The big snag for me is that I don't believe cause and effect exist in the normal way that we define it where the past implies the future. In fact I suspect that quantum mechanics is evidence that cause and effect is bologna.It sounds to me like you're skeptical about premise (2). I am saying in premise (2) that spacetime began to exist. Perhaps you deny that time ever began?
The big snag for me is that I don't believe cause and effect exist in the normal way that we define it where the past implies the future. In fact I suspect that quantum mechanics is evidence that cause and effect is bologna.
The question "how did the universe come into existence?" doesn't need an answer, because the question arises from misconceptions about reality.
Fair enough. Does this mean that you would deny premise (2)? The idea of an eternal universe entails some philosophical absurdities that are worth discussing.
Eternity has no meaning without time. If time began with the expansion of space from the singularity, there is no "before" that.
Could you describe a quantum vacuum? I'm not sure it can be described in terms of something that is very different from "the universe". Also, the idea of an eternally existing universe or multiverse would entail an actual infinity, which has been shown to be philosophically absurd. Hilbert's Hotel is a good example of this - Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel - Wikipedia
Say more about what you mean by "psychological impossibility".
I suppose it implies a causal entity beyond the universe itself. In our society that would often be identified as God, even if it is possible that the entity in question be devoid of intellect and will. It seems to depend a great deal on what is meant by "the universe."
In my admittedly limited understanding of the Big Bang, I believe it is theorized that time began with the expansion of space.
Do you affirm that all that begins to exist has a cause?
Been there, done that. Eventually it will end with Steven Hawking's suggestion that time and space did not exist prior to event 0. Thus, talking about it is absurd. Those are not my words. It is a the paraphrased response of the best answer that I was given. Yep, "The idea is absurd so it is absurd to talk about it?" That's the best answer atheists have to offer for this argument and they seem to be completely fine with it.While this argument is not universally persuasive, I do believe that it is an effective argument for God's existence. This is to say that the premises and conclusions are more plausible than their negations. Let's take a look at this argument in this thread and hash it out. Here is a simple form of the argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
The argument looks sound and valid to me. Conclusion (3) would imply that God is the cause of the universe. Perhaps you would deny or challenge one or more of the premises. Perhaps you would challenge the validity of the argument. Perhaps you would accept the argument but deny that God is the cause of the universe.
Discuss.
Part of God's "omnipresence" means that He is in all times as well as space. God would be neither bound by space nor time. So yes, in essence "time" existed prior to the creation of the universe. It is just not any type of time that we can fathom or understand...because we are not God.If time was created as part of the universe then concepts like "begins" and "cause" fall apart when applied to the universe itself.
If time existed prior to the creation of the universe or if there is some sort of orthogonal "Heavenly time" that God lives within then we pass the buck to God. God must ask himself where the Heavenly universe came from and where God came from and so on.
How about a thought or idea? I have seen plenty of them come to exist all the time. And yes, they usually have a cause for them to exist.I've never seen anything begin to exist, I've only seen things change from one thing to another thing. Have you ever seen anything come into existence? I don't think anyone has. Why would anyone think that anything began to exist at all if no one has ever seen anything of the sort?
Either you're using the phrase "began to exist" the same way in all of your premises and applying it the same way to all the things that "began to exist", or your argument is not valid. If you mean something different by "began to exist" in premise 1 than what you mean by "began to exist" in premise 2, then using the same exact phrase would be dishonest.(1) is relative if you want to press it in that direction but (2) applies to the spacetime universe.
But I don't think we need to press (1) in an extreme direction. Would you admit that your person came into existence at a certain point in time?
I agree. The argument doesn't actually prove that there is a God. Rather, it attempts to prove that a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, supernatural, immensely powerful, personal, uncaused and eternal "cause" must exist in order for the universe to come into existence. Theists call this "cause" "God". The logic does not necessarily prove God's existence, rather, it places the option of "God" as a logical possibility to be considered. Otherwise, how would you be able to claim deism is false other than by pure "faith" that it is false?I would contest that (3) implies that God is the cause of the universe. The only thing the argument, if successful, would actually demonstrate is that there is something which exists uncaused and cannot be identified with the universe. This need not have any other traditional property of God, and could just as easily be conceived of as something like a quantum vacuum.
I think we need a deeper analysis of causality and necessity to get the Kalam off the ground.
Have you ever had a thought or idea that wasn't a rearrangement of already held knowledge? I've had thoughts pop into my head, sure, but they're either in the form of sentences where I've simply rearranged words I know, or they're images where I've simply rearranged visual objects that I know.How about a thought or idea? I have seen plenty of them come to exist all the time. And yes, they usually have a cause for them to exist.
Okay, I think I am beginning to understand where you are coming from. Just to make sure I understand correctly, you are saying that nothing really begins to exist. Rather, they have always existed but just reformed. For example, we didn't actually create a pot, rather, we rearranged preexisting matter in the form of clay into the shape and image of a pot. Is that correct?Have you ever had a thought or idea that wasn't a rearrangement of already held knowledge? I've had thoughts pop into my head, sure, but they're either in the form of sentences where I've simply rearranged words I know, or they're images where I've simply rearranged visual objects that I know.
I think the reverse it true. Time is meaningless to the eternal. Hence, another reason why the eternal and uncaused "cause" would therefore be "timeless". Timeless, as in, beyond our concept of time. Not without time but the time is meaningless nonetheless. In your case, you could say that if the universe was eternal, time outside our universe would be meaningless.Eternity has no meaning without time.
I don't know if nothing has ever began to exist from nothing, I'm just saying I've never seen it happen, so I couldn't know how it works. Your example is accurate, but I'm not saying that's the only way it works. I suspect it is, but I don't know. Maybe everything in the universe is just a rearrangement but the universe itself popped into existence from nothing. If that's the case, you can't compare the two, that's what I'm getting at.Okay, I think I am beginning to understand where you are coming from. Just to make sure I understand correctly, you are saying that nothing really begins to exist. Rather, they have always existed but just reformed. For example, we didn't actually create a pot, rather, we rearranged preexisting matter in the form of clay into the shape and image of a pot. Is that correct?
I agree. The argument doesn't actually prove that there is a God. Rather, it attempts to prove that a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, supernatural, immensely powerful, personal, uncaused and eternal "cause" must exist in order for the universe to come into existence.
I think the reverse it true. Time is meaningless to the eternal. Hence, another reason why the eternal and uncaused "cause" would therefore be "timeless". Timeless, as in, beyond our concept of time. Not without time but the time is meaningless nonetheless. In your case, you could say that if the universe was eternal, time outside our universe would be meaningless.
Yes, but immediately identifying it with God is an invalid move.
The atheist would claim (rightly, I think) that we only do so because we are socially conditioned to favor this solution, but that it isn't justified by the argument itself.
You need more to rationally get to intellect and will, and unfortunately, people seldom have patience for what that particular "more" entails. Especially since it gets us further and further away from familiar empirical territory.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?