Was life inevitable?

[Mark Quayle]

You seem to believe that if science reaches far enough back in time it will discover a point at which natural causality began to work, sparked off by some other kind of cause. If that is not correct, I apologize. But there is no need for temporal priority. It is possible to imagine, for instance, a universe created by God and co-eternal with Him.

No. That wouldn't be God, then. It's pretty simple.

I can't prove things as well as some people. When a beam of light hits a mirror I don't need proof to know that the angle of incidence is the same as the angle of reflection. I went to class to learn the steps with which to prove it, but I forget who is the brilliant fellow who said this or that which is used in the proof. So it is with how I must see God.

Any other supposed "First Cause" has at least a principle by which it is governed; thus it is an effect. First Cause has no cause, it has to be the one and only first cause, being the cause of any principle, law or fact, and not the result (effect) of any, not governed by any. For God to create "ex nihilo" demands the fact that he even invented "nihilo". I see no way any of the things we consider, "just the way things are", such as logic, math, concept etc, not to mention of course, the laws and principles by which this universe is governed, were not also "invented" by God. Nothing preceded him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's why I gave the alternative, "it is reasonable to ask for some justification such as the criteria for judging what is evidence for Creation".

Reasonable, yes. Productive? --probably not. Yet, there is enough to convince, that must be relegated to "unknown cause" --not even a decent, cogent speculation, as far as I have heard --so that one is without excuse for demanding to see empirical evidence in order to be convinced.

 

[Speedwell]

No. That wouldn't be God, then. It's pretty simple.

How so? Why could God not create an eternal universe?

 

[Mark Quayle]

How so? Why could God not create an eternal universe?

Infinite, I suppose you mean? The universe had a beginning.

If you want to posit an uncaused universe, then that is would be self-existent first cause. Yet you want the self-contradictory notion of a caused first cause?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well if we’re saying the entire universe is creation then it would be unreasonable to think we could find an uncreated thing within it. However, I understand you don’t hold to that position which is why you expect to find something uncreated.

My point was that if someone is going to say something like "I see creation all around" and not expect it to be taken as begging the question, then it's reasonable to ask what the criteria are. That's it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Reasonable, yes. Productive? --probably not. Yet, there is enough to convince, that must be relegated to "unknown cause" --not even a decent, cogent speculation, as far as I have heard --so that one is without excuse for demanding to see empirical evidence in order to be convinced.

Fine, but AFAIK, "unknown cause" is not a synonym for "Creator".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Infinite, I suppose you mean? The universe had a beginning.

We don't know that it had a beginning, we only know that there's a time beyond which we can't see further back due to physical constraints. IOW the observable universe began at the big bang. There is a variety of speculative priors that are consistent with fundamental physics.

 

[Speedwell]

Infinite, I suppose you mean? The universe had a beginning.

Not a fact in evidence. Some theorists propose that the "big bang" was a transition point, not a beginning ex nihilo.

If you want to posit an uncaused universe, then that is would be self-existent first cause. Yet you want the self-contradictory notion of a caused first cause?

I don't want to posit an uncaused universe nor do I want to posit an infinite universe. What I am positing is a caused universe of finite spatial extent, a universe caused by God and co-eternal with Him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not a fact in evidence. Some theorists propose that the "big bang" was a transition point, not a beginning ex nihilo.

I don't want to posit an uncaused universe nor do I want to posit an infinite universe. What I am positing is a caused universe of finite spatial extent, a universe caused by God and co-eternal with Him.

Ok. Let me try again. A universe co-eternal, by which you mean having a beginning but no ending. That, to me, is no problem, except somewhere in there the thought must fit expressed in Scriptures, "the old way of things will be no more". "Way" can also be rendered, "manner" or "order". It may be that the phrase does not refer to the whole universe, but only to our world, or even only to ourselves, but I tend to think it is about the whole universe.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We don't know that it had a beginning, we only know that there's a time beyond which we can't see further back due to physical constraints. IOW the observable universe began at the big bang. There is a variety of speculative priors that are consistent with fundamental physics.

Seeing as time began with the BB, according to Hawking, I believe it was, you have a point, yet it behaved logical "prior" to BB according to laws and principles. Fundamental physics and good sense both require always "you can't get something from nothing". Yet even the notion of nothingness requires a law of logical existence / non-existence. Without God there isn't even nothingness. Good reason says he invented it all.

And here we can see possible eternal universal law in that it has always been, but only because God has always been. God is not made of it, but made it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Fine, but AFAIK, "unknown cause" is not a synonym for "Creator".

Lol, I don't know if you are being funny or if you misread me. I was most definitely not saying "unknown cause" is synonymous with "Creator". The term, "unknown cause", could be a Jub-Jub Bird, or whatever, which is not even a decent, cogent speculation.

 

[Ophiolite]

Fundamental physics and good sense both require always "you can't get something from nothing".

Fundamental physics as we understand them and as they apply to the current expression of existence appear to require that "you can't get something from nothing". There are a lot of caveats in there.

As for good sense that's about as valuable as a sack of weasels in a late night diner. It has been observed on multiple occassions, by multiple scientists, that the findings of science are often counter-intuitive. That is to say "good sense" often leads us down the wrong path. I'm surprised you were unaware of that.

Without God there isn't even nothingness.

I would be intrigued to see a cogent argument to support that assertion.

And here we can see possible eternal universal law in that it has always been, but only because God has always been. God is not made of it, but made it.

Poetic words, but I thought this was the science sub-forum.

 

[Speedwell]

Ok. Let me try again. A universe co-eternal, by which you mean having a beginning but no ending.

No, that is not what I mean. The hypothetical universe I am describing is eternal in that it has no beginning or no ending.

that, to me, is no problem, except somewhere in there the thought must fit expressed in Scriptures, "the old way of things will be no more". "Way" can also be rendered, "manner" or "order". It may be that the phrase does not refer to the whole universe, but only to our world, or even only to ourselves, but I tend to think it is about the whole universe.

The scriptures don't come into it, not at this point anyway. This started out as a discussion I was having with Chriliman about the metaphysical possibilities. You claim that a created universe co-eternal with God is impossible. I expect to see a metaphysical argument to defend that proposition.

 

[Mark Quayle]

My point was that if someone is going to say something like "I see creation all around" and not expect it to be taken as begging the question, then it's reasonable to ask what the criteria are. That's it.

But doesn't good reason demand a cause for the existence of the universe? Even the BB priors science has proposed, to my mind, demand logical cause --not self-existence, being subject to causal laws and principles.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, that is not what I mean. The hypothetical universe I am describing is eternal in that it has no beginning or no ending.The scriptures don't come into it, not at this point anyway. This started out as a discussion I was having with Chriliman about the metaphysical possibilities. You claim that a created universe co-Eternal with God is impossible. I expect to see a metaphysical argument to defend that proposition.

My use of Scriptures was a caveat, simply because I didn't want to be misunderstood.

How could something God creates have no beginning? I don't mean a time beginning --I mean a cause beginning. It is self-contradictory to say something was caused, yet had no causal beginning.

 

[Speedwell]

My use of Scriptures was a caveat, simply because I didn't want to be misunderstood.

How could something God creates have no beginning? I don't mean a time beginning --I mean a cause beginning. It is self-contradictory to say something was caused, yet had no causal beginning.

What in the world is a "causal beginning" without a temporal beginning? If God has caused the universe to exist from eternity, there would be no time at which He did not cause it, hence no beginning.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I would be intrigued to see a cogent argument to support that assertion.

I'd be intrigued to have some give a cogent argument that in the face of absolute nothingness, nothing wouldn't exist.

If even nothing can't exist if there is no god, then if there is no god something must exist. Odd that's how we find the universe--something that exists.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What in the world is a "causal beginning" without a temporal beginning?

Ask your physics experts --they are saying it even happens within this universe, where a decision in the present caused an observable earlier effect.

According to Hawking, time began with the Big Bang. Yet the BB had to have been caused.
And so, we have an effect caused in a logical sequence, not caused in a time sequence.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'd be intrigued to have some give a cogent argument that in the face of absolute nothingness, nothing wouldn't exist.

If even nothing can't exist if there is no god, then if there is no god something must exist. Odd that's how we find the universe--something that exists.

But you are arguing within our limited definitions. We operate (and rightly so) within the scope of our ability to comprehend. That does not mean there is nothing real beyond that scope. It only means our words (and concepts) begin to turn on themselves in our minds.

I suppose I can't prove to anyone what I mean, but I insist that "the way things are" is not of itself as fundamental as what put them into effect, "inventing them", so to speak. God.

Any mechanical fact, such as a theoretical self-existent universe, bereft of purpose though full of directed cause and effect, is itself caused, in that it too is subject to laws and principles. "First Cause" cannot logically be subject to anything, but will have caused everything, including logic and reason.

 

[Speedwell]

Ask your physics experts --they are saying it even happens within this universe, where a decision in the present caused an observable earlier effect.

Yes. Science deals with Efficient Causes, which act in temporal sequence within this universe. Not all causes need be temporally prior to their effects.

According to Hawking, time began with the Big Bang. Yet the BB had to have been caused.
And so, we have an effect caused in a logical sequence, not caused in a time sequence.

Hawking is entitled to his opinion and he may well be right. But it does not require that the Big Bang occur ex nihilo nor rule out that something has existed co-eternally with God and caused by Him.