yguy

Yes, I think perhaps we could all reach at least a tentative agreement on that.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by luvluv :

I'm not sure matter, energy, space, and time were ever created. If something has existed througout all eternity, it doesn't seem to me that it was ever created.

I don't know. I'm saying that there can be laws that describe how universes are created, or at least begin.

Ah, then we may have discovered some equivocation. Necessary entities are entities that exist in all possible worlds. The Anselmian then would say God is not only uncaused, but in fact necessary, which is something different; and the latter doesn't follow from the former.

No. But suppose it turned out that it was a mouse who created the universe. The mouse accidentally stepped on a magical metaphysical button and the universe sprang into existence. If that's so, then it's still just a mouse, even if it's a mouse who exists outside of spacetime.

luvluv

Thomas Metcalf:

What makes you think they existed throughout all eternity? Isn't that precisely what the Big Bang disproves?

Umm... there are "laws" which govern nothingness?

Well, barring some further research on my part, I'll grant you that. We'll just say uncaused from now on.

The point of my response to Angrillori was that if time is necessary for causation then the first entity had to BRING TIME INTO EXISTENCE. This means that entity would have had to create space and matter/energy. A "mouse" which existed outside of time couldn't cause anything, if causality is truly handcuffed to time.

The big bang could not have been caused incrementally if time did not exist until the creation event. Which means the FIRST ENTITY with any causal relationship to our universe must have created matter/energy and space/time. That entity would have to be incredibly powerful.

Irishbrutha

Couple of things. There's a lot of chatter about what the Cosmolgoical is supposed to conclude. It only attempts to show that there was a First Cause sufficient for the effect of the Universe. That sufficiency must be its capability (the technical definition of power) to bring about matter, energy, time, space, etc. It does not attempt to show personality. Although I'll say that order cannot totally be disregarded as a sign of this being's intelligence. The analogy of the pebble in the avalanche has been sufficiently answered in that the matter existed. The First Cause had to be sufficient enough to actually begin matter's existence and successfully enact that matter (and energy) through laws that became what we know today as the universe.

Now onto necessary beings and uncaused causality. If I exist, I am either a necessary being or a possible being. I am not a necessary being, because my non-existence is possible. All that exists is either caused by another, self-caused, or uncaused, and I am neither self-caused nor uncaused, then I am necessarily caused by another. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes because the chain of cause and effect would as a whole be both potential and actual at the same time, which is logically impossible. (Also the law of thermodynamics would necessitate that the universe would have already reached heat death if this were an infinite universe). The only conclusion then that is reasonable is that there is a first uncaused cause to the universe's existence. The existence of a necessary being is a result of allowing that we are contingent beings. If contingent beings exist, then it is necessary that a being from whom those contingent beings were caused exists (it just so happens that this being is also uncaused because infinite regress is irrational). We are contingent beings, therefore a necessary being exists. We postulate that the Uncaused Cause is a Necessary being precisely because it is the cause of all of us contingent beings. I think there may be some confusion here in positing that the First Cause must be Necessary in every possible world. He is only necessary for the actual world to exist.

Another way to look at it is that if I am contingent there is a being who is a necessary cause of my existence. My parents are logically necessary beings. Yet they are also contingent. And having established that this universe must have had a starting point, then the first of these logically necessary beings must be uncaused. It just happens that the First Cause is Necessary to the existence of the universe.

-Shaun

emotional

Parsimony isn't a key to truth, either. Strictly speaking, there is nothing either to confirm or to rule out the possibility of key faeries moving your keys, except that you have no repeatable experiment confirming them. In the case of the beginning of the universe this cannot be decided, because we cannot run repeatable experiments for this one-time event.

The main issue is that space/time began to exist at one point, and so must have a cause which is outside of space and time. Soul is outside of space and time, so the cause of space and time must be a soul. This also does away with the problem of complexity ("a designer of complexity must be itself complex" - not so).

Alix Nenuphar

emotional:

You said,
Granting that space-time began to exist, why must it have a cause?

This is the essential problem of Kalaam Cosmological Argument - where do we find this First Cause.

Granting that it might have had a cause, since causal relationships require timewise precedence of the cause to the effect, and no time existed, then there can have been no 'cause' as we currently define the term.

I think this points out an interesting problem: language, like most scientific theories, tends to break down at absolutes and extremes. Language was simply never developed in the context of these issues and requires serious enhancement to allow us to discuss them intelligently. If you look at most philosophers, they spend a great deal of time dealing with definition and meaning, rather than system.

Souls have not been demonstrated to exist, and if they were legitimately outside of time and space they would be out of the reach of our instrumentation and hence 'undetectable' and unprovable by definition.

You have said nothing which suggests that 'soul' being the cause of space-time eliminates the problem of complexity. Could you clarify this point?

Wiploc

In your arguments below, it is clear that you are making arbitrary choices. You don't make your moves based on logic; you make moves that you think will get you to a belief in god. You can say that you are only trying to show a first cause, but your real motivation is apparent.

Quote:

Now onto necessary beings and uncaused causality. If I exist, I am either a necessary being or a possible being. I am not a necessary being, because my non-existence is possible. All that exists is either caused by another, self-caused, or uncaused, and I am neither self-caused nor uncaused, then I am necessarily caused by another.

I grant the existence of contingent beings; you can give many examples. I hardly expect you to give any reason to believe in necessary beings.

Quote:

There cannot be an infinite regress of causes because the chain of cause and effect would as a whole be both potential and actual at the same time,

I'm not following you here. Can you rephrase?

And would this still apply if an outside-of-time god made the whole universe at once, including the whole infinite time of it?

Quote:

which is logically impossible. (Also the law of thermodynamics would necessitate that the universe would have already reached heat death if this were an infinite universe).

2nd Law works on large bodies of particles. It doesn't apply to the big bang. So 2nd Law would not necessarily preclude, say, an oscillating universe in which big bangs were followed by big crunches throughout eternity. I'm not saying oscillating universe theory is currently thought to be plausible; I'm just pointing out that 2nd Law only rule from the big bang on, and since we don't know what happened before that, we can't say with confidence that 2nd law controlls what happened before that.

Quote:

The only conclusion then that is reasonable is that there is a first uncaused cause to the universe's existence.

Here you've taken a wild leap.

- If we are resorting to paradox anyway, why can't the first cause be itself caused, perhaps by the last effect?

- If the first cause doesn't need a cause, why does anything else? If we can have one uncaused thing, why can't we have lots of them? Anti-evolution types like to start at kinds rather than going back to a single evolutionary first cause. Why can't we do the same here, having one cause for time, and another for space, and a third for energy, etcetera?

- If you aren't going to let us break the chain of causation before the beginning of time, why should you want to break it there? If you style your first cause as "outside time," then why don't we have an infinite chain of causation outside time? Your "first cause" god could be caused by a "first-minus-one" god, who could be caused by "first-minus-two," etcetera. You ought to like this idea, since the more gods there are, the more likely it is that one of them resembles the one you worship, right?

Quote:

The existence of a necessary being is a result of allowing that we are contingent beings.

If every dessert you ever saw was cake, would you take that as evidence of pie?

Quote:

If contingent beings exist, then it is necessary that a being from whom those contingent beings were caused exists

See, you are trying to prove god. Therefore you assume your first cause is a being.

And you have given no evidence, none at all, that something in the category of "necessary" exists. You either skipped a step, or you don't have a case.

Quote:

(it just so happens that this being is also uncaused because infinite regress is irrational).

One could make just as strong an argument that uncausedness is irrational. If your argument isn't stronger than the opposite argument, its logical weight is zero.

Also, even if it were granted that there were both an uncaused item and a necessary item, you have offered no reason to believe they are the same item.

Quote:

We are contingent beings, therefore a necessary being exists.

Again, you offer no reason to believe that other than the wish for a necessary god.

Quote:

We postulate that the Uncaused Cause is a Necessary being precisely because it is the cause of all of us contingent beings.

You haven't shown this.

Quote:

I think there may be some confusion here in positing that the First Cause must be Necessary in every possible world. He is only necessary for the actual world to exist. Another way to look at it is that if I am contingent there is a being who is a necessary cause of my existence. My parents are logically necessary beings. Yet they are also contingent. And having established that this universe must have had a starting point, then the first of these logically necessary beings must be uncaused. It just happens that the First Cause is Necessary to the existence of the universe. -Shaun

Either things need causes or they don't. Pick one.
crc

Wiploc

Error. Server won't let me delete, so just ignore this. I don't even know why it's here*; I was trying to edit the one above, and the server's busy, so I'm going to give up on that before long.

crc

*Of course, operator error comes to mind.

Irishbrutha

Sorry you were probably fixing it as I wrote that last post. I'll take one thing right now and I'll come back tonight when I have more time. As to your accusation that I'm making my argument point to Personal/Christian God, etc. I wouldn't agree. I did assert that certain things about the first cause could be deduced. Take these attributes away, though, and the theist's case is not harmed. The other arguments produce the necessary attributes to deduce the Personal, Intelligent, and Omnipotent God. I am only concerned with the Cosmological Argument as a means of asserting the necessity of a First Cause. It, of course, cannot be faulted if by the principle of the cause being sufficient to account for the effect I also can demonstrate other characteristics about this cause. Remember, though, that I am not trying to go from Cosmological Arg. to Christian God (shrug). I'm simply attempting to see what things can be ascribed to the First Cause from the effect. Which generally leads right into the teleological argument, etc., etc.
-Shaun

emotional

Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. That's a natural law.



Causal relationships do not require timewise precedence, they require only root precedence. That is, the root of space and time is itself spaceless and timeless.



I won't get into the debate about souls; suffice it here to say that "undetectable" and "unprovable" does not equal "non-existent". But this is really wide off the mark, because the cause can be detected by the fact of its effects. I don't have see the maker of my shirt to know that it has a maker.

Dawkins frequently makes the objection that a designer of complex organisms must be at least as complex as those organisms. I posit that this is not the case.