Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Theophage · 01-13-2002, 10:09 PM

Okay, I know "first cause" and "big bang" arguments have been done to death in here, but I am (hopefully) going to put a slightly different view on the situation. I used to be a proponent of an atheistic first cause (veterans will remember my stand on this) but I have since moved even beyond the need for such a thing.

So here it is. Please bear with me, I will be brief.

The first part of my argument goes like this:

P1) In order for something to have a cause, there must be a point in time beforehand for the cause to operate.

P2) There was no point in time before the Universe existed.

C1) Therefore the Universe cannot have a cause.

Note that this argument depends upon the assumption (in P2) that time cannot exist outside (or rather "before") the universe. This, I think, is a reasonable assumption due to that fact that time is gnerally considered part of the universe.

It also depends (in P1) on a certain notion of causality that requires temporal succession. I have heard it said that there is such a thing as "simultaneous causality", but I think I can defend my argument from that.

Now to the second part of my proof, the part that involves God:

P3) God is defined as the creator and cause of the universe.

P4) The universe cannot have a cause (restating C1)

C2) Therefore God does not (and cannot) exist.

Hopefully this condenses and simplifies the whole first cause mess a bit. Note that I don't specifically require a Big Bang-type scenario, but the argument can certinly accomodate one. This, I think, is my argument's main strength; reducing the argument's dependance on particular cosmological knowledge or on a particular cosmological interpretation.

So here it is folks, flame away!

[edited for spelling and to add italics]

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]

CodeMason · 01-14-2002, 07:47 AM

That argument's old. Paul Davies made pretty much the same one a while ago in response to a letter about God being the cause of the universe.

CodeMason · 01-14-2002, 07:55 AM

The relevent part of the text I am talking about is:

Quote:

our brains are hard wired for us to think in terms of cause and effect. Because normal physical causation takes place ewithin time with effect following cause, there is a natural tendency to think of a chain of causation stretching back in time, either without any beginning, or else terminating in a metaphysical First Cause, or Uncaused Caused, or Prime Mover. But cosmolo gists now invite us to contemplate the origin of the Universe as having no prior cause in the normal sense, not because it has an abnormal or supernatural prior cause but because there is simply no prior epoch in which a preceding causative agency-natural or supernatural-can operate.

This was published in New Scientist magazine, April 1996, as a part of a feature on the "Big Three" questions (life, the universe and everything). New Scientist have stopped making their stuff freely available online.

Nevertheless, entering a good part of that phrase into google with quotations, should reveal some online copy.

Theli · 01-14-2002, 08:06 AM

"first cause"
The fist cause is ofcourse a usuall scientific speculation. The cause wich triggered "Big Bang". To call this cause "god" one must first theoreticly prove why the universe requires the "first cause" to be a conscience being. Since the "creator god" is very much a theory, much like all the other theories on the universe's creation, it should be weighted properly with all other theories.
It should not be directly associated with the other god-claims. The biblical god, with all the miracles and magic tricks, or the personal god , wich is nothing more than the minds embodyment of an authority (parent)-figure blended with the god-figure from ones religion.
If only the "creator god" were to exist then the term "god" would be abit missleading.
About time, the only way for time to exist is if there is anything else existing. So the only way that the universe (or multiverse) could have been created is out of complete void. If not, then this question rises, "before that?".
The only thing that can be eternal is void, since in complete void time does not exist and the "before that?" question is irrelevant.

Well... This is just my stupid ramblings.

Theophage · 01-14-2002, 08:15 AM

Well I'll be damned

Thanks CodeMason.

Any theistic response to Davies' argument yet? It seems he/I have finally disproved the existance of God once and for all. (Or at least I like to think so...)

I tired the google search, but only came up with two sites that only had the quote you included. Both sites agreed with Davies, so there wasn't any rebuttal material.

It could be that this proof has simply slipped under the theist's radar, which gives me a good reason for going over the idea again here. Also, Davies doesn't take that idea to its logical conclusion, and show that therefore God cannot exist, which is (IMNSHO) the most important point.

CodeMason · 01-14-2002, 08:25 AM

I have actually used it a few times myself, and I have never gotten a satisfactory theistic response. Although, now I don't believe that time began at the Big Bang for our universe, but rather some sort of flat, infinite and empty spacetime preceeded it.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: CodeMason ]

CodeMason · 01-14-2002, 08:36 AM

There is another problem resulting from time and God, and I believe this is one of the strongest logical evidences against the JC God's existence. I, like you, formulated this myself, but I'm almost certain that it has been postulated before me, as it is really fairly obvious.

Time is a property of the physical universe. Indeed, it cannot exist without a spatial reference point to work on. God is defined as beyond the physical, and thus must be free of time. Without time there is no change, as time can also be defined as the measure of change. Hence, a timeless God cannot undergo any change, and must be completely static and inert. Any causation requires a change of state, otherwise one would be causing the same event for ever, which is ridiculous. Therefore God cannot cause, or do, anything.

Yes, this kinda fits in with some form of pantheism (what doesn't?), but in my opinion, it completely destroys the concept of a Creator God that has an active role in the entities within his Creation.

Theophage · 01-14-2002, 09:14 AM

Mason, great minds really do think alike!

I have also used this argument (about God not being able to change state), it's a very good one! The standard theistic answer, however goes something like: "God, as creator of time and space, is not bound by their rules" i.e. God can violate logic at will...

As for the idea of a beginning of time at the BB, one merely has to define the pre-universal state as part of the "total universe" (i.e. everything that has ever existed) and it still fits in with my P2 since there would be no point(s) in time ouotside of this configuration.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]

Theophage · 01-14-2002, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli:
"first cause"
The fist cause is ofcourse a usuall scientific speculation. The cause wich triggered "Big Bang". To call this cause "god" one must first theoreticly prove why the universe requires the "first cause" to be a conscience being

Theli, you are very correct that the idea of a first cause does not necessarily imply a God, but the point of my argument above is that even a first cause isn't needed. the universe simply cannot have a cause, first or otherwise.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Theli · 01-14-2002, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CodeMason:

Time is a property of the physical universe.

By physical you mean energy, right?
But I don't think that a god, even a non-physical god could be "beyond time". Since time exists as long as something can be measured by it. Practicly as long as anything exists at all. Physical or non-physical.

Everything that exists requires a point of creation, except for void wich has no existance.
This supports the idea of the zero-energy universe. Nothing created from nothing...

01-13-2002, 10:09 PM	#1
Theophage Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ USA Posts: 966	Anti-Cosmological Argument (proof a Creator God does not exist) Okay, I know "first cause" and "big bang" arguments have been done to death in here, but I am (hopefully) going to put a slightly different view on the situation. I used to be a proponent of an atheistic first cause (veterans will remember my stand on this) but I have since moved even beyond the need for such a thing. So here it is. Please bear with me, I will be brief. The first part of my argument goes like this: P1) In order for something to have a cause, there must be a point in time beforehand for the cause to operate. P2) There was no point in time before the Universe existed. C1) Therefore the Universe cannot have a cause. Note that this argument depends upon the assumption (in P2) that time cannot exist outside (or rather "before") the universe. This, I think, is a reasonable assumption due to that fact that time is gnerally considered part of the universe. It also depends (in P1) on a certain notion of causality that requires temporal succession. I have heard it said that there is such a thing as "simultaneous causality", but I think I can defend my argument from that. Now to the second part of my proof, the part that involves God: P3) God is defined as the creator and cause of the universe. P4) The universe cannot have a cause (restating C1) C2) Therefore God does not (and cannot) exist. Hopefully this condenses and simplifies the whole first cause mess a bit. Note that I don't specifically require a Big Bang-type scenario, but the argument can certinly accomodate one. This, I think, is my argument's main strength; reducing the argument's dependance on particular cosmological knowledge or on a particular cosmological interpretation. So here it is folks, flame away! [edited for spelling and to add italics] [ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

01-14-2002, 08:25 AM	#6
CodeMason Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 226	I have actually used it a few times myself, and I have never gotten a satisfactory theistic response. Although, now I don't believe that time began at the Big Bang for our universe, but rather some sort of flat, infinite and empty spacetime preceeded it. [ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: CodeMason ]</p>

01-14-2002, 09:14 AM	#8
Theophage Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ USA Posts: 966	Mason, great minds really do think alike! I have also used this argument (about God not being able to change state), it's a very good one! The standard theistic answer, however goes something like: "God, as creator of time and space, is not bound by their rules" i.e. God can violate logic at will... As for the idea of a beginning of time at the BB, one merely has to define the pre-universal state as part of the "total universe" (i.e. everything that has ever existed) and it still fits in with my P2 since there would be no point(s) in time ouotside of this configuration. Daniel "Theophage" Clark [ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-14-2002, 07:47 AM	#2
CodeMason Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 226	That argument's old. Paul Davies made pretty much the same one a while ago in response to a letter about God being the cause of the universe.

01-14-2002, 08:06 AM	#4
Theli Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,567	"first cause" The fist cause is ofcourse a usuall scientific speculation. The cause wich triggered "Big Bang". To call this cause "god" one must first theoreticly prove why the universe requires the "first cause" to be a conscience being. Since the "creator god" is very much a theory, much like all the other theories on the universe's creation, it should be weighted properly with all other theories. It should not be directly associated with the other god-claims. The biblical god, with all the miracles and magic tricks, or the personal god , wich is nothing more than the minds embodyment of an authority (parent)-figure blended with the god-figure from ones religion. If only the "creator god" were to exist then the term "god" would be abit missleading. About time, the only way for time to exist is if there is anything else existing. So the only way that the universe (or multiverse) could have been created is out of complete void. If not, then this question rises, "before that?". The only thing that can be eternal is void, since in complete void time does not exist and the "before that?" question is irrelevant. Well... This is just my stupid ramblings.

01-14-2002, 08:15 AM	#5
Theophage Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ USA Posts: 966	Well I'll be damned Thanks CodeMason. Any theistic response to Davies' argument yet? It seems he/I have finally disproved the existance of God once and for all. (Or at least I like to think so...) I tired the google search, but only came up with two sites that only had the quote you included. Both sites agreed with Davies, so there wasn't any rebuttal material. It could be that this proof has simply slipped under the theist's radar, which gives me a good reason for going over the idea again here. Also, Davies doesn't take that idea to its logical conclusion, and show that therefore God cannot exist, which is (IMNSHO) the most important point.

01-14-2002, 08:36 AM	#7
CodeMason Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 226	There is another problem resulting from time and God, and I believe this is one of the strongest logical evidences against the JC God's existence. I, like you, formulated this myself, but I'm almost certain that it has been postulated before me, as it is really fairly obvious. Time is a property of the physical universe. Indeed, it cannot exist without a spatial reference point to work on. God is defined as beyond the physical, and thus must be free of time. Without time there is no change, as time can also be defined as the measure of change. Hence, a timeless God cannot undergo any change, and must be completely static and inert. Any causation requires a change of state, otherwise one would be causing the same event for ever, which is ridiculous. Therefore God cannot cause, or do, anything. Yes, this kinda fits in with some form of pantheism (what doesn't?), but in my opinion, it completely destroys the concept of a Creator God that has an active role in the entities within his Creation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.