obvious always does.
Amusing that you use "prior" in that sentence, which is a notion dependant on time.
No, it is absolutely meaningless to talk of any sort of causality without time. One cannot talk of time not existing in the past, because the notion of past is itself reliant on time. From no time, no time comes. Since time exists at this point, there can be no point at which time ceases to be, therefore ontological eternity is the only logical scenario.
Ever hear of the fallacy of false trilemma?
You know, at one time, the Earth being round was contrary to everything people experienced and knew to be true.
To your latter question, nope. But what you failed to note is the next step in that logic. If you say the universe had a beginning, then what "preceeded" it can't have been timeless, in which "beginning" would have no meaning.
And we have a winner. All this fluff and for what? "I am not saying that it is God." Obviously, just because God would "have those properties", doesn't mean it would be God. You might as well say, God is defined as a thinking being, Bob next door is a thinking being, therefore Bob is God. The whole contingency "argument" comes up with exactly SQUAT to show that God actually exists.

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: Automaton ]</p>

Ron Singh

yes yes yes, all of this is wonderful, but is Kevin's belief there deism?

Automaton

Yep.

Theli

E-Muse...

A can not be outside B prior to B's existence.
The problem here is that you argue that something might be eternal since it's outside of our spacetime.
But the universe is not within our spacetime either, the spacetime is a part of our universe.
The alledged "god" is therefore not more outside our spacetime than the universe itself is. So why should god be uncaused while the universe can not?

How do you know?
As I've understood, time is not a mere product of our universe but a product of change.

Ron Singh

And where does change happen?

~Your friendly neighborhood fifteen year old Sikh.