YOU. SIMPLY. DON"T. GET. IT. The question concerned the "event" of one ball passing other balls. AND. NOTHING. ELSE. Sorry about the all-caps, but perhaps that will prod you to actually reading the question and trying to understand the question — tim wood

An event is not an effect. We are talking about cause and effect here.

We could also add St Thomas Aquinas's 3rd of 5 ways to prove the existence of God. He assumed in his argument that the axiom: ‘can’t get something from nothing’ holds - an assumption that is supported by the law of conservation of energy.

This assumption leads to the conclusion that something must have permanent existence, IE if the universe was ever in a state of nothingness, then ‘can’t get something from nothing’ implies it would still be in a state of nothingness today - so something must have permanent existence. But time has a start so nothing can exist permanently in time, so the rejection of creation ex nilhilo leads us to the same conclusion - something timeless and permanent must exist outside of spacetime.

The cause of what? Now is the time for you to write clearly your understanding of what a cause is. — tim wood

The impact of the cue on the ball causes an equal and opposite reaction as per Newton's 2nd law. It imparts kinetic energy to the ball.

The cause of the additional kinetic energy the ball has is its impact with the cue.

At the moment that you either did not read or did not understand the question. Try reading it. — tim wood

The event is the billiard ball going down the table. The event is elongated in time. The cause is the cue (or another ball) hitting the first ball.

I realize you feel that way. I just feel you're fooling yourself, just like the con artist that offered you the wager would have fooled you — Echarmion

Look at it this way:

1. The argument from causality is strongly suggestive of a timeless first cause
2. The fact that time has a start is strongly suggestive of a timeless first cause
3. The Big Bang sure looks like it was caused by something intelligent
4. The fact the universe is not in equilibrium implies a permanent, intelligent, presence
5. The fine tuning argument is strongly suggestive that intelligence is behind the universe.

So what can a betting man do?

It wasn't a separate argument. You used it to dismiss the notion of a universe created without fine-tuning, itself an argument against an intelligent first cause. This is quite an epic logical error. But I dig that you choose not to believe it is a circular argument, despite all the evidence — Kenosha Kid

You are getting very confused:

1. The OP proves (assuming causality) that a timeless first cause is required. The OP has nothing to do with fine tuning and is IN NO WAY CIRCULAR.

2. I made the completely separate argument that the fine tuning argument implies it is very likely that there is intelligence behind the universe. This also is IN NO WAY CIRCULAR.

I see. But I still feel that the probability of all 20+ parameters coming out in life supporting ranges by accident is very likely incredibly remote. Just an estimate.

If all 100 dice come out 6, you have to pay 100 dollars. If only one doesn't, you get a million dollars.

It's 100 dice. It has to be some huge number, right? So you should absolutely take the wager? — Echarmion

- If 100 come out 6, I loose 100 dollars
- If 99 come out 6, I gain a million dollars
- Any other result is neutral (?)

I would take the wager.

One of your billiard balls, going down the table, passes several balls. Think about it. (Not my example; another way of warning you to think about it.) That is, it's an event, but what's the cause? — tim wood

The billiard ball is set in motion, perhaps by another ball or the cue - this is Newton's 2nd law in action.

The balls each exert a minor attraction thanks to Newton's 3rd law and gravity, but it is insignificant in this case.

The ball continues in a straight line, as per Newton's 1st law.

Your point is?

Again, you're saying the number must be huge without any justification. That's not even an estimate, it's a naked claim — Echarmion

It's 20+ separate parameters... it has to be some huge number. All I'm saying is it must be huge.

argh, I mistyped. Let's say when all numbers come up 6, you have to pay 100 dollars. — Echarmion

I'm not quite following your argument.

If you embrace cause and effect, you are simply stating that your understanding of how the world works is c. 1760 — tim wood

Can you give me an example of a macro-level phenomena without a cause? The creation of the universe is a macro level event - huge amounts of matter were involved. So if you wish to disprove my argument, then an example of a macro-level phenomena without a cause must be provided.

Even in the micro world, everything likely has a cause. There is no alternative to the basic principle of causality - matter/energy acts on matter/energy - apart from true randomness - something from nothing in informational terms - and that does not work - mathematically impossible - impossible to produce on a computer. Micro level phenomena that are described as random are probably actually caused, it just we lack the physics to predict them so we attribute them to random - impossible.

How about just not making stuff up? Not every question has an answer. It's okay to say "I don't know". Is that such a weird thought? — Echarmion

Well I prefer to make a rough estimate rather than just saying 'I don't know'. I think a rough estimate is sufficient in this case - the number in question is huge - it hardly matters precisely how huge.

Let's do a little thought experiment:
Imagine someone offers you the following wager: they will roll one hundred six-sided dice. They will accurately tell you what the result is, but you're not going to see the dice, or them rolling it. If all 100 dice come out 6, you get a million dollars. If only one doesn't, you get a million dollars.

Do you take that wager? — Echarmion

As I stand to lose nothing, I'd take the wager.

Cause and effect is a vestige of Kantian thought — tim wood

No it is not - it is matter acting on matter via Newton's 2nd and 3rd law.

Why should I agree to that? You admitted that you know nothing about the probabilities. You know nothing for any one of the parameters. And you know nothing about the entirety of them. But yet you claim to know something about what the chance is? How can you get something out of nothing? — Echarmion

I am just estimating the chances - what else can I do? I'm not a quantum physicist!

There are about 20 separate parameters. Conservatively assuming there is a 50% chance for each to be in life supporting range, then we have 50%^20 = 0.0000953674316% chance for the universe to be life supporting by chance.

I am afraid that I cannot give you any more than wild guesses on the actual probabilities of specific parameters being within life supporting range. But there are just so many things that need to be right for life to be supported that I hope you will agree the resulting combined probability that the universe is life supporting by chance has to staggeringly remote.

I don't want to be a spoilsport for you but if you were in a life-threatening situation and you asked me, your last hope, for help, how confident would you be about your survival if I said, "I'll almost certainly help you — TheMadFool

Not sure what to say - causality is about as good an axiom as it comes - but there is no way we can be 100% sure that it holds universally - so I have to hedge my bets - all I can say is there is almost certainly a timeless first cause.

Why? Explain the logic behind this. — Echarmion

Take one item - the electro-magnetic force:

1. It could have attractive, repulsive or attractive and repulsive action. The 3rd is required for life. There is a 33% chance of the third
2. Its strength must be correct so that electrons orbit the nucleus, not flying off or falling into the nucleus. I'll have to make a guess here, maybe the chance of the strength being right is 25%
3. Its range must be correct - again I'll guess at 25%.

So 33% * 25% * 25% = 2% chance that the electro-magnetic forces properties are such that life would be supported (IE atoms form).

If you then work through the other 5 sets of parameters I mentioned, you would end up with some really large number, like billions to one chance that the universe is life supporting by accident.

To defend the necessity that a first cause requires an intelligent agent, when presented with current theory that has no such agent, you argued that conditions for life imply an intelligent agent. I don't know how much more circular you could get. — Kenosha Kid

The first cause must be able to cause something whilst not being effected in anyway. So it must be self driven - capable of independent action - intelligent.

Then as a separate argument, fine tuning also implies an intelligent first cause.

There is really absolutely nothing circular about my argument.

You just pulled that number out of your ass. The chance could be anything. — Echarmion

That's correct, its a guess, but all the following parameters must be within life supporting ranges:

1. Properties of quarks
2. Properties of elections
3. Strength, range and direction of the four forces
4. The initial conditions governing the Big Bang
5. The expansion of space
6. The number of dimensions in the universe

So that's going to come out to some sort of huge number like billions to one.

Alas no. Defence of your argument relied on the assumption that the physical constants of nature had been fine-tuned in order (teleology) to yield life, which is the action of an intelligent creator. It also relied on the more general argument that a first cause must be an intended cause. Neither are themselves derived — Kenosha Kid

My argument in the OP is based purely on causality and is not at all circular.

I have merely pointed out that the causality-based argument is supported by the fine tuning argument. Look at it this way - for us to exist - the universe MUST support life. Why does it support life? There are only two possibilities:

1. It supports life due to a massive fluke - 20 or so parameters all come out in the life supporting range.
2. It supports life because it was designed to support life.

The chances of [1] happening are billions to one, the chances of [2] are much less remote. So we have to favour [2] - which dovetails nicely with the causality-based argument for God's existence.

assumes the existence of God as a cause of similar universes, therefore cannot be used to answer a question about God's existence — Kenosha Kid

I am not assuming the existence of God - the causality based argument says there is a timeless first cause. If a multiverse exists, it must have been created or initiated by the timeless first cause.

So even if every possible combination of laws in an infinity of universes existed, the existence of one inevitable universe with our laws is evidence that they were fine-tuned for life? :rofl: That's hilarious! You have a black box: put anything in, out comes "Proof that God exists!" I am eating an apple. "Proof that God exists!" It is Tuesday. "Proof that God exists!" — Kenosha Kid

You are not reading my arguments - the whole multiverse itself must be fine-tuned for life - and that can only have been achieved by the timeless first cause.

I assumed - quite reasonably - when you called my OP 'shite' that you were disagreeing with it!

Please state your counter arguments if you have any.

There. I borrowed a method of justification from your good self. — Isaac

You are really out of ideas aren't you! Can you not even summon up one counter argument?

Yes, and that might tell us something about our universe, for instance that it is one of a great multitude, or that its physical constants cannot have just any old value. It does not necessitate a fine-tuning, and it does not necessitate that life -- just one of the phenomena possible in this universe -- was desired. That comes from other assumptions, bad ones. — Kenosha Kid

Multiple universe theories fail to justify the 'strong anthropic principle'. Do you suppose all such universe are made of radically different stuff to our universe or the very similar stuff? If its similar stuff, then all universes in the multiverse are fined tuned for life and all where created by God for that purpose.

The most credible Multiple universe theory is eternal inflation - it has all the universes generated by the same mechanism - go through the same evolution - and end up pretty much all the same - IE all universes are made of the standard model and all universes support life.

Also, consider that with a multiverse, many of the parameters that must be fined tuned for life are actually multiverse level parameters rather than parameters applicable to single universes. So the actual multiverse (if such a thing exists) must be fine tuned for life.

It is circular since it presumes the existence of God -- the thing it seeks to prove -- be he inside or outside of spacetime. — Kenosha Kid

My argument does not presume the existence of God; it deduces the existence of a timeless first cause from the assumption of causality - nothing circular about it at all.

OK, but you started it - you called my OP shite without any justification whatsoever.

"Outside spacetime" - location - presupposes spacetime, which like north of the north pole, is nonsense. — 180 Proof

Spacetime was caused by something - the cause of the Big Bang. That it was caused by something implies there must be something external to spacetime.

So you don't know, Devans, or offer any sound inferences. Uh huh. I just wanted to clarify - expose - that your OP amounts to nothing but an argumentum ad ignorantiam aka "g/G-of-the-Gap" fallacy (though Banno & co have beat me to it). 'Creationist apologetics' is for preaching to the gullible choir, friend, not for this scientifically literate & philosophically rowdy bunch of barflies. — 180 Proof

You are just name calling rather than offering any substantive counter arguments - not suitable behaviour for a philosophy forum :(

I've been looking into the compilation of the Bible and I've recently been informed there are a bunch of different texts left out. It got me wondering how people came to decide which would stay in and which would be discarded. Does anyone have any references or recommendations looking into how the Bible was compiled? — GTTRPNK

It was a church council where the canon of the Bible was decided, see here:

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

For a sample of the sort of material they had to choose from when deciding the canon, there is this excellent site that you may find interesting:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

What causes "the juggling"? And how does that - distinct from anything else - "cause ... particles to be emitted"? — 180 Proof

The particles in the nucleus are always moving around - I'm no quantum physicist, but I guess it is the interplay of strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force that causes this. Radioactive nucleus's are unstable, so then sometimes something gets ejected from the nucleus.

Apart from causality, then the only other possible explanation for 'stuff happening' seems to be true randomness. But we've never managed to crack randomness - it seems impossible mathematically and impossible to generate on a computer.

My suspicion is that true randomness is impossible. The things that we associate with randomness are actually caused by phenomena - but in ways we cannot predict theoretically - so they are not truly random, they just appear that way.

No, they're not. The particular values allow for formations of the kinds of atoms we have, which allows for the kind of chemistry we have. They are not "fine-tuned", and certainly not fine-tuned for life. — Kenosha Kid

Consider a computer program that is designed to generate random universes - the parameters of the standard model and Big Bang are randomised and a resultant universe is generated. The types of universe generated would nearly always fall into the following two categories:

- Too much adhesion. The forces are such that all matter in the universe clumps together in one (probably) big black hole. No complex matter ever forms - so nothing like life (water, amino acids, DNA, etc...) can form in this type of universe

- Too little adhesion. The forces are such that the matter particles just endlessly bounce of each other - no complex matter - so no life.

Very, very rarely, the computer program will generate a universe like ours that supports complex matter (elections and quarks make atoms - all 100+ elements from just two types of particle. And from that we have the amazing complexity of the almost infinite types of different molecules that are needed for life. The odds of such a universe occurring purely randomly are billions to one.

Your argument for God ends up being circular. You are supporting the existence of God with the argument that God chose the parameters of the universe such that you could exist. A proof of God's existence cannot assume he exists already. — Kenosha Kid

It seems that God exists outside spacetime and choose the parameters of spacetime and then created spacetime. So the argument is not circular.

After an absence of around five months - early release? - Devans99 is back with us. Welcome back!

I recommend to anyone tempted to engage with Devans99 that they first review some of his posting history. — tim wood

Hi Tim! For the record, I have just been having a quiet think to myself for the last few months.

So Causation is necessary everywhere except were Devans doesn't want it to work in order that he preserve his god. — Banno

I think that everything in time has a cause.

We cannot prove this - it is merely an empirical observation - but no-one has ever found any phenomena (at macro level anyway) that is uncaused - so the axiom of causality is about as strong an axiom as there is. Maybe the law of the excluded middle is stronger, but there is not much else.

Everything in time has a cause leads to the inescapable conclusion that at least one cause must be external to time. That's certainly very much how the Big Bang looks - surely the start of spacetime - and surely that start was caused by something external to space time.

Things outside time not having a cause makes perfect sense - there is no 'before' for timeless things, so they by definition must be uncaused.

But they're not fine-tuned for life. That's just arrogance. The universe doesn't care that you exist. The fact that something can exist in the universe doesn't give it a teleology. — Kenosha Kid

There are about 20 parameters of the standard model and Big Bang that are fine-tuned for life. Its billions to one against that that happened by accident.

My current position on the god-question is Deist, remaining Agnostic about any personal traits of the Creator of space & time — Gnomon

Sounds like a sensible position. I would say I am agnostic-deist but strongly leaning towards deism.

My alternative to the Turtles-all-the-way-down Multiverse — Gnomon

By a wider universe outside spacetime, I do not mean a multiverse. I mean something timeless - it has permanent existence - it was never created - it will never be destroyed. This timeless thing is then the root cause of everything in existence. So it is not turtles all the way down - the buck stops with the timeless first cause.

What causes (e.g.) radioactive decay? — 180 Proof

A radioactive nucleus is very busy - quarks juggling with each other - constantly exchanging gluons. Every now and again the juggling causes some particle to be emitted from the nucleus - radioactive decay. So there is a cause of radioactive decay - but its beyond the capability of our physics to ever predict when decay will occur.

The event at time 1 is caused by the event at time ½, which in turn is caused by the event at time ¼, and so on. Every event in the causal chain has a cause, without a first cause, in a finite time, and without reaching zero. — Banno

That does not work - the first cause determines the 2nd cause, the 2nd the 3rd - there can be nothing without a first cause. Your picture is a supertask - they are impossible - there is no clearly defined first cause so none of the supertask can exist.

What many people don't understand is if there is gravity then there is definitely matter and heat and movement. Many Physicists agree with your OP and many don't. Many assume all Physicists agree. — christian2017

Thanks Christian! I think the other arguments relating to time having a start dovetail nicely with the first cause argument. Time having a start implies a timeless first cause that caused the start of time. The causality argument also implies a timeless first cause. Then there is Aquinas's 3rd of 5 ways that comes to the same conclusion. So 3 separate arguments all point to a timeless first cause.

We don't know whether the universe is past-eternal or not — Enai De A Lukal

We do know that time has a start - how could the past possibly be longer than any finite number of days?

Instead of such creative special pleading, shouldn't you try something a bit more defensible? — jorndoe

Time is sequential in nature and therefore enables change. We can imagine some sort of non-sequential structure such as a binary tree, or a map, that allows change outside of the sequential structure of time. All change would be happening 'simultaneously' in the 'eternal now'.

I fail to see any other alternatives to timelessness: FACT - time has a start. FACT: the start of time was caused by something external to time. FACT: change can somehow take place outside of time.

You can't have something timeless going about doing stuff. It's nonsense. Start over. — jorndoe

We are only familiar with change that occurs within time. That does not prove that change cannot occur without time.

Everything in time is transitory, yet there must be something permanent else nothing would logically exist - you cannot get something from nothing - so something must have existed always - IE if there was ever a time that nothing existed, then nothing would exist now. Hence something must have existed always - which is impossible within time.

That thing is the timeless first cause. This is Aquinas's 3rd of 5 ways.

Well, even a universal law of causality exists it doesnt exclude the "self-causing" — Benj96

I am not sure that anything self causing can exist. Its a tricky question as causality and time go together hand in hand in our experience, and the cause always comes before the effect - so self-causing would require some sort of backwards time travel - impossible. Outside of time, self causing seems also logically circular. So I personally favour a timeless, causeless, first cause rather than anything self causing.

Actually even without inflationary theory that's fine. Good old-fashioned "where did that come from?" Big Bang gives you an infinite past, from a point of view. (An older, simpler BB model is just a black hole in reverse. When you fall into a black hole, from an outside perspective you approach the event horizon and vanish. But from your point of view you freefall forever. Except for the dying bit anyway. This is because gravity warps space-time so much. Chuck a minus sign on that, and you've got a BB that's both finite in time from our perspective and infinite from the perspective of something emerging from it.) — Kenosha Kid

Nothing can go on forever - especially in the past - how possibly could the days of the past number more than finite?

Awesome. So you're happy in principle with the idea that a feature of the universe does not necessitate a purpose. Just keep applying that and you're golden. — Kenosha Kid

The coincidence of so many features - parameters that are fine tuned for life in the universe - that all effect a single purpose - the support of life - is noteworthy - the likelihood that it could have happened by chance is vanishingly small.

Why hasn't this shite been consigned to the fairy-story section (or philosophy of religion, as it's optimistically called)? I usually have this stuff turned off so that I can pretend the site is a more serious one than it really is. — Isaac

What a cogent argument!

You are a moron!

Why? If it is infinite and expanding, then in the past it was still infinite and expanding. No start required. — Kenosha Kid

The past can't be infinite - do you believe the past is longer than a finite number of days long?

Gravity is a requirement for life, true. However this value of gravity is not essential to pulsars and supernovas. Is it your feeling that pulsars are perhaps an incidental symptom of the laws of physics, and that the universe was not created for them? That is good, because it means you get the idea that just because something exists in nature, it does not mean the universe had it in mind. — Kenosha Kid

Pulsars and supernovas are side effects of gravity, which was required to support any form of life. Designs of complex systems are not perfect - instead optimal is strived for. We needed gravity for life and unfortunately that also means pulsars and supernovas are part of the product.

Good question! I actually do this sort of thing for a living. I would create an optimisation algorithm, one that would reward features that minimise some kind of cost function in their environment and punish ones that maximise it. You can solve the Schrodinger equation this way, or find the minimum of a curve. Let me think it through a little more... — Kenosha Kid

But surely you would wish to maximise the informational content (=interest) of the universe? Else it would be sort of dull?

So make guesses...but don't suppose they are anything more than guesses — Frank Apisa

We cannot even prove that we are not brains in vats... thanks to Rene Descartes. So we must resort to probability on questions like this. I believe the probability of God's existence is high, but technically I must remain agnostic forever.

The inflation field can cause something and is self-driven — Kenosha Kid

The inflation field must have a start.

Your body is fine-tuned as a walking bacterium habitat. Do you suppose you were created to house bacteria? The universe is as it is. Lots of things happen in it that have nothing to do with life: supernova, pulsars, neutrino oscillations, the quantum Hall effect, the Casimir effect, the orbit of Mercury, ad infinitum. Life is one of the things that can and did happen. There's no reason, beyond anthropocentrism, to suspect that the universe is specifically for life any more than it is specifically for pulsars. It's sheer arrogance, and a failure to even start to comprehend the scale of the universe, to think it's all about you and yours. — Kenosha Kid

Supernovas and pulsars are a result of gravity which is a absolute requirement form life. The Casimir effect has an alternative explanation that does not involve or prove the existence of virtual particles. How would you (imagine yourself as God) go about creating life? Design or brute force? We are so complex that we can rule design out of the question - So God had no choice but to evolve rather than design us. So we are not perfect beings... we are the product of evolution ... which was God's doing.

The accelerated expansion of the universe has rather ruled out a big crunch, which required gravity to overcome what was supposed at the time to be a linear or diminishing expansion. And there's no reason why it can't go on forever. The shape of the universe suggests that eternity is on the cards, a heat death most probably, but even if it does end, the inflaton field that might have created it can carry on and on and on.... In fact, quantum mechanics suggests it will do precisely that unless someone measured it or something — Kenosha Kid

The astronomers can't even agree on the speed of the expansion of the universe, and the speed has changed in the past - so it could change - contract - in future. Nothing can go on forever because time can't go on forever. Saying something goes on forever means it goes on for a longer than finite period of time. But time passing is just adding one - it can never become greater than finite.

So it follows that there must be something beyond our universe that 'caused' it to come into existence. But what that is is entirely unknown. To ascribe it to some story of an anthropomorphic god is really quite childish and naïve. — A Seagull

It appears that the first cause was intelligent. If you think of all forms of intelligent entities (man, animals, aliens, AI, gods), one thing they all would value is information - sensory perception in our case - is information.

So imagine an intelligent being all on its own - it would have the desire to create information - interest - and what could be better than create a whole universe of intelligent beings?

There is still no reason why a first cause needs or even wants a intelligent causer — Kenosha Kid

The first cause must be able to cause something, so it is self-driven, which suggests intelligence.

Which is again a creationist's anthropocentric view: I am here, therefore it must all be for me. Meanwhile the universe seems quite ambivalent about us. I would actually agree that if the purpose of the universe was to create life, an intelligent creator would be likely. But since there's no evidence or reason for it other than to console the egos of some hairless apes, we need not consider it. — Kenosha Kid

Everything in the universe seems fine tuned for life. Just think about the atom - its an incredibly delicate balancing act - in most universes, matter would simply bounce of itself endlessly or clump together - our universe, we have the balancing act of atoms, and molecules - the absolutely necessary ingredients for life.

You needn't even go that far. The universe could quite happily be infinite and expanding now. It is not the boundary of the universe that is expanding: every point is moving away from every adjacent point. If it was just that the universe was getting bigger, that would not explain the fact that every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy right now. — Kenosha Kid

Nothing can go on forever, it would be without end. Then the length of the future would be end-start=UNDEFINED. Spacetime must have an end or it cannot logically exist. Probably a Big Crunch will happen.

Yes, something can be infinite and expanding. The hypothesised inflaton field is such a thing and, unlike God, we can not only hypothesise it, but we can describe exactly how it creates universes if it exists. One-nil to inflatons — Kenosha Kid

If you say something will expand without end, you are describing the topology of future as some object without end - that is impossible - all objects require a non-zero length to exist and length=end-size so the length for something without end is UNDEFINED - IE not something that could actually exist.