Cantor avoids the paradox simply by having larger and larger infinities and not referring to the set of sets. — ssu

A reasonable, working definition of infinity:

‘A number bigger than any other number’

It is clear then that there can only be one such number - if there was a second infinity then both would have to be larger than the other. Once it is excepted that there can be only one infinity, transfinite maths falls apart.

The paradox is rigorously avoided also by the axioms of ZF-logic. Some of the axioms are there basically only to deal with the paradox. — ssu

Exactly. Its a hack. Infinite sets are unmeasurable so they do not have a size.

I think the first cause, in order to be a cause of all else, has to have some form of internal drive. This must be intelligence.

Why don't you care about it?

I personally do not believe in cosmic consciousness either.

Spot on. You are a true deist like me.

With the limited definition of God as the creator of the universe, it is a perfect 50%/50% question. Many atheists refuse to acknowledge this. My feeling is atheists should be agnostic; there is no logical basis for atheism.

You wrote, that 'something 'other' than only now exists'.
But if I told you that there is only now and now is eternal, to reconcile the two, would you believe me?
Now, you might ask, but if now came from nothing - nothing predates now, does it not?
It does not. There is no is, do, or be with nothing. Only nothing.
If nothing is, it is not nothing. — Shamshir

Not sure I entirely follow, I think eternalism maybe correct (past, present, future all exist). 'Now' cannot exist eternally - if it did, the things within the universe (particles etc...) would have no temporal start and without a temporal start they could have no existence.

So, does it have an end? It does. — Shamshir

I think so too. I'm a finitist so I would - if eternalism is true, the time dimension is finite. My suspicion is that the time dimension is also circular. So we lead the same lives again and again perpetually (IE the start of time is co-incidental with the end of time: Big Bang meets Big Crunch).

I suppose if it has a start, then events can be ordered temporally, yes? But relativity says, for a broad class of events, that they cannot be absolutely so ordered. — tim wood

When adding relativity into the mix, it becomes more complicated. It is the order of the events is dependant on observers speed, that can change. Relativity says no preferred frame of reference.

I don't see observers disagreeing on the order of events as sufficient reason for there to be no start of time? As long as the start of time precedes all other events in all reference frames, there is not a problem?

But the real question is that at there are times and places where time simply appears to be not well-defined, and the same with "places." — tim wood

- Inside black holes
- Inside the singularity
- Beyond the edge of spacetime

I feel the absence of time in these areas is supportive of a start of time - time can be absent in certain situations suggests time can be absent globally.

Here is an easy one. Nothing caused the mathematical constant pi. It just us. — Richard B

Agreed, concepts do not need causes. Maths was not created. It just existed as a concept waiting for a discoverer.

So if things within the universe are caused, what about the universe itself? ... We're left with two possibilities: either there is an infinite chain of causes, or there is an uncaused cause. Some of us argue that an infinite causal chain is impossible, while others insist it is possible. Take your pick. — Relativist

Nicely put. An infinite causal chain is provably impossible. To illustrate this with an example, imagine a pool table:

- The cue hits the white ball.
- The white ball hits the black ball.
- The black goes in the pocket.

Would the black ball go in if the cue did not hit the white? No - we remove the first element in a time ordered regress and find that the rest of the regress disappears. So the first element (in time order) is key - it defines the whole of the rest of a regress. If it is absent, as in the case of an infinite regress, then the regress does not exist - temporal infinite regresses are impossible.

I have already told you. Many physicists and philosophers argue, coherently, that space is intrinsically mathematical; mathematics enables space to exist. But where did mathematics come from if not from a mind? This is the so called Platonic view of mathematics. — EnPassant

EnPassant, mathematics predates the mind, the universe and God. It must do, maths is logic and logic is not something you create, you are born with it. Thing about it this way: it takes logic to create logic so logic/math is not a creation of God.

I agree however that the universe is mathematical and God must have used mathematics in creation of the universe. God is the first discover of maths; he did not create it. If it was a creation, how come π is 3.1416... In a created version of maths, important constants would be round numbers I feel.

If you want to argue the case for God, I suggest you use first cause arguments... they are much stronger.

So I ask again. What is your understanding/definition of time? — tim wood

We don't actually need to know what time is in order to work out it has a start, but I think we can say time is a degree of freedom like space; we are all moving in the time direction. You can slow your movement in the time direction by moving in the space direction.

So time is a degree of freedom so is similar to space (although you can move left/right in space, time you can only move in one direction).

If the video was not complete, how would you play it? — Shamshir

Future real eternalism is a possibility in my view:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

So presentism seems impossible for this and other reasons. The main models left are fixed block universe and growing block universe. The future being real goes against common sense but that in itself is not sufficient to rule out the possibility.

But should we abandon our consideration because we don't understand? — Pattern-chaser

We should continue to try to get to the bottom of things... if that's possible.

No it isn't. I keep looking at that link when you post it, and - surprise! - it turns out to be based on unjustified assertions and nothing else. Wishful thinking is what it looks like to me. — Pattern-chaser

What unjustified assertions? I countered every counter argument on that thread.

And that cause is...? — Pattern-chaser

The cause of the BB is the timeless first cause - the creator of the universe. I'm not 100% sure of that but thats the way it looks to me.

Yet another unjustified assertion. — Pattern-chaser

The justification is here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

So when we consider the only example we've come up with, of what could have been a causeless event, you dismiss it as a special case? :gasp: — Pattern-chaser

The BB has a cause. But the BB itself generates matter from nothing - so that is not causeless matter but it is matter from nothing (well matter in exchange for negative gravitational energy).

My argument that there is a start of time is independent of BB physics. It does not even assume that the BB is the start of time:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

That argument does not use cause and effect and it still leads to a timeless first cause.

Most of the other arguments for a timeless first cause use cause and effect. But when it comes to pre-BB physics; if causality does not apply, it would surely be just a crazy, impossible universe?

We don't know precisely what if anything happened pre-BB. But I believe we can conclude there was a start of time and a first cause. So lack of specific knowledge of the detailed processes involved does not prevent high level deductions being made.

So the universe did come from nothing, contradicting what you just said: — Pattern-chaser

I am making the special exception that for the special BB, it is possible that something came from nothing (zero energy universe hypothesis)

But personally I'm more in favour of the matter pre-existing the BB (conservation of energy).

The early stages of the BB are somewhat shrouded in mystery:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Singularity

The matter either preexisted the Big Bang (existed timelessly) and went into making the Big Bang.

Or there was some special process that only took place in the Big Bang that made matter from nothing. A hypotheses along these lines is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

A virtual particle can indeed pop up out of thin air and disappear. But that process must not lead to a permanent increase in matter density else we get infinite matter density with infinite time. So long term the conservation of energy must be respected and the universe therefore cannot come from 'nothing'.

I would say, as far as theists hurts themselves with their zealotry, atheists, deep down and psychoactively desire a deep and meaningful subjective existence that transcends all understanding (e.g. eternity or infinitude), but that's just personal speculation. — Merkwurdichliebe

Zealotry on both sides is negative, I say both sides because people like Dawkins can get very zealous too.

I think both sides should be able to agree that the truth is the most important thing and work together towards that.

Unless a balancing amount of 'permanent' somethings go back to nothing at some point/time, as in the QM example? — Pattern-chaser

It is not our experience that matter disappears. I have not heard of this from QM. I would have thought that the conservation of energy means matter would not disappear, it would possibly convert to energy. But then that leads to infinite energy density (with infinite time).

If matter appeared randomly, lasted for a set time, then disappeared, what accounts for the overwhelmingly positive balance of matter in the universe? The appearance/disappearance ratio would have to be set precisely right I think to avoid infinite density?

It been clean fun so far. Thank you also for your contributions!

The past real only versions of eternalism obviously supports free will.

The future real versions of eternalism exclude free will. So morality becomes rather a difficult subject under these models of time.

The full understanding of this is unknown at the time and that's just the point. If we cannot know it, we cannot deduce that something cannot come from nothing. Claiming that requires knowing more than all of science can know at this time in history. — Christoffer

We can however deduce that something permanent cannot naturally come from nothing if time was infinite (because matter density would become infinite).

Presentism is the belief that only 'now' exists. It does not work with a start of time (if only 'now' exists and then that does not exist, then there is nothing to create 'now', so it's impossible).

So if the arguments for a start of time are excepted, presentism is impossible, implying 'more than only now exists'. That sounds a lot like Eternalism. Some of the physicists believe in Eternalism/Spacetime. Einstein famously believed free will was an illusion.

Religion is a confusing mess in this area. The omniscient of God requires he knows the future but free will is required in order to send folks to hell. I would not like to be a theologian; very tricky job.

To be fair we were discussing whether causeless effects could happen without something from nothing happening.

What's the difference between deists and theist? — Merkwurdichliebe

Deism is more science friendly than a theism. It's a believe that there was a first cause who created the universe, but is not actively involved in the universe day to day. The first cause does not have unreasonable attributes (like the 3Os). Knowledge is to be found in science rather than ancient scripture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Only if the causeless effect is the creation of the matter/energy involved. If the matter/energy is simply subject to an effect that proves to be causeless, then...? — Pattern-chaser

But what effect could be free of matter/energy? For an effect to happen, matter/energy must cause the effect. For the effect to count as uncaused, that matter/energy must come from nowhere?

Do you believe in miracles? — Merkwurdichliebe

I believe supernatural involvement in the universe was limited to its creation only (I'm a deist).

The question then, is there a part of me that is eternal and infinite? If affirmative, this would be the only way I could directly relate to the Eternal and Infinite in itself. But how can I directly communicate this immediacy to the atheist, who requires exactly this as the necessary proof of God? Impossible I say. — Merkwurdichliebe

Eternalism holds that past, present and future are all real (or sometimes just past and present). In that model of time then there is something eternal about our existence - with eternalism something about us persists beyond the 'now' - that something can be set to be eternal. If you think about it in 4D spacetime, each of us would look like a long thin snake. It would be finite in dimensions though.

Eternalism many people find hard to swallow, particularly future real eternalism. There is some evidence for past real eternalism maybe (quantum eraser experiment). I'm a fan of eternalism, but I am not really in a position to be able to convince anyone of it. My argument is the first cause must be timeless; IE able to see all of time in one go, IE eternalism must apply. That is not really enough to convince people. A start of time also rules out presentism, but again it's quite an abstract argument so I can see why people will not be convinced.

Define "causeless effects" as "something coming form nothing", then refute the latter? :chin: This depends for its validity on causeless effects being identically and exclusively equal to something from nothing. It is not clear to me that this is the case. You seem to be offering yet more assertions. — Pattern-chaser

I would have thought that a 'causeless effect' would require some energy/matter to achieve it so that energy/matter would have to come from nowhere to count as causeless? So every instance of a 'causeless effect' is also an instance of 'something coming form nothing' and vice-versa?

I also think that things like quantum fluctuations only apply on a micro level. Cause and effect clearly hold on a macro level. The creation of the universe involved 10^53 Kg of matter so it is a macro question. This matter cannot have appeared out of nowhere - leads to infinite density. It cannot of existed forever - leads to an infinite regress. So it must of come from the start of time. Leading to a timeless first cause.

This fits nicely into my point about God's unintelligible intellect. We try, with science, to understand how it happens, but we know so little, it is a pathetic ignorance. — Merkwurdichliebe

Still we must keep on trying. Some progress has been made. On simple questions like 'was there a first cause?' I feel answers are possible. 'Great minds think alike' and whilst our minds our puny compared to God's mind, on the simple, basic stuff we should agree. So I think for simple questions, it is possible to 'know the mind of God'

Consideting fine tuning...how can we possibly understand fine tuning at the level of God? If I was an atheist, I would definitely reject fine tuning as evidence of god. — Merkwurdichliebe

You are probably right. I have quite a lengthy argument that the universe is fine-tuned and that the SAP and WAP do not apply, but this is not the place for it.

And concerning the arrow of time, what can we possibly know about the archer who fired it, other than looking at the composition and trajectory of the arrow. If I were an atheist, I would definitely reject the arrow of time as evidence of god. — Merkwurdichliebe

I think a start of time is demonstrable, see here for example:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

If there was a start of time, time must have been created by something; a timeless first cause.

I think the requirement for a first cause in order for anything else to exist has been known about for a long time, right back to Aristotle at least. It has become clouded in recent times with ideas like quantum fluctuations. I believe that in recent times, we have moved further away from the truth. It’s a fact that the most obvious metaphysical arguments are thought up first in human history and are therefore are to be found in ancient texts. Occam's Razor tells us to prefer obvious arguments. Hence I personally find the first cause arguments irrefutable. My favourite is Aquinas's 'Argument From Necessary Being' which I paraphrase as:

1.Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must have existed ‘always’.
3. IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something has permanent existence.
4. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (an infinite regress; it would have no start so could not be), so the ‘something’ must be a timeless first cause.

I believe the gyst is that tachyon condensation leads to a vaccuum, and out of the vacuum, the basic component of matter appear out of nowhere. But, do yourself a favor, don't kill yourself analyzing quantum field theory, it is a long and looping thread. — Merkwurdichliebe

Thanks I may take a look at it. Presumably requires FTL (for tachyons) so that does count against it, tachyons have imaginary mass!

I hope I'm not treading old ground, but, what about a self-caused first cause? — Merkwurdichliebe

To create oneself seems to require a causal loop which would require something like circular time. The only place in spacetime to get the matter/energy for the Big Bang is the Big Crunch so actually circular time is not completely far fetched. If it was all completely eternal (future real) then maybe you could say it does not need a cause.

But I feel it would still probably need a cause:

- The universe is fine-tuned for life. So there must be a fine tuner. But the fine tuner’s environment must also be fine-tuned for life. Implies another fine-tuner. This infinite regress must terminate with a timeless fine tuner who is synonymous with the timeless first cause.

- We seem to be able to tell the difference between 'now' and 'then', so something about 'now' is different. IE even with eternalist models, a current time pointer is required. What set that in motion originally? It must be a timeless first cause.

Spontaneous symmetry breaking is exactly that. I'm not saying it is the answer to a cause-less effect, but it should be closely considered. — Merkwurdichliebe

The example often given is the Mexican hat potential:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking#Mexican_hat_potential

So you have a ball balanced on top of a sphere; the symmetry breaks when the ball falls to one side. I would have thought that the 'cause' of the symmetry break is the fact that the ball was slightly off centre to start with? If it was perfect; it would never fall to one side?

And I'm not sure how symmetry breaking can create matter. And it does not help if it does because it leads to infinite density.

How is it possible to qualify the unqualifiable. Can we really even talk about an ultimate and absolute intelligence, when we barely know barely shit about the pitiful human intelligence. — Merkwurdichliebe

To be an uncaused cause clearly requires an internal driving force / self motivation. That is likely requires some form of intelligence. I don't think we have to completely understand intelligence before we can recognise it in other situations.

You may be right, but I think that constructing a model for a universe without a first cause is impossible - nothing would logically exist without a first cause.

So I would have thought atheists have to logically accept a first cause.

The question of whether the first cause is intelligent or not:

1. The universe is fine-tuned for life. This seems to requires intelligence.
2. The prime mover argument: something has to move by its own accord. Is autonomous movement possible without intelligence? Automatons require an intelligent agent to create them.
3. To be the first cause, to cause without being caused, requires some form of internal orchestration; IE intelligence.

OK thanks. Just pointing out that these something from nothing models all imply a start of time.

Back to the OP, the question is not appropriate without specifying a definition of God. If God is as per the definition of traditional religion, then asking for evidence is pointless, we can rule out the traditional definition of God on purely logical grounds:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5708/the-traditional-attributes-of-god/p1

If you restrict the definition of God to 'creator of the universe' then there is actually plenty of evidence for such a proposition:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

If it's something from nothing, it leads to infinite density with infinite time.

Causeless effects would be something like quantum fluctuations - something coming from nothing. If something comes from nothing naturally then with infinite time, matter density becomes infinite, which is not the case. So that leads to a start of time and a timeless first cause.

All the valid universe origins arguments I'm aware of lead to a timeless first cause.

Too much of anything can have bad effects. But in this case we are talking about fatigue.

So its more like hard work is good and fatigue is bad. Stop working once your fatigued.

How can hard work or difficulty be associated with morality? — whollyrolling

I think doing hard work / accomplishing difficult things are painful in the short term but rewarding in the long term. Long term > short term so these things counts as good morally.

Fair point, I was only using the theory as an analogy - it does not apply directly to the universe.

The universe's long term behaviour must be characterised by one of the following:

1. expanding
2. contracting
3. static
4. cycling

Time must have a start with [1]. The universe is not one gigantic black hole so [2] is clearly not happening. The equilibrium argument applies with [3] so time would have a start.

That just leaves a cyclic universe [4] as the only possible infinite time configuration:

- The universe's expansion rate is speeding up, counting against the cyclic model
- Unless each crunch is ‘perfect’, entropy would increase on each cycle, which is not what we see
- It seems very unlikely that the 'cycle length' would be constant. It would probably decrease each time (in which case with infinite time, cycling will have stopped by now) or (less likely) it would increase with time (in which case with infinite time, cycle length will be infinite by now)

So time should have a start.

You haven't addressed the possibility that effects must have causes. Never mind the problem of obtaining eye witness (empirical) evidence of the BB, and so on.... — Pattern-chaser

All effects must have causes - the first cause is at a base of a pyramid of causality - all effects do have causes. Only the first cause, being beyond time and thus beyond causality does not have a cause.

We have the CMB radiation that is predicted by the Big Bang theory as eye witness evidence and the redshifts of galaxies.

God made a single large 'explosion' - the Big Bang - he did not individually go and make each star and planet.

You do not know the number of stars in the universe...you do not know how many years old the universe is...so it is all bullshit. — Frank Apisa

Number of stars in observable universe:

https://www.space.com/26078-how-many-stars-are-there.html

Age of universe:

https://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

I deny the very existence of "empirical and theoretical evidence of a first cause." — Pattern-chaser

- The Big Bang theory has time running slower and slower as we get closer to the Big Bang (due to intense gravity) till the point of the singularity when it is unknown what happens to time. It is suggestive of a start of time.

- The BGV Theorem which states (in brief) that an expanding (on average) universe cannot have a timeline infinite into the past; it must have a beginning.

- The leading cosmological model is Eternal Inflation. This model posits a first cause for the multiverse too. Alan Guth's 2007 paper, "Eternal inflation and its implications”, states that, with reasonable assumptions: "Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past.”. IE It has a start.

- Why the entropy of the universe is so low? With infinite time, entropy must have been reset periodically (for it to be at such a low level as present). The only obvious mechanism to do this is the Big Crunch, but the increasing expansion rate of the universe suggests that we are not in a cycle of Big Bang / Big Crunch. So the low entropy of the universe appears to suggest time is finite.