Only two options for the origin of the universe

Jeremy E Walker · Dec 21, 2014

Archaeopteryx said:
The causal principle describes the interaction of matter and energy in the universe, not the creation of matter and energy ex nihilo.

Your proposition is founded upon the presupposition that all that exists is reducible to natural occurrences. This is called "begging the question". You beg the question for metaphysical naturalism.

The only reason you have for saying that the causal principle is inapplicable to the creation event is that you presuppose that nothing existed prior to the creation event. Here you equate a "thing" with "a material thing".

So really what you must do if you cannot furnish some other grounds for what you are arguing is provide some type of justification for metaphysical naturalism.

Archaeopteryx · Dec 21, 2014

Jeremy E Walker said:
Then this "divine flame" is actually not a flame at all.

Why not?

Lewis Wolpert when talking with Dr. Craig about the same thing suggested that the cause of the universe was a giant computer. He then went on describing its characteristics and when Dr. Craig spoke, he laughed and said, "Well what you have just described is the traditional concept of God!"

Except that the traditional concept of God is not that of a computer, or a flame, or a flying spaghetti monster.

The cause must be immaterial, incorporeal, spaceless, timeless, and plausibly a personal agent with volitional capacities. You can label it a "divine flame", a giant computer, or a flying spaghetti monster if you like.

Heck I can think of even more outlandish concepts than that. One could call this cause a divine spinning wooden top, or The Great Snowman, or the automatic universe dispenser. You can call it Santa Claus or The Unicorn Universe shooter.

You see, the proponent of the Kalam does not really care what label you assign to this cause because if one accepts the conclusion, then his work is essentially finished. He can take the properties that the cause must possess and give them to the non-theist and let them draw their own conclusion.

On the contrary, the proponent does care, because he is most often arguing for a particular theological doctrine (creatio ex nihilo), which assumes a particular kind of cause (an intelligent personal creator deity). On its own, the conclusion is merely that the universe had a cause. So what? That does not tell us anything about the nature or identity of the cause; whether it is natural or supernatural or super-supernatural; whether it is a flame, a unicorn, a giant computer, an unembodied intelligence, or transdimensional aliens.

The label the apologist ultimately assigns to the cause depends on his prior theological commitments, so let's not pretend that the label does not matter to the apologist. Indeed, the label is the very reason he is doing apologetics in the first place!

If the non-theist is reluctant, the Kalam'r can supplement the argument with the other theistic arguments for God, i.e. the moral argument, the teleological argument, the argument from contingency etc. etc.

When combining these independent lines of evidence together, one has a good case for theism.

Until those arguments are deconstructed and their flaws exposed.

Archaeopteryx · Dec 21, 2014

Jeremy E Walker said:
Your proposition is founded upon the presupposition that all that exists is reducible to natural occurrences. This is called "begging the question". You beg the question for metaphysical naturalism.

What have I told you about telling other people what their arguments are? You do a bad job of it.

The only reason you have for saying that the causal principle is inapplicable to the creation event is that you presuppose that nothing existed prior to the creation event. Here you equate a "thing" with "a material thing".

You see? This is exactly what I mean. In telling people what their arguments are you most often get it wrong.

So really what you must do if you cannot furnish some other grounds for what you are arguing is provide some type of justification for metaphysical naturalism.

Why? What basis do you have for asserting that the causal principle applies in the manner in which you are applying it?

Davian · Dec 21, 2014

Archie the Preacher said:
In fact, this is the essence of (not details of) what is known as "M" Theory.

The biggest problem with "M" Theory as a 'scientific' theory is - so far - there are no experiments to falsify the theory.

The main support for the theory - at this point - is mathematical evidence and 'proofs'. However, the mathematics are obtained from the theory itself; so the whole works strike me as a massive tautology. The other big reason for the theory is it permanently gets rid of that bothersome God fellow.

Undetectable, rather than bothersome.

Archie the Preacher said:
My biggest objection to the concept is one must posit a "Mega-Verse" not subject to entropy which has is eternal. Of course, it is more 'scientific' than God.

What isn't more scientific that "God"?

Archie the Preacher said:
Okay, those two choices seem alternatively 'reasonable'.
Oddly enough, the 'Steady State' theory of Sir Fred Hoyle (I'm not sure if he were 'Sir' when he developed the theory) was inspired (odd word) to replace Lemaitre's 'Cosmic Egg' theory; which Hoyle derogatorily referred to as the 'Big Bang'.
The typical position of the non theistic view is the Big Bang. The Universe began from a singularity some 13.7 Billion (give or take an eon) years ago. From where came the singularity or why it happened to 'bang' (a misnomer, by the way) when it did are unknown, but research is in progress. Any day now.
This is normally correct. 'Normally' being everything that happened following the beginning of the Universe. The Universe is a special case, in that we're pretty sure it really is 'there', but we cannot figure out what caused it to began. Well, those two little details mentioned above.
Hume notwithstanding, Quantum Mechanics suggests actual particles do in fact 'pop' in and out of existence. The scary part is QM stands up to pretty much every test experiment so far. The reassuring part is the 'goofy' stuff only happens on a sub-atomic level.
That doesn't seem likely. There's no real reason to expect such an event - discounting the Second Coming. In either event, no amount of thought or worrying is going to make any difference.
Not to mention that everything we see on a macro level is orderly and consistent. Except for women's fashions.
That is a fairly widespread assumption.That's a bit strong. However, the assumption that nothing is predictable or reliable leaves one in a rather undependable state of mind.

No. YOU don't call it that, that's what Georges Lemaitre called it when he came with the idea. Look him up; he's a fascinating character.

One of Fred Hoyle's objections. That and the idea of the Universe beginning at a specific point sounded too much like the Biblical account. (Hoyle was an atheist; rabidly so on this subject.)

That makes sense, as far as it goes.That makes sense, as far as it goes as well. However, this thinking presents the concept of that annoying God fellow.

What's interesting is the idea of a disinterested Creator who really doesn't care about the Creation is more acceptable to many. This in contrast to a present and active Creator who issues rules about how to treat others and so on. Or, perish forbid! wants us to acknowledge and worship Him.

"...present and active"? In what way?

Jeremy E Walker · Dec 21, 2014

Archaeopteryx said:
Why not?

Immateriality, spacelessness, timelessness, and volition are not properties of a flame that's why, but you already knew that.

Archaeopteryx said:
Except that the traditional concept of God is not that of a computer, or a flame, or a flying spaghetti monster.

Right.

Archaeopteryx said:
On the contrary, the proponent does care, because he is most often arguing for a particular theological doctrine (creatio ex nihilo), which assumes a particular kind of cause (an intelligent personal creator deity). On its own, the conclusion is merely that the universe had a cause. So what? That does not tell us anything about the nature or identity of the cause; whether it is natural or supernatural or super-supernatural; whether it is a flame, a unicorn, a giant computer, an unembodied intelligence, or transdimensional aliens.

The label the apologist ultimately assigns to the cause depends on his prior theological commitments, so let's not pretend that the label does not matter to the apologist. Indeed, the label is the very reason he is doing apologetics in the first place!

Until those arguments are deconstructed and their flaws exposed.

The Kalam can be supplemented by other arguments that when taken together, provide a good case for Christianity.

Belk · Dec 21, 2014

Archie the Preacher said:
I've always leaned toward the sneeze of the Great Green Arkleseizure. Bless you.

Archaeopteryx · Dec 21, 2014

Jeremy E Walker said:
Immateriality, spacelessness, timelessness, and volition are not properties of a flame that's why, but you already knew that.

So what? All that is required is that the Flame provide an explanation for the existence of the universe. In this regard it fares as well as any other supernatural explanation.

Immateriality, spacelessness, timelessness, and volition are not properties of a flame that's why, but you already knew that.

Immateriality, spacelessness and timelessness are also not properties of any living intelligence that we know of, yet you are happy to ignore that for the sake of your theology.

Further, there is no reason to suppose that the cause must have the qualities of an intelligent agent. The only reason this is asserted as a necessity is because of the apologist's theology, which commits him to a personal creator deity.

The Kalam can be supplemented by other arguments that when taken together, provide a good case for Christianity.

Supplemented with other arguments it also reportedly makes a good case for other religions too.

quatona · Dec 22, 2014

Jeremy E Walker said:
Immateriality, spacelessness, timelessness, and volition are not properties of a flame that's why, but you already knew that.

Weren´t you the guy who earlier in this thread postulated that the principles observed within this universe must apply to the universe and its coming into existence?
And now you have the guts to introduce a "timeless, spaceless, immaterial" cause??

DogmaHunter · Dec 22, 2014

Jeremy E Walker said:
1. If the physics of the universe are not accounted for prior to the creation of the universe, then the causal principle does not apply to the creation of the universe.

I'm going to have to stop you right there already. It's not at all clear to me that the concept of "prior to the universe" even makes sense.

In fact, given how we currently understand the universe, it seems as if words like "before" and "prior" are not appropriate.

It's like talking about "north of the north pole". Time started when the universe started. How can you talk about "before time"?

2. The physics of the universe are not accounted for prior to the creation of the universe.

This is again a point I disagree with. Ignoring the word "before" for a second here... Physics as we know it is an inherent PART of the universe. No universe = no physics (like we know it).

Regardless of how the universe came to be, physics as we know it can not be used to explain the origin of the universe. It sounds like being your own father.

The physics that are part of the universe can be used to explain phenomena IN the universe. It can't be used to explain phenomena "outside" of the universe bubble in which these physics apply.

That is, unless one can demonstrate that physics as we know itapplies "beyond" the universe as well. So, can you?

I'll assume you can't.

3. Therefore, the causal principle does not apply to the creation of the universe

No phenomena that is an intrinsic part of the universe is irrelevant when talking about a situation where the universe doesn't exist.

So unless you can show that the physics of the universe also apply "beyond" the universe... yeah...

Shoulder the burden. Explain to me how you came to the conclusion you did.

I just did and I also explained it in the post you are replying to.

Physics (as we know it) is a part of the universe.
No universe = no physics (as we know it).

Therefor, you can't take phenomena of physics (as we know it) to try and make a point about a conceptual situation where no universe exists.

Support premises one and two by showing them to be more plausible than their negation.

Classic shift of the burden of proof.
The "null hypothesis" here is that the physics of the universe only apply in the universe. YOU are the one who is making unsupported claims here... being that the physics of the universe also apply "outside" or "beyond" the universe.

Do not use any fallacies. I will call you out on them.

I don't need any.

Supply references for any quotes you use.

I didn't quote anybody.

I will be waiting.

I'll be waiting on your argument/demonstration that shows it's reasonable to assume that the physics of the universe apply beyond the universe.

DogmaHunter · Dec 22, 2014

Jeremy E Walker said:
How do we know time had a beginning? Because all the evidence we have points to that conclusion, i.e. that all matter, all energy, and the very space-time manifold itself came into existence at some point roughly 15 billion years ago.

If you agree with this, then your causality argument is refuted by that statement.

If time BEGAN when the universe began, then there is no logical "before" the universe.

In case you haven't noticed yet.... causes happen before effects.

So, logically, whatever triggered the universe into existence... it was a causeless event.

we deduce that it must contain properties typically associated with traditional conceptualizations of God.

It's called confirmation bias.

Also: deduction by itself, doesn't work.

To paraphrase Krauss:
"Your beliefs might inform you that if you pray to your god, you can jump from the empire state building and land safely. It's a belief that you CAN hold. Then, based on your beliefs, you can deduce that you will land safely if you jump from the building.

Well, I'll take the stairs and by the time we both arrive on the ground, only one of us will be standing."

DogmaHunter · Dec 22, 2014

Jeremy E Walker said:
The causal principle is a metaphysical principle

No. Causality is very much a physical phenomena.

Metaphysicians as far back as Parmenides have recognized the principle that being can come only from being, that something cannot come into being from non-being

Why would we care what the pseud-scientific version of sjamans have to say?
When did any "metaphycisist" ever produce a workable explanation of anything using "meta physics"?

It would be silly to say that since our thoughts are immaterial that therefore they have no cause or that the causal principle is inapplicable to them.

Our thoughts are not immaterial at all.
Our brains are very much material.

To dismiss the causal principle when it comes to the question of the beginning of the universe is to commit the "Hack fallacy", coined, incidentally, by an atheist philosopher.

No. It's to apply the scientific knowledge that we currently have.
Off course, one needs to properly understand what causality is before one can understand that.

I asked you, by the way, to define what you mean by "causality", which you still haven't properly done.

You did a vague attempt in this post with your "meta physics" nonsense, but let's be serious here.... Try to define it properly.

DogmaHunter · Dec 22, 2014

Jeremy E Walker said:
In theory, you could attach the word "divine" to anything and claim it created the universe.

Yep, which is exactly the problem with religious statements about anything concerning reality.

What we look for is an explanation that is explanatorily superior than its competitors.

And the only way to do that is through actual testable evidence instead of mere words.

Every single "god argument" that has ever been presented to me consisted of only words. Never is there anything testable. Never is there any actual evidence. It's just semantics and plays with words. It explains nothing, it just asserts.

DogmaHunter · Dec 22, 2014

Jeremy E Walker said:
Immateriality, spacelessness, timelessness, and volition are not properties of a flame that's why, but you already knew that.

How do you tell the difference between a thing that is "Immateriality, spacelessness, timelessness" and a thing that doesn't exist?

Percivale · Dec 22, 2014

DogmaHunter said:
How do you tell the difference between a thing that is "Immateriality, spacelessness, timelessness" and a thing that doesn't exist?

Is the fact 2+2=4 in time and space, is it material? I think not. If it did there would be a conceivable time or space where it was false.

Does that fact exist? Yes!

The difference from a God that exists and one that doesn't? Only one of them can create a universe.

It's no fun arguing against a chorus of "you can't be sure," so I'll let those who want to remain atheists do so. If only Christians were as religious as atheists (doubting God on online forums seems to be atheists' outlet for their religious impulses)! Maybe I'm just being annoying now. I'll read up more like Archie said before bringing up the cosmological argument here again. Just for the record it's no less convincing to me now.

Davian · Dec 22, 2014

Percivale said:
Is the fact 2+2=4 in time and space, is it material? I think not. If it did there would be a conceivable time or space where it was false.

Does that fact exist? Yes!

It is my understanding that numbers are abstract objects - things that only exist as an idea.

Percivale said:
The difference from a God that exists and one that doesn't? Only one of them can create a universe.

*If* they are even needed for the creation universes.

Percivale said:
It's no fun arguing against a chorus of "you can't be sure," so I'll let those who want to remain atheists do so.

That your posts were unconvincing is not indicative of me wanting them to be that way.

Percivale said:
If only Christians were as religious as atheists (doubting God on online forums seems to be atheists' outlet for their religious impulses)!

Or, doubting unevidenced and unfalsifiable assertions, to be more accurate.

Percivale said:
Maybe I'm just being annoying now. I'll read up more like Archie said before bringing up the cosmological argument here again. Just for the record it's no less convincing to me now.

I recall you saying that you were convinced of the existence of gods prior to encountering these arguments. If they didn't convince you, why should they convince others?

Archie the Preacher · Dec 22, 2014

Archaeopteryx said:
You seem to think that the purpose of the theory is to get rid of the Goddidit "theory,"

I'm pretty sure of it. It is NOT based on any discoveries. The only purpose it serves is to demonstrate an infinite progression of Universes to remove the need for any start. Much the same as the discredited 'Steady State' theory.

Archaeopteryx said:
..as though Goddidit wins so long as there is no tenable natural explanation. ...Goddidit does not triumph by default.

I agree without demure. Except that it works both ways. Too many of the 'atheistic science only' faction imply that argument. Since there is no 'scientific' evidence for Creation, it must be false.

Archaeopteryx said:
Appreciatively, this is a quite a good summary. Quite often apologists will create a strawman from this.

Thank you. I seriously try to be as fair as I can be. I trust you see I really do have an understanding of the sciences of Astronomy and Cosmology. The scientific method and such.

Archaeopteryx said:
Given the small, unfathomably dense state of the very early universe, the answer may lie in the "goofy" stuff.

In my experience, most of the answers have been in the small 'goofy' stuff.

Archaeopteryx said:
I suppose it depends on whether QM can in some way be reconciled with general relativity.

Reconciliation of the two theories would be very nice and very useful - as far as I can see. But I don't think it is required to progress (used as a verb).

Archaeopteryx said:
He creates the entirety of this vast cosmos, populated by all kinds of wonders, and all he really wants is for a single species of bipedal ape living on a small rock to acknowledge and worship him?

Not fully determined. I do not understand the Bible as limiting 'life', even sentient life to Earth. There are Christians who conclude there is no other life because the Bible doesn't mention other life. The difficulty with that conclusion is the Bible doesn't mention either China or the United States, but the same Christians have no difficulty allowing either of those.

I do not know, but am open to the possibility.

Archaeopteryx said:
If that is what he so deeply desires, then surely a universe no bigger than the one depicted in Genesis would have sufficed?

Not so. In order for heavier elements to exist, the nuclei had to have been formed in the cores of 'deceased' (nova'd) stars. So the one assumed (not depicted, if you please) in Genesis would not be big enough to develop the heavier elements. Unless one wants to go along with the young Earth version of instant creation. Of course, that would remove the 40,000 year old star problem.

Archaeopteryx said:
The vastness of our universe, by contrast, suggests a cold and distant deity who may or may not have any interest in human affairs.

Not to me it doesn't. But that is probably more a result of our divergent baseline assumptions than of deduction.

Archaeopteryx · Dec 22, 2014

Archie the Preacher said:
I'm pretty sure of it. It is NOT based on any discoveries. The only purpose it serves is to demonstrate an infinite progression of Universes to remove the need for any start. Much the same as the discredited 'Steady State' theory.

But in what way is its purpose to get rid of Goddidit? A start, or a beginning, doesn't imply a deity anyway.

I agree without demure. Except that it works both ways. Too many of the 'atheistic science only' faction imply that argument. Since there is no 'scientific' evidence for Creation, it must be false.

I think most atheists take a strong stance against a literal reading of Genesis, which not only lacks evidence but is demonstrably inconsistent with what we now know. Most atheists do concede that the doctrine of Creation, considered more broadly, is possible, but in the same way that all manner of other supernatural explanations are also possible.

Not fully determined. I do not understand the Bible as limiting 'life', even sentient life to Earth. There are Christians who conclude there is no other life because the Bible doesn't mention other life. The difficulty with that conclusion is the Bible doesn't mention either China or the United States, but the same Christians have no difficulty allowing either of those.

I do not know, but am open to the possibility.

That's an interesting interpretation.

Not so. In order for heavier elements to exist, the nuclei had to have been formed in the cores of 'deceased' (nova'd) stars. So the one assumed (not depicted, if you please) in Genesis would not be big enough to develop the heavier elements. Unless one wants to go along with the young Earth version of instant creation. Of course, that would remove the 40,000 year old star problem.

My suggestion was that, if God's only desire was an intimate relationship with human beings, than the universe really need not be any larger than the one conceived of by our ancestors. However, given what you've said above, you've already addressed my concern.

Jeremy E Walker · Dec 22, 2014

DogmaHunter said:
How do you tell the difference between a thing that is "Immateriality, spacelessness, timelessness" and a thing that doesn't exist?

Their effects.

Things that do not exist do not typically create things like universes etc.

But then again, you knew that.

Conscious Z · Dec 22, 2014

Percivale said:
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.

The solution to the "You can't make something from nothing" problem is that there never really was nothing. In fact, scientists can't ever seem to get just "nothing." Read Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe From Nothing if you're serious about this issue. Physical laws at the subatomic level are not the same as they are on our level. It is a gross oversimplification to quote the laws of thermodynamics and then throw out the dichotomy you did.

Archaeopteryx · Dec 22, 2014

Jeremy E Walker said:
Their effects.

Things that do not exist do not typically create things like universes etc.

But then again, you knew that.

You have yet to establish that the universe existing is an effect of a supernatural cause. But then again, you knew that.

Only two options for the origin of the universe

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Wanderer

fallible

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Wanderer

"God"? What do you mean??

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Sam

fallible

Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Wanderer

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency