Only two options for the origin of the universe

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Funny conclusion.
"blablabla...and if you don't believe me, then ..."

Anyhow, have this whole rant-ish argument for causality... But you didn't really define it. You made some claims and assertions about it, but you didn't define it.

Would you please try to define it?

Because it seems to me that causality is a phenomena of physics, right? Physics...as it applies in this universe. Remove this universe and you remove the physics of the universe. That includes causality.

Because of this, your assertions and claims are problematic for me to simply accept.

Like "an event ALWAYS has a cause". I can agree as long as we talk about events in the universe at sub-light speeds and of macroscopic scale - I wouldn't agree so fast when talking quantum bizarro-world. I'm also not so sure it would still be true if we remove the universe. A cause for the universe would also mean that something happens before the universe exists. What does "before" mean there? Considering the space-time continuum doesn't exist yet...

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

So can a timeless and spaceless unicorn.
The problems with such propositions are many:
- there is no reason at all to think such beings or unicorns exist
- such beings or unicorns would require their own explanation
- god of the gaps

And last but not least:
- it's just a religious statement

It's kind of hilarious that you preemptively accuse those who will disagree with you of being "anti-science" while all you are doing is presenting a religious belief.

Obviously, an eternal being (or object) does not need a cause.

Let the special pleading begin.

If only it were so easy, ha? Make up an arbitrary definition that is tailored to be something for which no evidence can exist, which can't be tested or falsified, which doesn't need an explanation and - as the definition itself asserts - it "just exists".

Sorry if I wonder away being unimpressed.

 

[JGG]

Why are we just throwing out my theory that William Shatner created the universe by accident while cleaning his toupee?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Remove this universe and you remove the physics of the universe. That includes causality.

This is your argument.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Supply references for any quotes you use.

I will be waiting.

 

[talquin]

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).

That is a false dichotomy. A true dichotomy would be like this:

1) One is that matter and energy are eternal; either each universe causes the next or a multiverse is constantly creating and reabsorbing universes.
2) The other option is something other than that matter and energy are eternal; either each universe causes the next or a multiverse is constantly creating and reabsorbing universes.

or a true dichotomy could be like this

1) One option is that an eternal being possessing volition and intelligence has caused our universe (and possibly but not necessarily other universes).
2) The other option is something other than 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.

We don't accept this dichotomy because it is a false dichotomy.

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.

Even if every event has a cause, it does absolutely nothing to show that a god exists.

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.

How do you know that time had a beginning?

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.

Do you realize this does absolutely nothing to suggest a god exists?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Even if every event has a cause, it does absolutely nothing to show that a god exists.

Our contention is not that God exists because every event has a cause but rather, the appeal to the causal principle in premise 1, which is a metaphysical principle, in conjunction with the findings of contemporary cosmology in support of premise 2, provides us with support of premises in a philosophical argument for conclusions having theological significance.

For example, the key premise in the ancient kalam cosmological argument that

2. The universe began to exist.

is a religiously neutral statement which can be found in virtually any contemporary textbook on astronomy and astrophysics. It is obviously susceptible to scientific confirmation or disconfirmation on the basis of the evidence.

How do you know that time had a beginning?

What’s emerged during the 20th century is remarkable empirical confirmation of the second premise from the evidence of astrophysical cosmogony. Two independent but closely interrelated lines of physical evidence support premise (2):

1. evidence from the expansion of the universe

and...

2. evidence from the second law of thermodynamics.


Even many who have expressed scepticism about premise (2) admit that it is more plausibly true than not. For example, in my recent dialogue with Lawrence Krauss, he volunteered, “I’d bet our universe had a beginning, but I am not certain of it. . . . based on the physics that I know, I’d say it is a more likely possibility.”[6] This is to admit precisely what cosmologists like Alexander Vilenkin have contended all along: that the evidence makes it more likely than not that the universe began to exist.[7]

Read more: ?God and Cosmology: The Existence of God in Light of Contemporary Cosmology? | Reasonable Faith

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.

Do you realize this does absolutely nothing to suggest a god exists?

If one accepts the conclusion of the argument, then we have a cause of the universe. Upon a conceptual analysis of what properties at minimum this cause must possess, we deduce that it must contain properties typically associated with traditional conceptualizations of God.

 

[talquin]

Our contention is not that God exists because every event has a cause but rather, the appeal to the causal principle in premise 1, which is a metaphysical principle, in conjunction with the findings of contemporary cosmology in support of premise 2, provides us with support of premises in a philosophical argument for conclusions having theological significance.

For example, the key premise in the ancient kalam cosmological argument that

2. The universe began to exist.

is a religiously neutral statement which can be found in virtually any contemporary textbook on astronomy and astrophysics. It is obviously susceptible to scientific confirmation or disconfirmation on the basis of the evidence.

Even if the universe began to exist, how can you be sure that the universe must have had a cause?

What’s emerged during the 20th century is remarkable empirical confirmation of the second premise from the evidence of astrophysical cosmogony. Two independent but closely interrelated lines of physical evidence support premise (2):

1. evidence from the expansion of the universe

and...

2. evidence from the second law of thermodynamics.


Even many who have expressed scepticism about premise (2) admit that it is more plausibly true than not. For example, in my recent dialogue with Lawrence Krauss, he volunteered, “I’d bet our universe had a beginning, but I am not certain of it. . . . based on the physics that I know, I’d say it is a more likely possibility.”[6] This is to admit precisely what cosmologists like Alexander Vilenkin have contended all along: that the evidence makes it more likely than not that the universe began to exist.[7]


Read more: ?God and Cosmology: The Existence of God in Light of Contemporary Cosmology? | Reasonable Faith

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.

How do you know this?

If one accepts the conclusion of the argument, then we have a cause of the universe. Upon a conceptual analysis of what properties at minimum this cause must possess, we deduce that it must contain properties typically associated with traditional conceptualizations of God.

How would it follow that such cause would have consciousness, love everything and be able to do anything?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is your argument.

You have a very poor track record of telling people what their arguments are.

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.

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

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

The causal principle describes the interaction of matter and energy in the universe, not the creation of matter and energy in the absence of everything.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If one accepts the conclusion of the argument, then we have a cause of the universe. Upon a conceptual analysis of what properties at minimum this cause must possess, we deduce that it must contain properties typically associated with traditional conceptualizations of God.

It must? That is a huge stretch. One can argue for any supernatural explanation and say that it must be the case. It must be the Divine Flame.

 

[Davian]

Why are we just throwing out my theory that William Shatner created the universe by accident while cleaning his toupee?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

The causal principle describes the interaction of matter and energy in the universe, not the creation of matter and energy in the absence of everything.

The causal principle is a metaphysical principle and therefore speaks of the relation between cause and effect irrespective of the cause and effect's constituents. 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. This metaphysical principle pertains for example to our thoughts which are epiphenoma that is, they are not composed of matter and do not endure through space. 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.

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.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The causal principle is a metaphysical principle and therefore speaks of the relation between cause and effect irrespective of the cause and effect's constituents. 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. This metaphysical principle pertains for example to our thoughts even though they are not composed of matter and do not exist in space. 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.

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 one is dismissing the causal principle. I am simply pointing out that you are not appealing to the causal principle consistently. You are demanding exceptions so as to accommodate a theological doctrine.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

It must? That is a huge stretch. One can argue for any supernatural explanation and say that it must be the case. It must be the Divine Flame.

A flame is the visible, gaseous part of a fire. It is caused by a highly exothermic reaction taking place in a thin zone.

Thus in order for a flame to exist, there must be a universe of matter and energy filled with all of the necessary elements required for a flame to exist.

Thus, in order for a flame to create the universe, it would have had to exist prior to the existence of those things upon which its existence depended.

In theory, you could attach the word "divine" to anything and claim it created the universe. What we look for is an explanation that is explanatorily superior than its competitors.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

No one is dismissing the causal principle. I am simply pointing out that you are not appealing to the causal principle consistently. You are demanding exceptions so as to accommodate a theological doctrine.

How am I not applying it consistently?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A flame is the visible, gaseous part of a fire. It is caused by a highly exothermic reaction taking place in a thin zone.

Thus in order for a flame to exist, there must be a universe of matter and energy filled with all of the necessary elements required for a flame to exist.

Thus, in order for a flame to create the universe, it would have had to exist prior to the existence of those things upon which its existence depended.

But this is no ordinary flame, Jeremy. This is the Divine Flame that created the universe. The natural principles describing flames within the universe need not apply to the Divine Flame that caused the universe. Being supernatural, it is exempt from the requirements of naturally forming flames (e.g., a gaseous substance, a source of ignition, etc).

In theory, you could attach the word "divine" to anything and claim it created the universe. What we look for is an explanation that is explanatorily superior than its competitors.

That's the point, Jeremy.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How am I not applying it consistently?

Didn't I already answer that? The causal principle describes the interaction of matter and energy in the universe, not the creation of matter and energy ex nihilo.

 

[quatona]

This is your argument.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Supply references for any quotes you use.

I will be waiting.

Firstly, you omitted an important word in your representation of the argument: "not necessarily". That principles observed within a system do not necessarily apply to the system itself is simple logic.
Secondly, your own "explanation" for the origin of the universe violates so many of the principles within of the universe (or what else requires the introduction of terms like "supernatural"?) that you of all aren´t in the position to take issue with others doing the same.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

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.

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.

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.

The other option is that an eternal being possessing volition and intelligence has caused our universe (and possibly but not necessarily other universes).

Okay, those two choices seem alternatively 'reasonable'.

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.

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'.

Instead, atheists seem more commonly to come up with illogical explanations like saying the universe just popped into existence out of nothing.

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.

Every event has a cause. I consider this to be a fundamental law of reason...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not to mention that everything we see on a macro level is orderly and consistent. Except for women's fashions.

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

That is a fairly widespread assumption.

Therefore if you deny this you are anti-science.

That's a bit strong. However, the assumption that nothing is predictable or reliable leaves one in a rather undependable state of mind.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

That makes sense, as far as it goes.

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.

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.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Why are we just throwing out my theory that William Shatner created the universe by accident while cleaning his toupee?

I've always leaned toward the sneeze of the Great Green Arkleseizure. Bless you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

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.

You seem to think that the purpose of the theory is to get rid of the Goddidit "theory," as though Goddidit wins so long as there is no tenable natural explanation. That does not follow. Even if there was no M-theory, or anything similar to it, Goddidit does not triumph by default. You need to do your own work to support that view, not just demand that others support theirs.

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.

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

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.

Given the small, unfathomably dense state of the very early universe, the answer may lie in the "goofy" stuff. I suppose it depends on whether QM can in some way be reconciled with general relativity.

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.

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? If that is what he so deeply desires, then surely a universe no bigger than the one depicted in Genesis would have sufficed? As it is described, that universe is much more inviting of divine intimacy. It even includes a Garden created specifically for us. The vastness of our universe, by contrast, suggests a cold and distant deity who may or may not have any interest in human affairs.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

But this is no ordinary flame, Jeremy. This is the Divine Flame that created the universe. The natural principles describing flames within the universe need not apply to the Divine Flame that caused the universe. Being supernatural, it is exempt from the requirements of naturally forming flames (e.g., a gaseous substance, a source of ignition, etc).



That's the point, Jeremy.

Then this "divine flame" is actually not a flame at all. 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!"

This was immediately followed by laughter from the audience because they got what he was saying.

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.

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.