Only two options for the origin of the universe

[Percivale]

I believe there are only two logically possible options for the origin of the universe. One is that matter and energy are eternal; either each universe causes the next or a multiverse is constantly creating and reabsorbing universes. The other option is that an eternal being possessing volition and intelligence has caused our universe (and possibly but not necessarily other universes).

I don't understand why atheists don't just accept this dichotomy and defend the first option, work on explaining the mathematical problems with an infinite sequence (I have a feeling they may not be insurmountable), and defend a perfect conservation of matter/energy through a cyclical pattern. Instead, atheists seem more commonly to come up with illogical explanations like saying the universe just popped into existence out of nothing.

Every event has a cause. I consider this to be a fundamental law of reason, just like the law of non-contradiction and that 2+2=4. If you think it's not, then consider what it would mean for it not to be true.
If anything can just happen, then anything can happen. If an event can happen without any sort of cause, then there is no way to assign a probability to it, and Hume's critique of induction becomes devastating. For all we know, the universe could just as easily pop out of existence, or change in any way whatever at any time, if things can happen uncaused. Believing that consistently would be a death-stroke to science, which depends on the assumption that the universe is orderly and consistent, and which is by definition the search for causes for observed effects. Science, or induction, is valid only if every event has a cause. Therefore if you deny this you are anti-science.

Another similar idea I just recently read on this forum is what I call 'the cosmic egg theory.' It is that before time began something simple existed whose nature was to change, which caused the Big Bang. This idea is self-contradictory, however. If something exists before time begins, it is eternal and changeless, (timeless=changeless), and for something to be changeless and for its nature to be to change means it has two mutually exclusive properties, and is contradictory.

A volitional being, on the other hand, whose nature is to want to create 1 or x number of universe(s), can do so without changing itself. Both before and after creating its intention is to create one universe. If the being is timeless, tense has no meaning and there is no difference between 'to create' and 'to have created' for that being. Or if it is eternal but in time, it can always have had the intention to create at time t, both before and after doing so. An eternal being will, of course, have had time to think all thoughts already and would be necessarily changeless except in some cyclical way, thus being little different from a timeless being.

Obviously, an eternal being (or object) does not need a cause. Existing is not an event, but coming into existence or changing is, and does require a cause.

 

[Belk]

I believe there are only two logically possible options for the origin of the universe. One is that matter and energy are eternal; either each universe causes the next or a multiverse is constantly creating and reabsorbing universes. The other option is that an eternal being possessing volition and intelligence has caused our universe (and possibly but not necessarily other universes).

I don't understand why atheists don't just accept this dichotomy and defend the first option, work on explaining the mathematical problems with an infinite sequence (I have a feeling they may not be insurmountable), and defend a perfect conservation of matter/energy through a cyclical pattern. Instead, atheists seem more commonly to come up with illogical explanations like saying the universe just popped into existence out of nothing.

Every event has a cause. I consider this to be a fundamental law of reason, just like the law of non-contradiction and that 2+2=4. If you think it's not, then consider what it would mean for it not to be true.
If anything can just happen, then anything can happen. If an event can happen without any sort of cause, then there is no way to assign a probability to it, and Hume's critique of induction becomes devastating. For all we know, the universe could just as easily pop out of existence, or change in any way whatever at any time, if things can happen uncaused. Believing that consistently would be a death-stroke to science, which depends on the assumption that the universe is orderly and consistent, and which is by definition the search for causes for observed effects. Science, or induction, is valid only if every event has a cause. Therefore if you deny this you are anti-science.

Another similar idea I just recently read on this forum is what I call 'the cosmic egg theory.' It is that before time began something simple existed whose nature was to change, which caused the Big Bang. This idea is self-contradictory, however. If something exists before time begins, it is eternal and changeless, (timeless=changeless), and for something to be changeless and for its nature to be to change means it has two mutually exclusive properties, and is contradictory.

A volitional being, on the other hand, whose nature is to want to create 1 or x number of universe(s), can do so without changing itself. Both before and after creating its intention is to create one universe. If the being is timeless, tense has no meaning and there is no difference between 'to create' and 'to have created' for that being. Or if it is eternal but in time, it can always have had the intention to create at time t, both before and after doing so. An eternal being will, of course, have had time to think all thoughts already and would be necessarily changeless except in some cyclical way, thus being little different from a timeless being.

Obviously, an eternal being (or object) does not need a cause. Existing is not an event, but coming into existence or changing is, and does require a cause.

I have several issues with statements in your OP. The biggest being the false dichotomy that there are only two viable options. If you wish to address those I am willing but I suggest you read some info on events that do not require a cause first.

Not all events necessarily have causes - Iron Chariots Wiki

 

[Davian]

I believe there are only two logically possible options for the origin of the universe. One is that matter and energy are eternal; either each universe causes the next or a multiverse is constantly creating and reabsorbing universes. The other option is that an eternal being possessing volition and intelligence has caused our universe (and possibly but not necessarily other universes).

How did you establish the second option as a possibility?

There is always the option of we do not, or cannot, know.

I don't understand why atheists don't just accept this dichotomy and defend the first option, work on explaining the mathematical problems with an infinite sequence (I have a feeling they may not be insurmountable), and defend a perfect conservation of matter/energy through a cyclical pattern. Instead, atheists seem more commonly to come up with illogical explanations like saying the universe just popped into existence out of nothing.

Since when does being an atheist qualify one as an astrophysicist?

Every event has a cause. I consider this to be a fundamental law of reason, just like the law of non-contradiction and that 2+2=4. If you think it's not, then consider what it would mean for it not to be true.

I do not presuppose that what we call "reason" applies prior to the instantiation of the cosmos.

If anything can just happen, then anything can happen. If an event can happen without any sort of cause, then there is no way to assign a probability to it, and Hume's critique of induction becomes devastating. For all we know, the universe could just as easily pop out of existence, or change in any way whatever at any time, if things can happen uncaused. Believing that consistently would be a death-stroke to science, which depends on the assumption that the universe is orderly and consistent, and which is by definition the search for causes for observed effects.

How do we know that anything can just happen?

Science, or induction, is valid only if every event has a cause.

I do not presuppose that what we call "logic" applies prior to the instantiation of the cosmos.

Therefore if you deny this you are anti-science.

A theist accusing others of being anti-science.

Another similar idea I just recently read on this forum is what I call 'the cosmic egg theory.' It is that before time began something simple existed whose nature was to change, which caused the Big Bang. This idea is self-contradictory, however. If something exists before time begins, it is eternal and changeless, (timeless=changeless), and for something to be changeless and for its nature to be to change means it has two mutually exclusive properties, and is contradictory.

A volitional being, on the other hand, whose nature is to want to create 1 or x number of universe(s), can do so without changing itself. Both before and after creating its intention is to create one universe. If the being is timeless, tense has no meaning and there is no difference between 'to create' and 'to have created' for that being. Or if it is eternal but in time, it can always have had the intention to create at time t, both before and after doing so. An eternal being will, of course, have had time to think all thoughts already and would be necessarily changeless except in some cyclical way, thus being little different from a timeless being.

Obviously, an eternal being (or object) does not need a cause. Existing is not an event, but coming into existence or changing is, and does require a cause.

So you have a hypothetical "object" that causes universes. Does it need to be smarter than a toaster oven? How do you get from there to a character in a book that polices your thoughts, cares about what you eat, with whom you have sex, and where you spend your Sundays?

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't understand why atheists don't just accept this dichotomy and defend the first option, work on explaining the mathematical problems with an infinite sequence (I have a feeling they may not be insurmountable), and defend a perfect conservation of matter/energy through a cyclical pattern. Instead, atheists seem more commonly to come up with illogical explanations like saying the universe just popped into existence out of nothing.

Well we don't know the nature of reality, and it's silly to say there are definitely only two options. Common sense would tell us that quantum physics is wrong... though the evidence tells us it's right. We can't rely on common sense to tell us the nature of reality. We won't know for sure unless science can figure it out.

Every event has a cause. I consider this to be a fundamental law of reason, just like the law of non-contradiction and that 2+2=4. If you think it's not, then consider what it would mean for it not to be true.
If anything can just happen, then anything can happen. If an event can happen without any sort of cause, then there is no way to assign a probability to it, and Hume's critique of induction becomes devastating. For all we know, the universe could just as easily pop out of existence, or change in any way whatever at any time, if things can happen uncaused. Believing that consistently would be a death-stroke to science, which depends on the assumption that the universe is orderly and consistent, and which is by definition the search for causes for observed effects. Science, or induction, is valid only if every event has a cause. Therefore if you deny this you are anti-science.

I'm not sure it applies beyond the universe... beyond time. Doesn't science already accept that particles can just pop into existence?

Anyway, it could be that the universe is based on cause and effect, but this doesn't apply outside of the universe.

I'm not saying that the universe is appear for no reason at all, but I wouldn't completely discount it either.

A volitional being, on the other hand, whose nature is to want to create 1 or x number of universe(s), can do so without changing itself. Both before and after creating its intention is to create one universe. If the being is timeless, tense has no meaning and there is no difference between 'to create' and 'to have created' for that being. Or if it is eternal but in time, it can always have had the intention to create at time t, both before and after doing so. An eternal being will, of course, have had time to think all thoughts already and would be necessarily changeless except in some cyclical way, thus being little different from a timeless being.

Obviously, an eternal being (or object) does not need a cause. Existing is not an event, but coming into existence or changing is, and does require a cause.

What makes sense to me is that the universe isn't eternal, and that it didn't come into existence. ie: There was never a time with no universe, but time doesn't go infinitely backwards either.

So from the first moment, the universe was expanding. And the reason the universe exists is because Reality has a tendency for such universe to exist.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[quatona]

Every event has a cause.

How did you arrive at this conclusion which your entire argment depends on?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I do not presuppose that what we call "reason" applies prior to the instantiation of the cosmos.

I do not presuppose that what we call "logic" applies prior to the instantiation of the cosmos.

Not that I agree with the OP, but the quoted portion above implies that God is a perfectly viable option prior to the instantiation of the cosmos precisely because the concept of God is unreasonable and illogical.

If you throw out reason and logic then you must admit that you cannot use science to ask these sorts of questions. Science depends on logic and reason. If logic and reason no longer apply then what are we left with? Faith?


Rather than throwing out reason and logic I would prefer to say: "We simply do not know what happened before the universe, if there even was a before. It is currently not something which is known. Perhaps we will figure it out one day. But I see no reason to say 'God did it'. To me, that is a gross misuse of ignorance."

 

[Davian]

I do not presuppose that what we call "reason" applies prior to the instantiation of the cosmos.

I do not presuppose that what we call "logic" applies prior to the instantiation of the cosmos.

Not that I agree with the OP, but the quoted portion above implies that God is a perfectly viable option prior to the instantiation of the cosmos precisely because the concept of God is unreasonable and illogical.

If you throw out reason and logic then you must admit that you cannot use science to ask these sorts of questions. Science depends on logic and reason. If logic and reason no longer apply then what are we left with? Faith?


Rather than throwing out reason and logic I would prefer to say: "We simply do not know what happened before the universe, if there even was a before. It is currently not something which is known. Perhaps we will figure it out one day. But I see no reason to say 'God did it'. To me, that is a gross misuse of ignorance."

Note that I qualified my statement with "what we call" logic and reason - layman's language often fails to apply to scientific concepts as we think it might.

Also, as I said to the OP a while back in another thread, I was listening to a talk with physicist Sean Carroll, and he explained how the reality is that physicists do not talk about "cause and effect", they talk of "models and equations".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think therefore I am.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why only two options and why those particular two? You're claiming that there can be only one natural explanation (that matter and energy are, in some sense, eternal) and only one supernatural explanation (that an intelligent agent somehow created the universe). This seems rather limited as there are many other explanations we are capable of imagining that seem at least as plausible. It seems to me that religious apologists like dichotomies of this kind because they believe that by discarding one option the only option we are left with is their preferred supernatural one. That way they can conveniently sidestep other supernatural speculations that differ from their own.

 

[Percivale]

Why only two options and why those particular two? You're claiming that there can be only one natural explanation (that matter and energy are, in some sense, eternal) and only one supernatural explanation (that an intelligent agent somehow created the universe). This seems rather limited as there are many other explanations we are capable of imagining that seem at least as plausible.

Maybe you should read my post more carefully. My claim that there are only two options is a conclusion, not a premise. If you believe there are other options, present them, or refute my reasoning which eliminates the other options I have discussed.

It seems to me that religious apologists like dichotomies of this kind because they believe that by discarding one option the only option we are left with is their preferred supernatural one. That way they can conveniently sidestep other supernatural speculations that differ from their own.

I understand your feeling; I get annoyed by false dichotomies too. But there are some true dichotomies. Notice that I'm not trying to eliminate one of them, only arguing that none of the options imaginable besides those two stand up to reason.

Belk: I read the article, and agree with this quote from it.

"I don't understand your misgivings about my response to the claim that virtual particles are uncaused. They're not. They are fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum. The quantum vacuum is not nothing. [3]"

I am comfortable with probabilistic causation. Radiactive decay rates are probabilistic rather than deterministic, but follow a distinct pattern, which truly uncaused events would not.

To those who say we can't know about anything before the universe, or that logic and reason don't apply outside of this universe, I say, if you don't want to speculate and discuss the possibilities, what are you doing on this forum? We don't have any tools besides reason to consider such things, so if you believe reason doesn't work, the only option remaining is to stop reading and go eat cake or something. I trust reason because it works where it can be tested and there is no alternative to using it anyway. Please either debate my arguments or leave the thread alone.

 

[bhsmte]

I believe there are only two logically possible options for the origin of the universe. One is that matter and energy are eternal; either each universe causes the next or a multiverse is constantly creating and reabsorbing universes. The other option is that an eternal being possessing volition and intelligence has caused our universe (and possibly but not necessarily other universes).

I don't understand why atheists don't just accept this dichotomy and defend the first option, work on explaining the mathematical problems with an infinite sequence (I have a feeling they may not be insurmountable), and defend a perfect conservation of matter/energy through a cyclical pattern. Instead, atheists seem more commonly to come up with illogical explanations like saying the universe just popped into existence out of nothing.

Every event has a cause. I consider this to be a fundamental law of reason, just like the law of non-contradiction and that 2+2=4. If you think it's not, then consider what it would mean for it not to be true.
If anything can just happen, then anything can happen. If an event can happen without any sort of cause, then there is no way to assign a probability to it, and Hume's critique of induction becomes devastating. For all we know, the universe could just as easily pop out of existence, or change in any way whatever at any time, if things can happen uncaused. Believing that consistently would be a death-stroke to science, which depends on the assumption that the universe is orderly and consistent, and which is by definition the search for causes for observed effects. Science, or induction, is valid only if every event has a cause. Therefore if you deny this you are anti-science.

Another similar idea I just recently read on this forum is what I call 'the cosmic egg theory.' It is that before time began something simple existed whose nature was to change, which caused the Big Bang. This idea is self-contradictory, however. If something exists before time begins, it is eternal and changeless, (timeless=changeless), and for something to be changeless and for its nature to be to change means it has two mutually exclusive properties, and is contradictory.

A volitional being, on the other hand, whose nature is to want to create 1 or x number of universe(s), can do so without changing itself. Both before and after creating its intention is to create one universe. If the being is timeless, tense has no meaning and there is no difference between 'to create' and 'to have created' for that being. Or if it is eternal but in time, it can always have had the intention to create at time t, both before and after doing so. An eternal being will, of course, have had time to think all thoughts already and would be necessarily changeless except in some cyclical way, thus being little different from a timeless being.

Obviously, an eternal being (or object) does not need a cause. Existing is not an event, but coming into existence or changing is, and does require a cause.

Whenever you try to convince yourself there are only two options, you are already limiting potential possibilities and go at this with significant bias.

We don't know how many options there could be for the origin of the universe.

For some Christians, saying they don't know, does not come easy.

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe you should read my post more carefully. My claim that there are only two options is a conclusion, not a premise. If you believe there are other options, present them, or refute my reasoning which eliminates the other options I have discussed.

I don't see the evidence in your OP to support your conclusion. Do you have any?

 

[Loudmouth]

There are only TWO possible options for the cause of fire.

1. There is an element called phlogiston that is released from materials when they are combusted.

2. Invisbile fire elves produce fire.

Since #1 has been proven false, fire must be caused by invisible fire elves. QED.

 

[Percivale]

Let me state it this way. I have not heard of any options besides these two that i do not find illogical. There is always the possibility of being wrong, but it seems pretty small and is no reason to stop thinking about or discussing the topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let me state it this way. I have not heard of any options besides these two that i do not find illogical. There is always the possibility of being wrong, but it seems pretty small and is no reason to stop thinking about or discussing the topic.

Then we have a 3rd option.

3. The cause of the universe is not fully understood by Percivale, and Percivale falsely concludes that it is illogical.

 

[Belk]

Maybe you should read my post more carefully. My claim that there are only two options is a conclusion, not a premise. If you believe there are other options, present them, or refute my reasoning which eliminates the other options I have discussed.



I understand your feeling; I get annoyed by false dichotomies too. But there are some true dichotomies. Notice that I'm not trying to eliminate one of them, only arguing that none of the options imaginable besides those two stand up to reason.

Belk: I read the article, and agree with this quote from it.

For what reason do you agree with it?

I am comfortable with probabilistic causation.

What is the cause of radioactive decay? Even with probabilistic causation you still have a cause you can point to that will under certain circumstances result in an effect.

Radiactive decay rates are probabilistic rather than deterministic, but follow a distinct pattern, which truly uncaused events would not.

You know this how?

To those who say we can't know about anything before the universe, or that logic and reason don't apply outside of this universe, I say, if you don't want to speculate and discuss the possibilities, what are you doing on this forum? We don't have any tools besides reason to consider such things, so if you believe reason doesn't work, the only option remaining is to stop reading and go eat cake or something. I trust reason because it works where it can be tested and there is no alternative to using it anyway. Please either debate my arguments or leave the thread alone.

That we do not currently have other tools does not mean that reason is good enough for the job. Especially since you are attempting to claim that things governed by space time would behave the same without space time. That, to me, would seem to go against reason.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Maybe you should read my post more carefully. My claim that there are only two options is a conclusion, not a premise.

I know. I consider it an unfounded conclusion.

If you believe there are other options, present them, or refute my reasoning which eliminates the other options I have discussed.

What about the other options you haven't discussed? Recall the Divine Flame that I introduced to you in another thread. That's an alternative supernatural explanation.

I understand your feeling; I get annoyed by false dichotomies too. But there are some true dichotomies. Notice that I'm not trying to eliminate one of them, only arguing that none of the options imaginable besides those two stand up to reason.

I don't think you have argued that. You have asserted it. But I see no reason to disallow more than those two alternatives.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Let me state it this way. I have not heard of any options besides these two that i do not find illogical. There is always the possibility of being wrong, but it seems pretty small and is no reason to stop thinking about or discussing the topic.

So you are basing it on your impression of what seems to be right or logical? To me, the notion of a disembodied mind existing independent of space and time seems barely coherent. So we should get rid of that option then?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Maybe "faith in god" is a roundabout way of tapping into emotional intuition, rather than actual objective guidance from above? I wouldnt be suprised if brain imaging reveals something like this.

 

[single eye]

Most mono-theists who say "God did it" are wrong.
All agnostics who say "we can't know for sure" are wrong.
All non-theists who say "no one did it" are wrong as well.

One monotheist, saint John, told us who did it. His is the simplist most logical, most rational, and most objective option there is.