thomaq

I'm new to this forum and I have a question about something i've heard, that seems to make sense. You've all probably heard it a million times but here it goes.
I. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
II. The universe began to exist
III. Therefore the universe has a cause.

According to Stephen Hawking, the big bang is when time, space, matter and energy began to exist. So, if he is right, then the universe began to exist. i'm not trying to argue this point, i'm honestly looking for answers to this because it seems to make sense. thanks for your replies.

Metacrock

Meta =>First of all, you seem to misunderstand Hawking. This is not what he's saying. He does accept the BB, but he also says there is no one moment that can be isolated to say "this is the begining." Now that can't be used as an answer to the frist cause argument becasue it's problematic.

Secondly, the frist cause argument doesn't have to start from the premise that "everything that begins to exist needs a cause." That is one verison of it called "Kalam" which is based upon the work of Arabic philosophers form the middle ages. There are other versions.


See the link below for one examle:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/cosmological/Godarg1.html" target="_blank">Argument from Logical Necessity</a>


<a href="http://pub18.ezboard.com/bhavetheologywillargue" target="_blank">Have Theology, Will Argue</a>

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]</p>

Hans

Establishing the truth of either of the two premises may be difficult.

Does anything just begin to exist? Or has everything, in one form or another, always existed?

Cause and effect relates to a change in state rather than the poping into existance. So how does one determine that "to begin to exist" requires a cause?

Veil of Fire

But if a God exists, by that logic wouldn't the God have had to have a cause?

The problem with the "first cause" argument is that theism only takes it back one step further.

luvluv

Veil, not if it could be proved that the God had independant existence. The reason why naturalism has it's limits is that we have no reason to believe that any of the matter or other phenomenon we observe are have independant existence. They are all effects of some cause. At the end of the road, as we keep asking these "why" questions, SOMETHING must have independant existence.

In order for there to be anything, something must have always existed.

E_muse

No. If God required the presence of something else for his existence then he couldn't be God.

This issue has now come up on one or two threads. It can become complex (obviously) and I don't always word things very well.. so please forgive me if my post lacks clarity in any way.

Also, I think that it may be helpful to stop thinking in terms of the universe's cause as being God .. to begin with at least!

I would suggest your view that, if what caused the universe exists then it must have cause, is evidence that you exist in a world where cause and effect is not only a viable explanation but a very real phenomena. Scientists concern themselves with the cause of observed phenomena in order to try and control future events.

Now to explain some language that I use!

Anything in the universe that depends upon something else for existence is contingent. That means that it is likely, possible but not certain. As I've said, this is hard to explain, but if something is contingent - or had a beginning (but wasn't inevitable), then it cannot be the necessary ground for being.

Anything in our universe that is seen to have a beginning (or a new state) owes its existence to a pre-existent cause. It would also appear that our universe had a beginning and therefore is itself a contingency.

As for our universe .. I shall just summarize the options as I see them.

1. The Universe just 'popped' into being out of nothing.

I think that there are enormous problems with this view.

Firstly, if you resort to this arguement to explain universal origins then you have no rational basis for rejecting it if it is used to explain anything else.

A realization of this issue has already moved scientific progress on regarding universal origins.

The General Theory of Relativity predicted a point of singularity at the beginning of the universe. If the theory was correct then this meant that all the known laws of physics broke down at the point of the big bang singularity.

This knowledge disturbed Stephen Hawking. He realized that, if the laws of physics could break down at the beginning of the universe then they could break down anywhere. That is why he introduced quantum theory to the early universe in order to eradicate the singularity. It was an appropriate move due to the small scale of the universe prior to the BB.

Lastly, deductive reasoning makes such a belief almost impossible as it contradicts all observable phenomena and therefore places an enormous burden of proof on the one holding this position.

2. The Universe is eternal

I think this needs little arguementation.

Big Bang cosmology has demonstrated that the universe had a beginning.

Quantum cosmology argues that matter itself originated within a quantum vacuum at the beginning of the universe.

It contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. The amount of available energy in the universe would have been used up ... how long ago? We already await a big crunch as it is.. if Stephen Hawking is correct.

3 The Universe is caused

This simply means that something pre-existed the universe and caused the universe.

This to me seems the most plausible explanation. The question is, can we make any meaningful comments about this cause and it's essential nature?

I note again that this is not arguement in favour of God but an attempt to establish the nature of what might have caused the universe.

Any theory regarding a cause for the universe only takes it back one step further. It isn't only a problem for the theist.

Stephen Hawking realized that theories relating to the early universe had implications for the whole of science. If the laws of physics could break down.. then what?

My question is, can we make any meaningful comment about what caused our universe?

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Liquidrage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if a God exists, by that logic wouldn't the God have had to have a cause?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. If God required the presence of something else for his existence then he couldn't be God.


The universe implies everything including every god, diety, multi-verse and what not. If we do not include them in any theory or debate then we are looking at the wrong issue. Since without everything, there's obvious other *things* that are possible causes.

In any First Cause discussion one must consider the relationship of *everything*
If the universe *needs* a first cause then so would *god* since god is contained within everything. And if god does not need one the neither does the universe.

Leaving *everything* out of a First Cause discussion 100% invalidates the discussion. Because without everything included it is not worth a debate.

The General Theory of Relativity predicted a point of singularity at the beginning of the universe. If the theory was correct then this meant that all the known laws of physics broke down at the point of the big bang singularity

Which isn't a big deal since they are thought/known to break down in the microscopic world anyways.


Big Bang cosmology has demonstrated that the universe had a beginning.


I disagree. Some theorize this, some theorize including Hawking (depending on which day of the week it is) that without a singularity the universe might be a yo-yo with inflation/contraction. Regardless, to say it had a beginning requires time to reach 0 which is not a fact by any means.


Quantum cosmology argues that matter itself originated within a quantum vacuum at the beginning of the universe.


If you say so.


It contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. The amount of available energy in the universe would have been used up ... how long ago? We already await a big crunch as it is.. if Stephen Hawking is correct.


And how exactly does it violate this exactly?
The first part is a vauge generalization of which some possibilities could and some might, etc. However, in this case the univserse existing violates so many laws that it's a mute point. Which is why this is a hard topic to discuss.


This simply means that something pre-existed the universe and caused the universe.

This to me seems the most plausible explanation. The question is, can we make any meaningful comments about this cause and it's essential nature


It would have to be, you already convinced yourself that others can't be.

"pre-existed" implies time, which is a property of our universe.

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

Answerer

Well, since you are new, so are you on the dark side or God side?
Anyway, you are using the law of causality to prove your point of God's existence, but do you know that the law of causality itself is violated by the existence of tarchyons? Although tarchyons aren't really being discovered yet, some physicists are on the right track already. When they really do, the law of causality will sure be violated and your God's will and action will be described as pre-destined.

Metacrock

Meta =&gt; No that's a misunderstanding of what's being said. God is necessary being, that is God, if God exists, cannot fail to exist. It cannot be that there may or may not have been a God. If there is a God then had to have been a God. Other things are not like that, they are contingent, they may or may not have existed. thus we are talking about things on two very different levels. God would not need a casue since God is the final cause, the place where the chain of cause and effect has to stop. All other things are contingent and have to have casues. But those causes all have to go back to some one final cause since otherwise you have an infinite regress and it gets messy.

HRG

OK, let's try to write it down in formal logic.

Let P(x) be the predicate which asserts all properties you want to pack into your definition of God, except necessary existence, and G(x) the predicate "x is God".

Thus, G(x) &lt;=&gt; P(x) & "(Ex)G(x) is a tautology".

(Ex = "there exists an x such that ...", the existential quantor).

IOW, the definition is circular, since G(x) appears on the right side as well.

Please tell us how you check that for a specific entity like Zeus without looking through all conceivable universes.
The concept of "necessary being" as a construct of logic is inconsistent or circular. There is no property P such that "there is an X such that P(X)" is a tautology, unless P itself is true for all X.

Pragmatically, I might assert that the universe is a necessary object, since we have never observed that it doesn't exist.

And of course, there is nothing messy about an infinite regress - especially since the concept of "unbounded time interval" depends on the observer.

Regards,
HRG.