Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't think that we have any way of knowing that. However, for the sake of the discussion, I am willing to cede that premise.
You are correct that is does not say it at face value. They are all implied. Because the universe cannot have created itself, the cause must be apart from the universe. Because matter can neither be created or destroyed (Law of Conservation of Mass), the cause must be "immaterial". Because all space and time exists within our universe, the cause must be "spaceless" and "timeless". Because the cause is above or outside our natural universe, the cause must be "supernatural". In order to have created a universe to include all the power and energy within it, the cause must be unimaginably powerful. The cause must be personal, meaning that it must have consciousness with the ability to choose, because while in a state of an eternally stable nothingness, it chose to create the universe. It has to be eternal and without cause, otherwise something more powerful must have caused this "cause" to exist. Thus, a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, supernatural, uncaused, personal "cause", must exist if the universe began and has a cause.It attempts no such thing. The only attributes the argument speaks to are "uncaused" and "eternal." The rest are just getting a free lunch here.
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.
You're using the exact same phrase because you mean the exact same thing and you're applying it the exact same way to all things, though, right?
So let's say I, the person, began to exist once all of my molecules gathered together and electricity started flowing in my brain. We can say, "Look! There was a cause for those molecules rearranging, therefore there is a cause for molecules rearranging even if we don't know what that cause is in some cases."
Then we consider the universe. If it's a rearranging of matter and energy, or if it's a rearranging of something more fundamental into the things we call matter and energy, then we can say, "Look! There was a cause for that rearrangement even if we don't know what that cause is in this case." However, if you mean "began to exist" as in "popped into existence where there was previously nothing" no one has ever seen that happen so there is no reason to apply causation that we witness in rearrangements to "poppings".
So if you're talking about things rearranging in premise 1, and then the universe popping into existence in premise 2, your argument is no longer valid because "began to exist" means two different things in the same argument. It should look more like this:
1) Everything that moves has a cause.
2) The universe popped into existence.
3) The universe has a cause.
That isn't valid.
Personally, I just think matter and energy and probably even spacetime is just some other more fundamental thing rearranged to look like the stuff we find ourselves in. So I would be fine if "began to exist" in your argument always meant "rearranged", but I don't think you mean it that way in premise 2.
Well if, as you've said, (1) time began to exist and (2) all things that begin to exist (including time) have a cause, then (3) time has a cause. This cause cannot be time or spacetime itself because we've already conceded in (1) that time began to exist. Do you see how this leads us to the conclusion that something outside of space and time caused space and time to exist?
Nothing can be measured without a point of reference or a standard at which to measure it. If something is eternal, there is no point of reference to measure the duration of its existence. Therefore, duration aka "time" is meaningless. It would be like as if I had a rope that was infinite in length. If you were to grab the rope, what part of the rope did you grab? Did you grab it closer to the beginning or the end? Does the rope have an end at all? Now lets just say that this rope was a time line. Without a point of reference, given an eternal and infinite timeline, at what point of time line did you grab?Word salad. When you have no idea what "the eternal" is, or if it even exists, you can describe it any way you like. Ultimately, though, it doesn't mean anything.
There was likely some cause for the singularity to expand and create space and time. Yes. So what? How do you go away from natural causes as we have only ever observed, to a supernatural cause?
Nothing can be measured without a point of reference or a standard at which to measure it. If something is eternal, there is no point of reference to measure the duration of its existence. Therefore, duration aka "time" is meaningless. It would be like as if I had a rope that was infinite in length. If you were to grab the rope, what part of the rope did you grab? Did you grab it closer to the beginning or the end? Does the rope have an end at all? Now lets just say that this rope was a time line. Without a point of reference, given an eternal and infinite timeline, at what point of time line did you grab?
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.
I think that the theoretical singularity counts as part of the universe. It's just the universe in a different form. If I'm not mistaken, physicists would say that all the matter and energy that exists in our universe existed in the theoretical singularity.
So did the singularity begin to exist?
@Tree of Life , I called it in post 29. Trust me when I say that this is the best answer you are ever going to get. At least it only took you one day to get this response. I think my thread got somewhere around 230 posts before it got to this point.I don't know. I don't know that your question even makes any sense, since "begin to exist" indicates a point in time, which does not exist within the singularity.
It's fair because that's basically what I suspect, but I'm not claiming I can prove it or anything of the sort. Do you think your argument still works if that's what it means for the universe to "begin to exist"?Ok I see your point. But I believe at the end of the day you are denying premise 2. You would be suggesting that whatever the universe is (matter, energy, physical laws, etc) never began to exist but has existed eternally. Is that fair?
@Tree of Life , I called it in post 29. Trust me when I say that this is the best answer you are ever going to get. At least it only took you one day to get this response. I think my thread got somewhere around 230 posts before it got to this point.
The whole point of the argument is not to prove or disprove God. Rather to show that God's existence is logically and scientifically possible. There is absolutely no speculating about it. It is simply a matter of if this is true then logically that must be true as well. As a result of this argument, anyone who makes the claim that there is no God makes a claim based on faith. You speak of magical "creatio ex nihilo", but the best thing that atheist can suggest is that nothing created everything for absolutely no reason. That idea is more absurd than magic. Because at least with magic you have a magician waving a wand to make a rabbit appear out of nowhere. Atheists seem to suggest that a rabbit just appeared from nothing, by nothing, for absolutely no reason.I'd rather say that I don't know than speculate, inventing things like "god's time" that we can't comprehend and magical creatio ex nihilo.
I don't blame you for wanting to have an answer, or guessing what might be...but don't pretend that your inventions are logically sound arguments.
There seem to be two big issues here: 1) the amateur/expert distinction, and 2) the difficulty with identifying a causal philosophical conclusion with God. For the first, the shortened version of the Kalam without any explanation is a layman's argument, and its value is mostly found by laymen. Your critique may be too subtle for that demographic, and I don't mean this in a derogatory sense--just that the layman will probably ignore your "quantum field" suggestion.
For the second, what causal argument could ever live up to your criterion? The conclusions of such arguments never fully encapsulate what we believe God to be. As Aquinas concludes his arguments, "And this everyone understands to be God."
You are correct that is does not say it at face value. They are all implied. Because the universe cannot have created itself, the cause must be apart from the universe. Because matter can neither be created or destroyed (Law of Conservation of Mass), the cause must be "immaterial". Because all space and time exists within our universe, the cause must be "spaceless" and "timeless". Because the cause is above or outside our natural universe, the cause must be "supernatural". In order to have created a universe to include all the power and energy within it, the cause must be unimaginably powerful. The cause must be personal, meaning that it must have consciousness with the ability to choose, because while in a state of an eternally stable nothingness, it chose to create the universe. It has to be eternal and without cause, otherwise something more powerful must have caused this "cause" to exist. Thus, a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, supernatural, uncaused, personal "cause", must exist if the universe began and has a cause.
The whole point of the argument is not to prove or disprove God. Rather to show that God's existence is logically and scientifically possible. There is absolutely no speculating about it. It is simply a matter of if this is true then logically that must be true as well. As a result of this argument, anyone who makes the claim that there is no God makes a claim based on faith.
That would be my best guess. I don't know how it's close to theism though. The distinction of a willed choice or a mindless force seems to be miles apart to me.The heart of reality could be an eternally creative force that just automatically churns out universes as part of its nature. (I think this last one is one of the stronger alternatives to theism, though it's admittedly a close cousin.)
What are some other things that you can call the cause?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?
But can’t you point to the eternal on September 4th in 1980, and then point to the eternal tonight, and distinguish between the two? So wouldn’t time then not be meaningless for the eternal?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.
I suppose so. The language of science is math. You look at phenomena and try to fit them statistically to an equation, and then you test that equation in new domains to see if it applies more generally (not a formal definition of course but that is how it seems to me).Interesting. So you deny the principle of causality?
Yeah, that is how I would imagine it too. It seems that time is essential to living. God needs to exist in some sort of time, but maybe that time is orthogonal to the time in our universe. An analogy would be comparing time in real life to time inside a computer simulation.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.
As I have said, without time, eternity is meaningless. It is a never ending passage of time. If there is an end of the rope (either beginning or end of time) then time can only be described within the limits of that length of rope. Your analogy still insists on extending time past the end of the rope.
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?