Three simple options

[Guest calvinfab]

I am new here so I apologize if this has been answered somewhere else:

 

With respect to "something's" existence, there are only three philisophical alternatives that account for the "something" existing. They are:

 

1. Cause by Another: This means that something other than itself caused or created the "something" to exist. This is one of the first principles of logic.

 

2. Self-Caused: This means that something caused itself. Which seems silly when talking about existence, because something has to exist before it can create itself. Nevertheless, it is still a philisophical possibility.

 

3. Uncaused: This means the thing that exists had no cause and consequently, no beginning. Since, if you have a beginning there was a time when you did not exist.

 

It seems there is a delimma in acknowledging these three options for existence when it comes to the origin of the Universe or created order (including time). If you believe #1, the universe was caused by another , it might put you in a theist camp. If you believe in #2, it might put you in a mental institution since the universe would have to exist to create itself. If you believe in #3 and say the universe is uncaused or had no beginning, it puts you at odds with Science and Big Bang Cosmology.

 

Is this a valid and true syllogism?

 

Premise 1: Things that have beginnings need causes other than themselves

Premise 2: The Universe had a beginning

Conclusion: The Universe needs a cause

 

I believe I am a theist because I trust the science that says the Universe had a beginning. I am sure there are those that say the Universe did not have a beginning. Do you think they are any more or less reasonable?

 

Thanks for having me,

 

Calvin

[MrSpooky]

I argue that your argument is neither true nor valid.

 

This is why:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?act=...&st=0#entry2235

[Asimov]

Premise 1:  Things that have beginnings need causes other than themselves

Premise 2:  The Universe had a beginning

Conclusion:    The Universe needs a cause

 

Premise 2 is faulty. The Universe had no beginning. I think, as MrSpooky said, you are equating the beginning of the material universe, with the beginning of existence. Existence has no beginning, the material universe had a beginning.

[narcissist]

Premise 1 is faulty too. Quantum mechanics is a bastard isn’t it? The Aristotlean world view has never been the same…

 

3. Uncaused: This means the thing that exists had no cause and consequently, no beginning. Since, if you have a beginning there was a time when you did not exist.

 

If you believe in #3 and say the universe is uncaused or had no beginning, it puts you at odds with Science and Big Bang Cosmology.

 

According to Science and Big Bang Cosmology, there was no time before the universe began to exist. Time did not exist before the beginning of the universe. Time began when the universe began. So there was no time when the universe did not exist.

 

Since, according to Science and Big Bang Cosmology, there was not a time when the universe did not exist, does this mean, according to your Philisophical Alternative #3, that the universe did not have a beginning?

 

Actually, to say that the universe is uncaused is not at odds with Science and Big Bang Cosmology. It is possible that the universe spontaneously appeared out of “nothing” as a result of something to do with quantum vacuums fluctuations, conservation of ‘zero’ energy of the universe and the idea that “nothing” is unstable…

 

Of course scientists sometimes still refer to theories that allow the possibility of a universe that has always existed, without a beginning.

 

(To which the Theist/Creationist replies, “Aha! so who (and it’s always “who”) caused the quantum vacuum fluctuations?!” to which the Atheist/Agnostic retorts, “So who caused God?!” to which the Theist/Creationist replies, “God wasn’t caused/created, that’s why he’s God!” to which the Atheist/Agnostic replies “Well why does the universe need a God to create it? Can’t the universe just create itself?!...” etc…)

 

End of rant.

[Guest calvinfab]

Premise 2 is faulty.  The Universe had no beginning.  I think, as MrSpooky said, you are equating the beginning of the material universe, with the beginning of existence.  Existence has no beginning, the material universe had a beginning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for the reply. I think you are agreeing with me when you say "the material universe had a beginning."

 

What I am trying to communicate in Premise 2 is that

 

a: The universe is something that exists and

b: that it did not always exists

 

a: is pretty plain

b: is what the Big Bang and a good deal of credible sources tell us.

 

That is all I am saying in Premise 2. If you believe the material universe did not have a beginning then I would agree with you that it does not require a cause. I just think it takes a great leap of faith (sorry, used the "f-word") to believe it is eternal and uncaused since you would be in disagreement with the majority of the scientific community and I feel, a good deal of common sense.

 

Cheers,

 

Calvin

[Guest calvinfab]

Premise 1 is faulty too.  Quantum mechanics is a bastard isn’t it?  The Aristotlean world view has never been the same…

 

Hi nar,

 

I think if you deny Premise 1, you also deny the First Principle of Causality (Only Being can cause Being). If you want to deny that, knock yourself out.

 

According to Science and Big Bang Cosmology, there was no time before the universe began to exist. Time did not exist before the beginning of the universe. Time began when the universe began.  So there was no time when the universe did not exist.

 

Since, according to Science and Big Bang Cosmology, there was not a time when the universe did not exist, does this mean, according to your Philisophical Alternative #3, that the universe did not have a beginning?

 

I agree that time is something that is created and to ask when and where the universe began is difficult because you have to say, "It began everywhere at once."

 

However, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing while the amout of actual energy existing within the universe changes form, yet remains constant (See First Law). This would seem to imply that the universe began with a finite supply of energy. It would also mean that the universe could not have existed forever in the past. If the universe is getting more and more disordered, it cannot be eternal. Otherwise, it would have been completely disordered by now, which it is not. I just think it is reasonable that it had a highly ordered beginning.

 

Actually, to say that the universe is uncaused is not at odds with Science and Big Bang Cosmology.  It is possible that the universe spontaneously appeared out of “nothing” as a result of something to do with quantum vacuums fluctuations, conservation of ‘zero’ energy of the universe and the idea that “nothing” is unstable…

 

Of course scientists sometimes still refer to theories that allow the possibility of a universe that has always existed, without a beginning.

 

"I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause" (The Letters of David Hume)

 

(To which the Theist/Creationist replies, “Aha! so who (and it’s always “who”) caused the quantum vacuum fluctuations?!” to which the Atheist/Agnostic retorts, “So who caused God?!” to which the Theist/Creationist replies, “God wasn’t caused/created, that’s why he’s God!” to which the Atheist/Agnostic replies “Well why does the universe need a God to create it?  Can’t the universe just create itself?!...” etc…)

 

Well, yeah. I think the Theist says "Anything with a beginning needs a cause. If you don't have a beginning, you don't need a cause." If the universe comes to be it needs a cause, if it did not come to be, does not need one. God, as defined by theists, is uncaused, has not beginning, so does not need a cause.

 

I just can't handle when people fault theists for saying, "God (an uncaused something) created the universe (a caused something) out of nothing" when the non-theist responds that "Nothing caused the universe (a caused something) out of nothing." Even Julie Andrews knows better than that. "Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could."

Cheers,

 

Calvin

[Guest Son of Belial]

I just can't handle when people fault theists for saying, "God (an uncaused something) created the universe (a caused something) out of nothing" when the non-theist responds that "Nothing caused the universe (a caused something) out of nothing." Even Julie Andrews knows better than that. "Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could."

 

The point of the argument is to show the theist that if their logic is that God can exist from the beginning without cause, so could the universe. It's to get them thinking, and realizing that logically, one is as good as the other. But the fact is, even if the Big Bang occured without any sort of outside deistic influence, it didn't "come from nothing." The particles were already there.

[Thurisaz]

By the way, unless I missed real much, the big bang is merely the beginning of the form of the universe we can observe now, not the beginning of the universe per se. Mind you, it might be the latter, or it might be not. Where singularity starts, all our reasoning ends.

However, time began with the big bang. So whether the universe had a definite starting point at the big bang depends on what exactly you define as a start. It is true to say "the universe has existed for all time", because the singularity was there before time started.

 

Aaaah, all those uncertainties... which make life interesting...

[SmallStone]

Welcome calvinfab.

 

I don't see a problem with the logical validity of your syllogism.

 

Nevertheless, it looks like you've set up a straw man and then knocked it down with a handy dandy definition. Why do you engage in such useless mental gymnastics?

[Merlinfmct87]

You'll have to define Gymnastics for him.

 

Merlin

[Asimov]

By the way, unless I missed real much, the big bang is merely the beginning of the form of the universe we can observe now, not the beginning of the universe per se. Mind you, it might be the latter, or it might be not. Where singularity starts, all our reasoning ends.

However, time began with the big bang. So whether the universe had a definite starting point at the big bang depends on what exactly you define as a start. It is true to say "the universe has existed for all time", because the singularity was there before time started.

 

Aaaah, all those uncertainties... which make life interesting...

 

 

I'm pretty sure that's correct, Thurisaz.

 

However, I've been thinking about this. And I remember Hawking saying that at the singularity, no information could get through, because it was a singularity (infinite density, curvature).

 

Kinda like a black hole singularity. If you send an astronaut wearing a watch that sends a pulse out every 10 seconds, the closer the astronaut gets to the black hole, the longer the interval will be when you receive the pulse. Time dilation. It never gets to a point where time actually stops, but that it gets so dilated, it seems like it ends, and the space between the last pulse and the next one will never arrive, so time seems to stop at the singularity of the black hole.

 

Now, if that's true for the singularity of the BB, then due to dilation, we would never be able to observe what happened before the singularity, and as Hawking states it, whatever happened before is inconsequential to our universe.

 

I made a diagram...I hope I'm right.

 

 

Please keep in mind that I am in no way a cosmologist...so feel free to correct!

[Asimov]

You'll have to define Gymnastics for him.

 

Merlin

 

What about defining definition?

[Amethyst]

I believe that the universe had a beginning, but not necessarily one caused by a creator God. To say that the universe was started from an outside source doesn't necessarily mean that one has to be a theist, although it could. The outside source could have been completely natural -- i.e. a chemical reaction spurred on by the death of the previous universe, if there was one. Just think, the universe could be in an infinite loop, creating and destroying itself every few billion years or so.

 

It could've been aliens in a science lab, trying to recreate the birth of their own universe. It could've been anything. But it doesn't mean there has to be a supernatural godlike being.

[Saviourmachine]

3.  Uncaused:  This means the thing that exists had no cause and consequently, no beginning.  Since, if you have a beginning there was a time when you did not exist.

Personally I believe in nr. 3. I believe that Heisenberg implies indeterminism, that indeterminism implies the existence of real chance, that existence of real chance implies that there exist events that aren't caused by other events. In this point of view random occuring events don't imply absence of 'beginning'.

 

I think if you deny Premise 1, you also deny the First Principle of Causality (Only Being can cause Being). If you want to deny that, knock yourself out.

I want to deny that. Do you know exactly what 'being' is? It seems you see it as a black-white matter. Weird isn't it, that there 'exist' virtual particles. Particles that we can assign to a 'probability of existence'.

 

Anyway, I also think that we have to believe in some singularity of some kind, or in some sequence of turtles all the way down.

 

Problems nearby. What is for example the nature of 'causation'? Some co-ocurrences of 'Being' in this particular (local) spot in the universe we call 'caused'. But what is 'caused' exactly?

-> Colliding? Moving? Transfer of energy? Transfer of information?

[BlueGiant]

You may also want to check zero-boundary condition models at some point...

[Asimov]

is that Hawkings idea? The zero-boundary?

[narcissist]

Even Julie Andrews knows better than that.  "Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could." 

Song lyrics are not science.

 

"I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause" (The Letters of David Hume)

Personal incredulity is not science either.

 

Just because you (or Hume) think its logically/practically/scientifically absurd, doesn't mean a phenomenon doesn't or can't exist. The doctrine of the Trinity is quite incredulous, absurd to some, yet it is a fundamental and foundational "Truth" for Christianity. The idea that the earth orbits the sun was once considered absurd, even a heresy. But what was once considered heretical is now taken for granted as fact.

 

Even if the universe had a cause it does not prove the existence of God, it simply indicates that something caused the universe. In the same way that the existence of a tree doesn't prove that it was planted by a human. It's seed could have fallen from a nearby older tree, dropped there by a bird or be blown there by the wind from far away, among other possibilities.

[MrSpooky]

While Heisenberg implies epistemic indeterminsim, it doesn't imply metaphysical indeterminism.

[Saviourmachine]

While Heisenberg implies epistemic indeterminsim, it doesn't imply metaphysical indeterminism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And how do you know the difference? I mean: if you do watch some indeterministic phenomenom, when do you label it with 'epistemic' indeterminism and when do you label it with 'metaphysical' determinism?

 

Heisenberg talks about epistemic indeterminism. So, necessarily, we can't know what is the case in 'reality'. I take the 'step of belief' to metaphysical indeterminism.

 

If you want to reformulate my sentence into something that does better show the assumptions I made, I'll appreciate that.

[Guest Tiffany]

Hehe !!... As soon as you think you have a definition of the universe, another one pops up !!!.

 

If you accept this universe as a growing space-time-energy bubble emanating from a singularity point. Picture an infinite number of singularity points triggered from another framework consisting of parallel universes made up of varied components, not necessarily the same as this universe.

 

Collisions occuring between compatible universes create those singularities. Each singularity goes through expansion- cool down phases... like a bubble of air in steaming chocolate  Eventually the bubble disappears back into the chocolate and another one reappears somewhere  nothing gained ... nothing lost.

 

When gravity goes out of whack :imploding super giant leading to a black hole.... This supercrunch singularity feeding on the available matter in this universe may be feeding another sub space-time-energy bubble where time will again organise matter.... or maybe not 

 

Don't you love chocolate  .... lets hope these cool theories keep coming out  !.... just don't make a religion out of one of them.... please ! This is the game of EVOLUTION ! hehe

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That sounds almost like M-theory.

[Saviourmachine]

fractal possibility

Nice word.

[Saviourmachine]

Wow!

[IAm_Lucifer]

Looks like calvinfab took off as soon as he realised he was in over his head. It's funny how Christians argue against a science they make up and not against the theories that actually exist.