A reasoned argument to suggest that God probably exists

[underpressure]

Or at the very least the universe isn't everything.

There aren't many good arguments around so I'll give it my best shot. Here goes...

The universe has a finite age, approximately 13.7 billion years.

The universe has been expanding all this time, all the matter and all the energy in the universe would have once existed at one point in a kind of condensed ball and an event took place (13.7 billion years ago) which caused all the laws of the universe to come into action, the universe has been expanding ever since.

We don't know what this event was, but the catalyst for this event could not have solely existed inside the realms of this universe, something must have happened externally, something must have changed, otherwise all the matter and all the energy in the universe would still exist at one point in a dormant state, if at all. (And incidentally the universe can not be infinitely old either, if it were all the matter in the universe would be infinite distances apart and there be no life and no us, therefore it must have had a beginning).

So if we agree that the catalyst for the beginning of the universe must have happened externally, then we must agree that "stuff" must exist outside of our universe.

Now if we suppose even for a second that "stuff" exists outside of the laws of our universe, then just suppose how vast this "stuff" might be, how complex this "stuff" might be, remember this "stuff" will not be constrained under the same laws of the universe that we are, so the possibilities for what is out there really do become endless and the possibility of intelligence being out there suddenly doesn't seem so improbable, does it?

 

[Ken-1122]

The universe has a finite age, approximately 13.7 billion years.

That would be the Universe as we know it has a finite age. If the Universe is defined as “all that exists” that means whatever the Universe was before the “big bang” nobody knows, but it still existed.

The universe has been expanding all this time, all the matter and all the energy in the universe would have once existed at one point in a kind of condensed ball and an event took place (13.7 billion years ago) which caused all the laws of the universe to come into action, the universe has been expanding ever since.

We don't know what this event was, but the catalyst for this event could not have solely existed inside the realms of this universe, something must have happened externally

Why must it have been external? Why can’t the catalyst of this event existed inside the realm and the laws of the universe?

K

 

[underpressure]

That would be the Universe as we know it has a finite age. If the Universe is defined as “all that exists” that means whatever the Universe was before the “big bang” nobody knows, but it still existed.

I'm describing an observable universe, not necessarily "all that exists", but all that is observable, and all that will be observable in the future (since the light from some galaxies wont have had time to reach us yet due to the finite age of the universe but will be observable in the future). I'm attempting to put forward the case that there is "stuff" or a plane of existence that can never be observable to us because it does not exist within the realms of our universe.

Why must it have been external?

Why can’t the catalyst of this event existed inside the realm and the laws of the universe?

K

I probably didn't describe my logic here very well. The 'beginning' of the universe I'm defining as the moment of the big bang and the exact moment the universe began to expand. Before this exact point, the laws of the universe were either not in effect yet therefore all the matter and energy that exists were in a dormant state in one point, or all the matter in the universe simply did not exist or both. Now, if all the matter and energy was in a dormant state in one point, how would it suddenly start expanding without an external 'trigger'? Likewise, if the laws of the universe were not in effect yet, how would the laws suddenly come into effect without an external 'trigger'? If all the matter didn't exist yet, then there must have been a plane of existence before this 'beginning' for all the matter to come into existence. No matter which way we look at it, the only explanation that makes sense is that "stuff" exists that is not and never will be within the realms of our observable universe.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm describing an observable universe, not necessarily "all that exists", but all that is observable, and all that will be observable in the future (since the light from some galaxies wont have had time to reach us yet due to the finite age of the universe but will be observable in the future).

Life from other galaxies that won’t have time to reach us yet are still observable, they just aren’t observable yet

I'm attempting to put forward the case that there is "stuff" or a plane of existence that can never be observable to us because it does not exist within the realms of our universe.

You have not made such a point. Care to try again?




I

probably didn't describe my logic here very well. The 'beginning' of the universe I'm defining as the moment of the big bang and the exact moment the universe began to expand. Before this exact point, the laws of the universe were either not in effect yet therefore all the matter and energy that exists were in a dormant state in one point, or all the matter in the universe simply did not exist or both.

How do you know this? Maybe before the big bang there was a huge “contraction” and as soon as everything contracted to a point; the same laws that caused it to contract caused everything to expand again? There is so much about the universe that we don’t know I believe it is foolish to assume all of the laws of the universe must act within what limited knowledge we have of it today.

K

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Or at the very least the universe isn't everything.

There aren't many good arguments around so I'll give it my best shot. Here goes...

The universe has a finite age, approximately 13.7 billion years.

Well, not quite. The universe is at least that old, having expanded from a tiny, hot, dense state to its current form. Whether that original state was the first moment, or if there were trillions of years prior to that, we simply don't know.

The universe has been expanding all this time, all the matter and all the energy in the universe would have once existed at one point in a kind of condensed ball and an event took place (13.7 billion years ago) which caused all the laws of the universe to come into action, the universe has been expanding ever since.

I disagree; see above.

We don't know what this event was, but the catalyst for this event could not have solely existed inside the realms of this universe, something must have happened externally,

Why? What makes you think there must have been a catalyst or catalysts at all?

something must have changed, otherwise all the matter and all the energy in the universe would still exist at one point in a dormant state, if at all.

Why? If it is the case that the universe popped into existence as a tiny, hot, dense state some 13 billion years ago, the Big Bang may well be the necessary result.

(And incidentally the universe can not be infinitely old either, if it were all the matter in the universe would be infinite distances apart and there be no life and no us, therefore it must have had a beginning).

I disagree. What we know about the universe is that it was a hot, dense state some 13 billion years ago, and it's been expanding ever since. So the problem of an entropic heat death doesn't quite apply, as it's only been expanding for 13-odd billion years. Any heat reservoir outside of the expansion is sufficient to stave of the heat death.

So if we agree that the catalyst for the beginning of the universe must have happened externally, then we must agree that "stuff" must exist outside of our universe.

By definition, this is already acknowledged.

Now if we suppose even for a second that "stuff" exists outside of the laws of our universe, then just suppose how vast this "stuff" might be, how complex this "stuff" might be, remember this "stuff" will not be constrained under the same laws of the universe that we are, so the possibilities for what is out there really do become endless and the possibility of intelligence being out there suddenly doesn't seem so improbable, does it?

Yes, it does.

Your argument seems to boil down to this:

• There might be something outside of the universe.
• That something might be intelligent.
• Therefore, God probably exists.

That's... not an argument. Yes, there might be intelligent life outside our universe, but a) there's nothing to say there probably is, only that there might be, and b) there's even less to say that any of those intelligences are God.

 

[underpressure]

How do you know this? Maybe before the big bang there was a huge “contraction” and as soon as everything contracted to a point; the same laws that caused it to contract caused everything to expand again? There is so much about the universe that we don’t know I believe it is foolish to assume all of the laws of the universe must act within what limited knowledge we have of it today.

K

If the universe has been eternally expanding and contracting, then yes, having an infinite age and therefore no start would put a big hole in the idea that there must definitely be something else.

 

[Ken-1122]

If the universe has been eternally expanding and contracting, then yes, having an infinite age and therefore no start would put a big hole in the idea that there must definitely be something else.

I agree!

K

 

[underpressure]

Well, not quite. The universe is at least that old, having expanded from a tiny, hot, dense state to its current form. Whether that original state was the first moment, or if there were trillions of years prior to that, we simply don't know.

It doesn't matter in terms of this discussion whether the first moment was 13.7 billion years ago, 13.7 trillion years ago, or 13.7 minutes ago. All that matters is if the universe has a finite age.

Why? What makes you think there must have been a catalyst or catalysts at all?

If it has a beginning, then something must have happened to cause this beginning, otherwise we wouldn't have a beginning.

Why? If it is the case that the universe popped into existence as a tiny, hot, dense state some 13 billion years ago, the Big Bang may well be the necessary result.

Well then if the universe popped into existence, again something must have happened prior.

Yes, it does.

Your argument seems to boil down to this:

• There might be something outside of the universe.
• That something might be intelligent.
• Therefore, God probably exists.

That's... not an argument. Yes, there might be intelligent life outside our universe, but a) there's nothing to say there probably is, only that there might be, and b) there's even less to say that any of those intelligences are God.

Well none of us know, I'm putting forward the argument that if the universe has a beginning, an exact moment when both the laws and all the matter came into existence, then that beginning must have a cause, and that cause can not be in the framework of our universe since our universe hasn't begun yet, therefore something must exist outside of our universe.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It doesn't matter in terms of this discussion whether the first moment was 13.7 billion years ago, 13.7 trillion years ago, or 13.7 minutes ago. All that matters is if the universe has a finite age.

The point is that we don't know if the universe had a beginning at all, let alone how long ago it was. I was dispelling the misconception that the Big Bang is a theory on how the universe came into existence.

If it has a beginning, then something must have happened to cause this beginning, otherwise we wouldn't have a beginning.

But that's what I'm asking: why do you say that there must have been a cause to this beginning? You're assuming causality without justifying it.

Well then if the universe popped into existence, again something must have happened prior.

Again, why?

Well none of us know, I'm putting forward the argument that if the universe has a beginning, an exact moment when both the laws and all the matter came into existence, then that beginning must have a cause, and that cause can not be in the framework of our universe since our universe hasn't begun yet, therefore something must exist outside of our universe.

But your original claim is that there's probably an intelligent being out there, not that there's just 'something'.

Your argument rests on the premises that 1) the universe had a beginning, and 2) that beginning had a cause. Unless you can prove these two things, you haven't yet proven that there's something outside our universe.

 

[Skavau]

He's also assuming that any causation for this 'beginning' must be God. No reason to think such.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

He's also assuming that any causation for this 'beginning' must be God. No reason to think such.

Well, he didn't actually mention God except in the title - but you're right, the argument is a very long way off from that conclusion.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why? What makes you think there must have been a catalyst or catalysts at all?

Is there a philosophy of language expert here at CF? I don't know that I could successfully challenge this statement, but I sure want it to be challenged. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but it seems this claim is made quite often:

There is no first cause. The universe wasn't and now it is.

I'm not sure that second sentence actually has any meaning. IOW I have this vague, intuitive feel that it's an oxymoron - that it denies cause while at the same time expressing a cause.

But I don't know enough about the philosophy of language to be able to disect it.

 

[underpressure]

Your argument rests on the premises that 1) the universe had a beginning, and 2) that beginning had a cause. Unless you can prove these two things, you haven't yet proven that there's something outside our universe.

Well yes, of course I can't prove this, this is why I'm having this discussion on a philosophy forum and not getting ready to collect my nobel prize. By definition, we can't prove the existence of something that is unobservable.

You are correct though to reduce my argument down to if "1) the universe had a beginning and 2) that beginning had a cause" then something must exist outside of the universe.

And you'd have to admit, these premises look far from preposterous, wouldn't you?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well yes, of course I can't prove this, this is why I'm having this discussion on a philosophy forum and not getting ready to collect my nobel prize. By definition, we can't prove the existence of something that is unobservable.

But, if you can demonstrate those two premises, then you would have demonstrated the existence of this 'something' outside the universe. Isn't that the point?

You are correct though to reduce my argument down to if "1) the universe had a beginning and 2) that beginning had a cause" then something must exist outside of the universe.

And you'd have to admit, these premises look far from preposterous, wouldn't you?

They look utterly without support, hence the problem.

 

[underpressure]

But, if you can demonstrate those two premises, then you would have demonstrated the existence of this 'something' outside the universe. Isn't that the point?

No that isn't the point, the point was to put across a reasoned argument that doesn't sound utterly absurd, one that actually sounds like it could be plausible (although maybe in hindsight stating in the title that the argument suggests God probably exists was maybe pushing it). I can't prove it for reasons stated. I mean when a poster on CF attempt to reason, for example, that 'free will' does or doesn't exist, do you hollow at them to prove it, or do you accept it is a philosophical argument that can not be definitively settled?

They look utterly without support, hence the problem.

So any argument looks utterly preposterous to you without proof? Is that what you are saying? I don't think it is crazy to think the universe might have a beginning, it's not like nature isn't littered with a wealth of other systems that at one point existed and at another point didn't exist.

And is it utterly preposterous to suggest that the beginning of the universe might or probably or almost certainly had a cause? You know as well as I do that to demonstrate that the beginning of the universe had a cause, I would have to actually have working knowledge of what this cause is, and since it happened before the universe began it is logically impossible to prove, what with it being unobservable.

An event occurring without a cause though, an event occurring for no reason whatsoever strikes me as the more absurd of the 2 possibilities we have here.

 

[ADTClone]

Therefore, if we don't know or can't know what is outside of our universe, or how the universe started, or if there's absolutely no evidence of how the big bang came into being, then we say "I don't know".

It's nothing to be ashamed of to say "I don't know". I don't know the origins of the big bang, or anything before the big bang.

But to instead say "Well, there must have been a first cause, therefore that first cause must be God!" (Not exactly your argument I know, but you're implying it), that's an argument from ignorance. You are saying that because we don't know something, then your option must be correct, or that there are less options than are actually presented.

If you suppose a creator for the big bang(in the form of God), then by the same logic something must have created God and you have an infinite regress. If you say that God always existed, then by the same logic, the big bang could have always existed and no God had to be involved.

All in all, you are making a fallacious argument by supposing something that we simply don't know about. You are being dishonest by placing a God there. The real answer at the moment is "we don't know".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No that isn't the point, the point was to put across a reasoned argument that doesn't sound utterly absurd, one that actually sounds like it could be plausible (although maybe in hindsight stating in the title that the argument suggests God probably exists was maybe pushing it). I can't prove it for reasons stated. I mean when a poster on CF attempt to reason, for example, that 'free will' does or doesn't exist, do you hollow at them to prove it, or do you accept it is a philosophical argument that can not be definitively settled?

Well, for starters, I don't believe I've hollered at you (though I apologise if I sounded that way). You proposed a reasoned argument, and I proposed a reasoned rebuttal, my objection being that the logic is invalid (specifically, non sequitur) and the premises are unsound.

Consider this argument:

• Pigs are birds.
• Birds live in the pelagic.
• Therefore, pigs hibernate.

My conclusion doesn't follow from my premises, and my premises themselves are wrong. If I proposed this as a serious argument, you'd be absolutely right to call me out on its flaws.

So any argument looks utterly preposterous to you without proof? Is that what you are saying?

No, I said they look unsubstantiated - no more, no less.

I don't think it is crazy to think the universe might have a beginning, it's not like nature isn't littered with a wealth of other systems that at one point existed and at another point didn't exist.

And is it utterly preposterous to suggest that the beginning of the universe might or probably or almost certainly had a cause?

I don't think it's crazy or utterly preposterous - I just think that they're conclusions that are not borne out by the evidence. That the universe had a beginning, and that the universe didn't have a beginning, are equally likely (or unlikely) claims to make.

You know as well as I do that to demonstrate that the beginning of the universe had a cause, I would have to actually have working knowledge of what this cause is, and since it happened before the universe began it is logically impossible to prove, what with it being unobservable.

Heh, again, I disagree . It's not a set rule that you have a working knowledge about something to deduce it exists. For instance, evolution posits that we all descended from a single common ancestor, but makes no bones about what that ancestor actually was. So we can conclude it exists, without necessarily knowing anything about it, or where it came from, etc.

But even if it were true that it was fundamentally unprovable whether or not the universe had a cause - that's more your problem than mine At the end of the day, it means that your argument is useless, even as a tool.

An event occurring without a cause though, an event occurring for no reason whatsoever strikes me as the more absurd of the 2 possibilities we have here.

Why? Or rather, why does that matter? Reality is under no onus to be intuitive or pleasing to our senses - just because it's counter-intuitive for something to exist from nothing, doesn't mean it can't, and indeed says nothing about its veracity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Or at the very least the universe isn't everything.

There aren't many good arguments around so I'll give it my best shot. Here goes...

The universe has a finite age, approximately 13.7 billion years.

The universe has been expanding all this time, all the matter and all the energy in the universe would have once existed at one point in a kind of condensed ball and an event took place (13.7 billion years ago) which caused all the laws of the universe to come into action, the universe has been expanding ever since.

We don't know what this event was, but the catalyst for this event could not have solely existed inside the realms of this universe, something must have happened externally, something must have changed, otherwise all the matter and all the energy in the universe would still exist at one point in a dormant state, if at all. (And incidentally the universe can not be infinitely old either, if it were all the matter in the universe would be infinite distances apart and there be no life and no us, therefore it must have had a beginning).

So if we agree that the catalyst for the beginning of the universe must have happened externally, then we must agree that "stuff" must exist outside of our universe.

Now if we suppose even for a second that "stuff" exists outside of the laws of our universe, then just suppose how vast this "stuff" might be, how complex this "stuff" might be, remember this "stuff" will not be constrained under the same laws of the universe that we are, so the possibilities for what is out there really do become endless and the possibility of intelligence being out there suddenly doesn't seem so improbable, does it?

I think there is some problem with this idea of "external stuff". It sounds spuriously convincing. However, bear in mind, that there is absolutely nothing that we know about this "external stuff" except that it is external. Drawing broad conclusions about it on the basis of such limited knowledge is not warranted. As you point out, the possibilities of what this stuff could be are endless. Which is advantageous to religions because it means that any claim made about it is, strictly speaking, "possible".

There is a further problem. How do we even make sense of something as "external" to the universe? If we define the universe as "all that there is", then is there nothing external to speak of. This is what makes cosmology so interesting, I think, because if we accept that everything (including time) came into existence some finite time ago, then we must grapple with questions about whether it is even possible to imagine a time before that. If time and space were created at the moment of the Big Bang, then the concept "cause" may find no useful application prior to that moment, perhaps rendering the question of a first cause moot. It may be the case that the very laws underpinning causality were themselves created with the universe.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why? Or rather, why does that matter? Reality is under no onus to be intuitive or pleasing to our senses - just because it's counter-intuitive for something to exist from nothing, doesn't mean it can't, and indeed says nothing about its veracity.

Maybe I'm nitpicking on a small part of the discussion, but I think this is more than counter-intuitive. As I said, I think it's an oxymoron to say something exists from nothing.

If there was nothing, and then there was something, a change occurred. It seems near to a tautology to me that change implies a cause. Your phrase "to exist from nothing" indicates that nothing caused the something ... which is a nonsense phrase. In any attempt to correct the nonsense, the statement of cause will necessarily become more explicit.

I don't think it's crazy or utterly preposterous - I just think that they're conclusions that are not borne out by the evidence. That the universe had a beginning, and that the universe didn't have a beginning, are equally likely (or unlikely) claims to make.

Despite what I said above, you are still basically correct in this statement. Even if the "something from nothing" possibility is eliminated, the universe could be eternal, and, therefore, without a beginning. So, multiple possibilities remain from which to choose, and the argument remains unsettled. So, as I said, maybe I'm emphasizing a trivial point.

However, once the initial claims are made, I'm not sure all the possibilities will remain equally likely. Studying the structure of the current universe will likely move people off the fence toward one side or the other. This is what continues to confuse me - that a physicist such as yourself is still on the fence. At one time I assumed that meant you had an answer to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But when we discussed it in threads past, it seemed you didn't have an answer.

 

[AlexBP]

If the universe has been eternally expanding and contracting, then yes, having an infinite age and therefore no start would put a big hole in the idea that there must definitely be something else.

If the universe has been eternally expanding and contracting, then the entire universe is a perpetual motion machine, which violates the laws of physics. Of course the laws of physics as we now know them may be wrong. But for those who believe that the laws of physics are correct, it follows logically that the universe cannot have been eternally expanding and contracting.