The Cause of Everything

[Dragar]

It always puzzles me when people ask 'what caused the universe?'.

When I think of the universe, I think 'everything that exists'. Obviously, we don't quite know what this comprises of, and some people think it includes gods and some don't, and some people think it includes branes and strings and extra dimensions, and lots more don't.

But we can still label it, and the word I'm going to use for that is 'universe'.

So what could cause the universe? Ignoring the fact that spacetime is a part of the universe (and so 'cause' really ceases to mean something when you ask what caused time itself), I'm unclear how an answer to this question could be formed.

Let's say you tell me what caused the universe. Okay.

And let's also say that the universe cannot have caused itself. People tend to object to things like that.

So now we have two possibilities. Either this thing that caused the universe is in the universe (which cannot be, as that would be the universe causing itself), or it is not in the universe (which cannot be, as by definition the universe means 'everything').

This doesn't rule out a god creating stars and galaxies and planets and whatnot. But it does rule out a 'cause of everything'. It simply cannot exist (unless the 'cause of everything' is everything (or part of it) itself).

 

[Eudaimonist]

Exactly right.

 

[Stormy]

It simply cannot exist (unless the 'cause of everything' is everything (or part of it) itself).

Maybe I get it?

Before creation there was God

All of creation came from God.

If everything originated from God... then God is everything.

That works for me.

 

[Received]

It is this logially prior to the universe bit that makes the supernatural aspect intelligible. The theist would simply say that the natural sphere of things includes the universe and all within it; and that the supernatural includes God, the creator of this universe. This supernatural God is not reducable to the physical, to the natural. Hence the contradistinction: natural and supernatural. If the "supernatural" were ever to be understood in terms of this universe, the word would mean nothing, for one is calling the natural (the universe) holding something beyond the universe (the supernatural), which is nonsensical.

I think the problem is essentially regarding the "what" of the question "what created the universe?" -- this "what" is in all other cases physically qualified; but not here -- here the "what" is spiritually or metaphysically qualified. The "what" is not a what in the sense that a tree is a what; it refers to a higher sphere in this particular instance.

 

[Bevlina]

Moderator Note.


This thread was moved from GA to C&E.

 

[Received]

Why was it moved to Creation and Evolution? The question is metaphysical, not scientific; it belongs in GA, or the Philosophy forums.

 

[Jet Black]

It is this logially prior to the universe bit that makes the supernatural aspect intelligible.

what does logically prior mean?

 

[Stormy]

OK, that is not the way I am getting it.

I cannot separate the supernatural from the natural. The natural cannot have an identity all of its own.

I mean when God created all... He did not go to the local Home Depot for supplies. There was only God, and his desire to create. All things came from God.

Granted, he only made man in his image... but He gave birth to all of creation.

 

[Stormy]

Please move it back.

 

[Jet Black]

Maybe I get it?

Before creation there was God

All of creation came from God.

If everything originated from God... then God is everything.

That works for me.

you're not really talking about the same thing though. He is talking about everything, you are talking about the current state of spacetime. then there is that horrible "before" word again.

 

[Received]

It means, here, in a relation between two things, the one was responsible for the other in a causal sense, but not chronological. All cause-effect relationships are logically, trans-temporally linked, though the effects are only noticed chronologically. I push a ball -- the relation between the pushing and moving is indistinct in time, though I notice at a particular moment, "ah, the ball is moving." The reason why this is, I would think, is because we ascribe to things cause-effect values in order to make sense of the world; in their natural interactive setting all things in are in a flux.

 

[Jet Black]

It means, here, in a relation between two things, the one was responsible for the other in a causal sense, but not chronological. All cause-effect relationships are logically, trans-temporally linked, though the effects are only noticed chronologically. I push a ball -- the relation between the pushing and moving is indistinct in time, though I notice at a particular moment, "ah, the ball is moving." The reason why this is, I would think, is because we ascribe to things cause-effect values in order to make sense of the world; in their natural interactive setting all things in are in a flux.

well how do we know that something is responsible for the universe in a causal sense? The particular bit of causal logic is ultimately derived from our classical nonrelativistic assumptions after all, which results in objects in this universe travelling along particular spacetime paths. It could well be that all spacetime points are utterly fixed and stationary, though we only ever see one possible route through it.

Seeing as we are obviously not temporally limited, then is there any real reason why the responsible thing is not merely the thing itself?

 

[Received]

To get relevant: the reason why the word "before" is not dangerous to the theist is because this "before" must be necessarily understood in a logically prior sense. If the universe contains time, any possible creation of the universe cannot be related to a cause chronologically before it, because this chronological before implies within the universe, and you can't create the universe from within it. That's just silly. This cause must be logically prior, transcending temporality. And it does: God is considered eternal, and eternity is the only quality that could bring about time, because time implies a universe. Because there is an immutable metaphysical presence without the universe, there can be a universe chronlogically simultaneously with the act of creation, though the action is logically prior to the creation itself. Because this cause is distinct from the universe, and responsible for the universe and the natural within it, it is proper to call this cause "supernatural".

 

[Received]

Seeing as we are obviously not temporally limited, then is there any real reason why the responsible thing is not merely the thing itself?

But I don't find this to make sense. How can the responsible thing be the thing itself and be responsible -- responsible for what?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The thing about causality is... I'm not familiar with any reason to think that there is a cause for the existence of something. Oh, sure, we can talk about causes of the current forms of complex entities, such as galaxies, planets, trees, people, etc. We may rightly wonder how galaxies formed from basic elements, or how people process food to grow and live, or what technologies and materials went into constructing a bridge, but why should we think that the bare fact that the materials exist requires a casual explanation?

 

[Jet Black]

To get relevant: the reason why the word "before" is not dangerous to the theist is because this "before" must be necessarily understood in a logically prior sense.

which we haven't really established has any value yet.

If the universe contains time, any possible creation of the universe cannot be related to a cause chronologically before it, because this chronological before implies within the universe, and you can't create the universe from within it. That's just silly.

sure about that?

This cause must be logically prior, transcending temporality.
And it does: God is considered eternal, and eternity is the only quality that could bring about time, because time implies a universe. Because there is an immutable metaphysical presence without the universe, there can be a universe chronlogically simultaneously with the act of creation, though the action is logically prior to the creation itself. Because this cause is distinct from the universe, and responsible for the universe and the natural within it, it is proper to call this cause "supernatural".

this is something I don't really see to be honest. I don't see why this temporality business is actually relevant. Lets take the very very very distant future. There is only a single atom left (probably iron or hydrogen), all the others having spontaneously tunneled in on themselves and then evaporated into hawking radiation. Then this final atom tunnels in on itself and evaporates into hawking radiation. At that moment, time no longer holds any relevance whatsoever, since radiation does not have a rest frame, and sees no time. what of temporality now?

 

[Jet Black]

But I don't find this to make sense. How can the responsible thing be the thing itself and be responsible -- responsible for what?

well it is either that, or there are things that exist for which nothing is responsible for.

 

[Received]

which we haven't really established has any value yet.

Mm. I don't see why it wouldn't if the cause-effect relation as being temporal is nonsensical. If the cause-effect relation is trans-temporal, not chronologically qualified, what is the violation in using the word "before" to imply trasn-temporal existential responsibility for an effect within time (which would be an effect that simultaneously brings about time)?

sure about that?

As it relates to the pertinence of theism as causally responsible for the universe, yeah. And looking at the term "creation", how can something already existing be said to be awaiting existence?

this is something I don't really see to be honest. I don't see why this temporality business is actually relevant. Lets take the very very very distant future. There is only a single atom left (probably iron or hydrogen), all the others having spontaneously tunneled in on themselves and then evaporated into hawking radiation. Then this final atom tunnels in on itself and evaporates into hawking radiation. At that moment, time no longer holds any relevance whatsoever, since radiation does not have a rest frame, and sees no time. what of temporality now?

I don't know if I understand you. Are you saying that temporality has no meaning because in the future it will have no meaning?

 

[Received]

well it is either that, or there are things that exist for which nothing is responsible for.

I think it makes sense to speak of things being responsible when you already put aside the notion of existence as in flux -- when you are trying to understand it in cause-effect terms. The problem with simply saying all is flux is that if God is within this flux (that is, if He is related to existence -- and this certainly can't be determined), it makes argument pointless for us.

 

[Dragar]

It is this logially prior to the universe bit that makes the supernatural aspect intelligible. The theist would simply say that the natural sphere of things includes the universe and all within it...

I defined 'universe' quite clearly to mean 'everything', Received. That would be both natural and 'supernatural' (whatever the latter is supposed to be).