A creationist may not be able to abide the lack of an intelligent first cause. That does not necessitate an intelligent creator. — Kenosha Kid

The first cause must be able to cause something, so it must be capable of independent action, meaning it is self driven, therefore very likely intelligent. Plus the obviously signs of fine tuning for life in the universe point to intelligence, plus the enormous, suspicious looking explosion of the Big Bang seems like it would require intelligence to orchestrate.

I tend to fall in the pantheism/panpsychism camp. But it's always annoyed me when Christian apologists, for example, refer to the famous proofs of God existence, which if anything merely relate to what is generally called "the god of the philosophers." Of the philosophers, yes. Of the Christians, no. — Ciceronianus the White

Pantheism seems like a possibility. One problem is the speed of light - parts of the universe are moving apart at faster than the speed of light - so these regions are causally disconnected from each other. If the universe was a being, its head could not control its toes. So if pantheism is correct, the being - the universe itself - must be able to disobey the speed of light speed limit.

Panpsychism - a quark would need a mind of some sort? That mind would need a physical representation. That leads to an infinite regress of minds. So that cannot be right.

What Aquinus regurgitated was that there must either be a first cause or an infinite regress of causes. The failure of his logic was to suddenly shout "And this we call God" at the end like some kind of theological Tourette's syndrome. — Kenosha Kid

I think we are splitting hairs here: the first cause must be capable of independent, intelligent, action and be capable of starting time. I call that God. I appreciate that you may wish to use a different definition of 'God'.

The inflationary model of the Big Bang theory posits a permanent and expanding metastable scalar field that, at any given point, has some finite probability of locally and spontaneously collapsing into a hot vacuum capable of polarising the fermionic field to create great quantities of matter. — Kenosha Kid

And where did it start? If its expanding, it has a start. It cannot have been strictly permanent if it's expanding - there are places it has not been to yet. You really are talking nonsense with that last paragraph!

Yes. That's always been the problem with Aquinas' arguments "proving" the existence of God, and the problem with others trying to take advantage of them. As I recall, Aquinas would end his proofs with words to this effect: "And this we call God." Well no, we don't. — Ciceronianus the White

I did credit Thomas for the idea in the OP!

I tend to think of the creator of the universe as God. I can appreciate that you have a different perspective.

If it's outside of spacetime it's not physical. If it's outside of cause and effect it's not physical. If it's outside of time it's not "permanent" in any traditional sense of the word. — Echarmion

It seems that nothing can be permanent within spacetime, but something permanent must exist else there would be nothing at all.

The simplest model is to assume that 4d spacetime maps onto 4d space (eternalism). Then there is a wider universe that is physical and it contains spacetime.

Or the first cause must be able to cause something (eg the Big Bang) and to cause something you have to effect matter and to effect matter you have to be matter - so the first cause maybe material.

Why assume such a thing (if we can even meaningfully speak of anything "outside the universe") would be anything like "God" as believed in by some of us humans? — Ciceronianus the White

Yes a fair point, I should clarify what I mean by God:

- not omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient
- capable of independent action
- inteligent
- able to create spacetime
- benevolent
- timeless

So not exactly the God of christianity! It could be flying spaghetti monster (within the above limitations).

But if it's outside the universe, then it could be anything - or nothing. If causality is not universal, it might be circular, or work in some other bizarre fashion. We just end up with a big unknown. — Echarmion

It - the first cause - has to be something real (physical) and permanent:

- assume you can't get something from nothing (as per the law of conservation of energy)
- then the universe can never have been in a state of nothingness
- else nothingness would persist to today
- so something permanent must exist
- and nothing permanent can exist within spacetime
- so something real/physical exists outside spacetime
- and it somehow (we only have evidence for causation within time) caused spacetime

Well, then, I suppose we should "almost certainly" believe in something uncaused. Whatever that's supposed to mean — Ciceronianus the White

Being 'caused' implies that a cause, prior in time, caused and effect, subsequently in time.

Everything in time appears to have a cause.

So an 'uncaused cause' would clearly have to be external to time. For an uncaused cause, there is no 'before' or 'after', there is just IS - it is external to time. Something that exists permanently - outside of time - and so was never caused.

But if cause and effect hold universally there cannot be a first cause, because that first cause would, by definition, be outside of cause an effect, and so it's no longer universal. — Echarmion

I imagine a wider universe somehow containing spacetime. Causality as we know it, dominates spacetime, but in the wider universe, causality as we know it may not apply, so an uncaused cause would be possible.

So as I see it, there is something permanent outside of spacetime (nothing is permanent within spacetime) and this permanent thing is the first cause. It is outside of causality but it is the root of causality - the tip of the pyramid of cause and effect.

God is fine tuned to be exactly in the way of whatever properties you imagine it to have, so fine tuned to be interested in information, thus fine-tuned to create life. — Zelebg

No, all intelligent creatures are basically the same; an information processor (mind) and a memory. All intelligent creatures desire information. So left with a blank, empty universe, any intelligent creature would try to create something to occupy him (IE spacetime). There is no fine-tuning of God.

And also, god creating the universe would be artificial, while it is only natural for the nature of the universe to naturally produce life, obviously. — Zelebg

It is very unnatural for a universe to create life; nearly all hypothetical universes would not support it.

Was there a chance for god to not create the universe? — Zelebg

My feeling is that there is a 10% chance of no God and a 90% chance of God.

1. Time has a start
2. Universe is not in equilibrium
3. Causality based arguments
4. Fine tuning
5. Big Bang
6. Aquinas 3rd argument

Thats a lot of evidence for a creator of the universe; verses precisely none against that you and others have offered up.

A specific mystery ("cause of the big bang") 'resolved' by a general mystery ("uncaused, or so-called 'first', cause")??? — 180 Proof

If something looks very unnatural then it probably is unnatural. A massive unnatural looking explosion; the exact opposite of natural equilibrium, expanding at just such a rate that equilibrium is avoided and life is therefore possible. It must have been caused by something and causality requires a first cause. Seems perfectly straight-forward to me. I think you are searching for an answer that does not require a first cause and from your clueless flailing above; it is clear you have no such answer.

Causality itself (i.e. the cosmos) is an 'effect' of a ... 'cause'??? (via antiquated newtonian "billiards" metaphor of cause-effect . — 180 Proof

Causality rules our lives; there is nothing we can be more certain of than causality. Ignoring the pivotal role of causality is extremely foolish of you.

God is fine-tuned to produce life in the same way you concluded the universe is fine tuned. — Zelebg

No that's not the case; intelligent creatures are interested in information; IE other intelligent creatures. Its just natural to want to fill the emptiness with something.

You do not have an explanation. You just substituted one mystery with another, bigger one. Why does the universe exist - because of god. Why does god exist? — Zelebg

There is no reason for God's existence; he is timeless; there is no 'before' God so there can be no reason for God. Something must have permanent, uncaused existence, else there would be nothing at all and permanent existence is only possible outside of time.

Obviously then god must be fine-tuned to have information deficit, natural instincts and desire to create life, therefore there must be god-tuner. — Zelebg

But all intelligent creatures naturally have an information deficit; God is not fine tuned in anyway. Put yourself in God's shoes, an empty universe; what would you do? Create some sort of toy. A life supporting universe is the ultimate toy.

Do you understand that postulating god, even if it explained the existence of the universe, does not explain god’s existence nor any of its properties, and that you are left with bigger mystery than before? — Zelebg

The whole story of the universe only hangs together if there is a timeless, uncaused cause that fine tunes and creates spacetime; there is simply no other explanation that is as satisfactory in a logical sense as some sort of creator. It's almost certain that time has a start and something timeless and causally effective is required to create time.

It's clear that either you do not or will not or cannot understand. One last attempt: tell us in your own words exactly what you think time is. — tim wood

I've already told you. Again:

- Its a degree of freedom, like a dimension, only we can only move one way through it
- It is part of the fabric of the universe; not some manmade creation (see the speed of light)

In short, I think time is defined by how we observe it, use it, and understand it in use. — tim wood

What about the speed of light speed limit? Speed is distance/time, so something in the universe (the laws of the universe) are intimately aware of time. Hence I say time is a component of spacetime, a dimension - it is not just a human measurement tool - it is part of the universe.

Until you account for the "starting" point on any surface, like the surface of a sphere, you got nothing here, either spatially or temporally. You could make it all a hypothetical, as in, "if" x then y, but that gets you exactly nowhere in your thinking. — tim wood

We can use arbitrary imposed coordinate system on space to judge what is the spacial start of each object. With time the coordinate system is less arbitrary as time has a definite direction.

Perhaps the difficulty of this question, or at least it's problematic nature, is why formal science thinks in terms of fields, and leaves "causes" for informal and descriptive exposition. This, btw, having been explicitly expressed to you by several people several times. — tim wood

Science still uses cause and effect; a photon collides of a proton; the proton is deflected; the photon causes the proton to deflect. You cannot get away from cause and effect being a totally fundamental concept in science. Does or does not cause and effect rule everything you do or experience?

You want your designer/g/God, even at the cost of rationality. But all you've done is pushed the can - the question - down the road. As a presupposition, you would have it that it works in your argument. But then it poisons your whole argument. "If frogs had wings...". Great, but at the moment frogs don't have wings. Your argument becomes one of flying frogs. That is, even if you had your g/God, then where (when, why, how) did it come from? Always there? Turtles all the way down? I call this argument the fallacious appeal to the greater nonsense. — tim wood

I am using rational arguments. I merely think God is the most probable explanation. God did not come from anywhere and there is no question of why God exists. God exists timelessly and permanently; there is no 'before' God so there can be no reason for his existence. Everything in time has a cause. God is beyond time and the required cause of everything.

A. assume infinite past moments
B. then there's no 1st moment
C. or 2nd ... or nth moment
D. so A can't be numbered with a 1st ... nth moment — jorndoe

But D is just plain wrong - we can run down the list of moments numbering them all.

The length of a circumference can be measured with a finite (natural) number of [units-of-choice] and yet it's unbounded. — 180 Proof

So you are proposing that time is circular? Even in that case, it still has a start.

I don't see how anything at Planck-scale could possibly be responsible for something like the BB
— Devans99
Of course you don't. :yawn: — 180 Proof

And you can't explain how it could happen either.

Repeating this uncorroborated and unsound assertion (i.e. g/G of the gaps) doesn't make it so. Besides, "first cause" is jabberwocky like first integer ... or north of the north pole. — 180 Proof

It is corroborated and sound; it is simply impossible for causality to exist without a first cause. Imagine a perfect, frictionless, pool table. The ball are wizzing around, they will go on wizzing around for a potential infinity of time. Your claim is like saying there was never any break-off shot by the player; utter nonsense.

Then it must have tuned itself while it was beyond space and time. Of course it’s possible, you should know, it’s simply a special kind of universe. — Zelebg

What possible motive would there be for spacetime to fine-tune itself for life? There is no such motive; the motive for fine tuning is the generation of a spacetime that supports life must be linked to an intelligent agent that desires spacetime to support life.

God is superfluous proposition that does not answer any questions -- god is fine tuned to create life, so there must be a god-tuner. Do you see? — Zelebg

God is not fine tuned to create life; it is a natural instinct for all intelligent beings to desire information and life is information. God created spacetime because he was bored. Put yourself in God's shoes; what else would you do apart from create spacetime?

To express the argument in the OP an bit more succinctly:

1. The universe is fine-tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner (99.999% probability)
2. Can’t be an infinite regress of fine tuners (100% probability)
3. So there must be an uncaused fine tuner in a non-fine tuned environment (99.999% probability)

I think it's helpful to refer to what God created (I allege) as spacetime. Then there can be a wider universe that contains both God and spacetime. I am saying that spacetime looks like a fine-tuned creation. The wider universe with God in it is then timeless. God must exist in a wider universe that is not fine-tuned for life and he must be uncaused (have permanent, timeless, existence).

There is no possibility that the spacetime fine tuned itself. The initial conditions and initial laws (those in effect from t=0, the Big Bang) uniquely determine spacetime (IE the standard model, the 4 forces, the expansion of space), so there is simply no time/room for spacetime to fine tune itself - its characteristics are fixed from the get-go and those characteristics are life supporting; hence the very high probability it was fine tuned.

So the answer to any of your questions about how could unconscious universe be the same thing you call god is simply because it is a very special universe. It must be, right? — Zelebg

1. Chances of a very special universe that is life supporting by accident: billion to one
2. Chance of a fine tuner who exists in a non fined tuned environment: considerably higher

So I think, bearing in mind this is a fundamentally probability based argument, have to favour option 2 above. If we then take into account all the other arguments for God (e.g. causality, start of time, equilibrium, Big Bang), then 2 looks like a clear favourite.

1) Time. A degree of freedom. The fourth dimension.
2) Start. The furthermost temporal/spacial point(s) of something's extent.
3) Cause. The reason for something happening.
4) Big Bang. The expansion of space that started 14 billion years ago.
5) First. Coming before all others in a temporal or spacial sense — Devans99

1) This won't do.
2) Nor this. What is furthestmost? In ordinary usage, perfectly understandable. In this case it would seem you want to define a moment(?), a place(?) as being the moment and place where, prior or before, there is neither moment nor space. As gee-whiz nonsense, fine. But I'm not interested in nonsense.
3) Reason and cause are generally different. My reason for dynamiting the stump is to get rid of it. To "cause" the explosion I light the fuse. But clearly neither of these cause the explosion.
4) Ok - with qualifications maybe not relevant here.
5) This as well problematic.

Cannot really work with any of these. Back to the drawing board. But not to be discouraged. These are (mostly) common words with common meanings that you apparently wish to apply in, and as part of the account of, uncommon ideas for which they were never intended. You have committed yourself to a hard task. But if that's the way you want to go, then you have to do the work. — tim wood

1) What is your definition then?
2) I am thinking of everything in 4d spacetime mode. So space is analogous to time. So like every object has a spacial starting point(s), it also has a temporal starting point.
3) How about the physical pre-conditions that result in an event happening.
4) -
5) What is your definition then?

I'm not so interested in your analogies per se, I'm just pointing out that the argument you keep posting doesn't work. — jorndoe

You are not able to give a satisfactory reason why the argument does not work, so I will keep posting it; it is a sound argument.

The argument I've commented on a few times by now does not prove so. — jorndoe

Yes it does. And other arguments do so too. To use one of your own examples:

1. A guy is writing his auto-biography
2. He is being especially dutiful and it is taking a year to document each day of his life.
3. Can he ever finish?
4. No
5. What if we introduce actual infinity and say he lives forever?
6. Then he can finish the auto-biography
7. Reductio ad absurdum. Step 5 must be wrong.
8. Actual infinity is impossible

- Do you think time has a start?
— Devans99
No. — 180 Proof

So you think that a greater than any finite number of days (or Planck intervals if you prefer) has passed? How has that happened?

Consistent with the overwhelming convergence of observational data in contemporary physical cosmology, my understanding is that the BB was a planck-scale event, therefore acausal; or, in other words, the initial conditions of the universe were randomly set (because there couldn't have been other matryoshka doll-like universes ad infinitum (right?) to fine-grain - select - the conditions necessary for this universe). As an explanation, saying 'g/G caused it' is indistinguishable from saying it randomly occurred, and yet, where as the latter follows from contemporary physics, the former - ptolemaic-aristotelian "Uncaused Cause" of the gaps - clearly does not. — 180 Proof

The BB looks awfully contrived though:

- Unnaturally low entropy at the start
- The way space is expanding in such an unnatural way (just right to stop everything collapsing under gravity)
- The fact that the expansion is speed up is also most unnatural
- Its a suspicious looking singleton; natural events always come in pluralities.

I don't see how anything at Planck-scale could possibly be responsible for something like the BB; there is simply not enough energy at Planck-scale to produce the BB. There is nothing at Planck-scale that could explain the expansion of space.

- Was there a first cause?
No. — 180 Proof

There is nothing without a first cause; it determines and defines everything else in existence.

1) Time. A degree of freedom. The fourth dimension.
2) Start. The furthermost temporal/spacial point(s) of something's extent.
3) Cause. The reason for something happening.
4) Big Bang. The expansion of space that started 14 billion years ago.
5) First. Coming before all others in a temporal or spacial sense

A. Assume an infinite causal regress exists
B. Then it has no first element
C. If it has no nth element, it has no nth+1 element
D. So it cannot exist — Devans99

Why can we not number the elements in a causal regress?
— Devans99

Didn't you show with B and C?
We can label events (A) in whichever way we standardize/choose, indexically, but not non-indexically. — jorndoe

You are making no sense to me. I fail to see why you cannot appreciate that an infinite causal regress is like a house without a foundation - it is simply impossible - everything depends and derives its reality from the first element of the causal regress (eg the break off shot in pool), if there is no first element then the rest of the causal regress does not exist (eg the balls do not bounce around if the break off shot is not taken). Infinite causal regresses have no first element, so they cannot exist. This is simple stuff; I don't understand why you are not getting it.

In any case, we have already established that actual infinity is impossible (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7379/infinite-bananas/p) so infinite causal regresses are therefore doubly impossible.

Calling me 'kid' all the time condescending and moronic.

This question makes no sense. "Always" implies temporality, and time is a metric description of entropy, or changing densities (i.e. complexities) of mass-energy. "Always" only has meaning in terms of mass-energy. — 180 Proof

Time is more fundamental than that; the speed of light is a universal constant enforced by the laws of the universe and speed=distance/time; so the laws of the universe are intimately time-aware and time is therefore much more than a human invention. It is not s description of entropy; it enables entropy. It is the 4th dimension.

Not my "explanation" :roll: ... We've done this 'reframing the BB in terms of the no boundary conjecture dance' before, kid. — 180 Proof

Some people will give credence to absolutely anything; in this case, time is assumed to be a complex variable; that's fringe science and you should treat it as so.

I feel you are evading the main questions because you do not have any decent arguments to offer up in defence of your illogical position.

- Do you think time has a start?
- What is the cause of the Big Bang?
- Was there a first cause?

Why can we not number the elements in a causal regress?

So you believe that energy is conserved? That matter/energy has therefore 'always' exists? What is your explanation for the Big Bang?

Strawman. Not only are infinite regresses AND egress "possible" along circumferences of FINITE YET UNBOUNDED surfaces, they are actually extant (e.g. the Earth's equator). — 180 Proof

We are talking about infinite causal regresses in time. I fail to see how the earth's equator has anything to do with it.

Strawman redux. The vacuum is not "nothing" ... — 180 Proof

The vacuum respects the conservation of energy. No new net matter/energy is created. If matter/energy was created naturally somehow (quantum fluctuations etc...) and time was infinite, infinite matter/energy density would result. So you cannot get something from nothing.

"Common sense" intuits That I am the center of the universe ... That the earth is flat ... That the sun goes around the earth (rising, moving east to west, setting) ... That the earth does not turn on an axis ... That hammers fall faster than feathers because they are heavier ... That a vacuum is impossible ... That willing is free ... That self is continuous ... That one's memories do not change ... That what is familiar is usually safer or better than what is unfamiliar ... That there are no coincidences ... That tradition or authority or popularity or mystery justifies beliefs ... That time "flows" ... That quantum actions/events are not (really) real ... :roll: The very parochial, myopic, biased scope of "common sense" engenders the need for the uncommon sensibility of scientific inquiries, aesthetic exercises & philosophical reflections. So full of incorrigible doxa, D99, you are - what Plato says philosophers must strive not to become - a sophist (of a fideistic sort, no doubt). — 180 Proof

Nothing in science contradicts the statement 'the macro world is ruled by causality' and the origins of everything is a macro question so my proof holds.

You are living in an atheist fantasy land where actual infinity is possible (it is not) and where something comes from nothing (it does not).

"We are talking about the origin of everything; IE huge amounts of matter; IE a macro, not micro problem. In the macro world the cause always comes before and determines the effect.
— Devans99

Did you get that from God's lips to your ear? You have an opinion, nothing more. — fishfry

My opinion is at least based on common sense/experience; not on something from nothing hocus-pocus.

C is confused. The integers have no first element. But every element has a successor. For every n there's an n+1. It does not have "n-th elements" because it's not a well-ordered set. There's no fifth member of the integers. What of it? — fishfry

Yes and the integers can't exist as an infinite regress with each element defined by its predecessor because there is no ultimate predecessor, that's why we right:

{..., -5, -4, -3. -2, -1 }

It is impossible to start at '...' and define the rest of the sequence.

Compared to something that does have a start, the naturals:

{1 , 2, 3, 4, 5, ... }

We see because there is a first element, it is possible to right out the rest of the sequence starting at the first element. So the naturals could represent a valid causal regress.

How do YOU know that the universe is not eternal? — fishfry

The arguments you have already been given, plus:

1. Assume time has no start
2. The state of the universe is given by the precise positions and velocity vectors of all its particles (10^80 or so in the observable universe I read)
3. Call the current state of the universe X
4. How many times has the universe been in state X in the past?
5. A greater than any finite number of times
6. Reductio ad absurdum. [1] is wrong. Time has a start.

In the quantum realm, cause doesn’t necessarily come before effect — fishfry

We are talking about the origin of everything; IE huge amounts of matter; IE a macro, not micro problem. In the macro world the cause always comes before and determines the effect.

People's mental model of there being a first moment of time then a next then a next and always going in one direction, is something they picked up when they were eight years old. The very idea of sequential time doesn't even hold up to the scrutiny of modern physics. — fishfry

Again we are talking about a macro problem in the macro world. Science does not dispute that time is fundamentally sequential at a macro level and micro considerations are not relevant to this discussion.

Besides, I think you are letting fringe scientific ideas about time and causality override your common sense understanding of such ideas. I put more weight in 1000s of years of common sense and experience than one article about what science may have discovered in the murky world of QM.

We can be sure that nothing comes from nothing so macro level causality is unaffected by QM - if something comes from nothing naturally and time was infinite then matter density would be infinite - so the conservation of energy rules.

Why won't you recognize that you have and opinion, and not a fact? — fishfry

All 'facts' are 'opinions', just some have more weight than others. Causality based arguments have a huge amount of weight because causality indisputably rules the macro world.

A. Assume an infinite causal regress exists
B. Then it has no first element
C. If it has no nth element, it has no nth+1 element
D. So it cannot exist

And actual infinity is impossible (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7379/infinite-bananas/p1).

So we have proved twice that infinite causal regresses are impossible.

That means reality must be a finite causal regress. That means there must be an uncaused cause.

It's like Sherlock Holmes says 'when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?' - there must be an uncaused cause because we have eliminated every other possibility.

Am I dumb or how is the second proposition valid at all? If the fine tuner is an omnipotent deity (and take any form), why would it need to be "fine tuned for life"? — Pelle

A fine tuner does not have to be an omnipotent deity. I am not proposing an omnipotent deity, just a deity of some form.

So you are saying I'm wrong but refusing to say why I'm wrong. :sad:

IMO, I've satisfactorily addressed all your points already.

...but we have no evidence of anything existing that is not part of spacetime, so you can't just assume it. Without evidence, it's merely a bare possibility - infinitesmal probability. — Relativist

We will never have any evidence of anything existing beyond spacetime because we are limited to space-time only. Without any evidence for or against, you can hardly assign an infinitesimal probability - that would be showing unwarranted bias against the proposition. Unbiased is 50%/50%

You're interjecting your prior beliefs about God, which means you're reasoning is circular. My original point stands that your fine-tuning argument depends on the assumption that life is a design objective. Since that entails a designer, you are basically assuming God exists in order to prove he exists; i.e. it's circular. — Relativist

No it is not circular reasoning. I have a separate, very reasonable, hypotheses that all intelligent creatures (including any gods) would basically reason in the same way. A mind is a memory plus some logic circuits of some sort - so they must all work in a similar way. Right and Wrong can be defined in terms of net happiness and net sadness and these basic concepts would apply to all creatures. So any mind would be a logical device that understands right/wrong and has a memory. I can also prove that all intelligent creatures are benevolent, so we can add that constraint to the nature of God too.

I'm not trying to convince you God doesn't exist, I'm just trying to help you understand why "proofs" of his existence fail. — Relativist

One can assign a probability to God's existence. Then any proofs help to modify that probability. And I enjoy coming up with proofs. And it is a very traditional philosophical pastime to try to prove the existence of God.

You are confusing your evidence-free intuitions with a rational argument. — fishfry

You are failing completely to understand the dynamics of causal regresses. I have given you examples that I child could follow. I am almost at a loss. One more example:

Imagine a perfect, frictionless pool table. The balls are wizzing around and will go on wizzing around for a potential eternity of time. Is this an infinite regress or can we infer an initial state where the balls were set in motion by the player?

If you want to believe that time or the universe must necessarily have a beginning, you are free to make that assumption.

I am suggesting that it is logically coherent to make the opposite assumption, and I offer the totally ordered set of integers as a thought-model or analogy. — fishfry

It is not logically coherent to assume that time has no start.

Do you believe that a greater than any finite number of days has passed?

Why couldn't the universe have simply existed forever? Or for that matter why couldn't it go forward in time a long ways, then loop back to the past, a circular model of time. Take the unit circle in the plane as a model of time. You just keep going 'round and 'round and there's no beginning and no end. — fishfry

If the universe existed for ever and its current state is X, then precisely state X has occurred a greater than any finite number of times in the past. Reductio ad absurdum, the universe has not existed forever.

I think that a circular model is possible, but it still has a start/end of time at the Big Bang / Big Crunch. And a force eternal to the universe would still be required to cause the start of time (the Big Bang).

What makes you so sure your model is correct, except for a vague feeling that there must be a first cause. Well then that first cause existed forever. You can't escape this problem by saying God did it. — fishfry

It's hardly a vague feeling, it's a logical certainty that a first cause is required as all infinite regresses are impossible. A first cause must be uncaused, IE beyond time. That then ties in nicely with the the 8 proofs I have that time has a start - a start of time also implies something from beyond time / causality.

1. The universe is fine tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner
— Devans99
Petitio principii. :yawn: — 180 Proof

Explain why it is 'Petitio principii'.

3. An infinite regress ... is impossible
False. Loops, circumferences, cycles, fractals, etc can be infinitely regressed ... Travel in a straight line, D99, in any direction on Earth and after traveling c24.9k miles you must arrive where you'd departed from because the Earth's surface is finite yet unbounded.

FINITE YET UNBOUNDED. — 180 Proof

The circumference of the earth is finite as is everything else. Actual infinity is impossible (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7379/infinite-bananas/p1) so for this reason, infinite causal regresses are impossible

Then the other reason that infinite causal regresses are impossible is they have no starting element and the earlier elements define the later elements - no first element means no nothing - infinite causal regresses cannot exist. They are like a house existing without its foundation.

Fractals are not examples of infinite regresses; they are iterations that start known, defined, initial conditions. Any infinite regress has no starting point so none of it can be defined.

If the supernatural exists, that makes certain things possible that are othewise impossible. If God is natural, it raises other questions - like energy conservation, what he's made of, how he came to exist....The point is that the question of God's existence is complex, and creating some yes/no questions to which you apply 50%probababilities cannot possibly be an objective approach - the specific questions chosen are subject to bias, and the probabilities attached are subjective. — Relativist

God as the creator of spacetime cannot, by definition, be of spacetime (be of nature).

God cannot have come into being; he must be timeless: all infinite regresses are impossible, that leaves only finite regresses, so causality must have an uncaused cause at the base. And it is only possible for an uncaused cause to be timeless (no 'before' - permanent existence).

As to whether God is made of some sort of material and whether he is complex or simple, I am not sure.

Observing and determining how the world works is of negligible complexity compared to designing how the world will work, from the ground up. — Relativist

Agreed, but we are talking about a timeless architect of the universe. If time is not a constraint, it is possible to come up with anything. Maybe he went through 1000s of prototypes both simulated (in computers) and real before coming up with the Big Bang and our version of spacetime.

"Whether there was intent to create life is not relevant to the existence of a creator so this point does not belong in the probability analysis.
— Devans99
It is relevant to your fine-tuning argument because that argument treats life as a design objective. Aside from the context of my questions entirely, this defeats the fine-tuning argument you stated. — Relativist

The meaning of life is surely information - more information of good quality results in a better life. This applies to us and God equally. Which contains more good quality information - a non-life supporting universe or a life supporting universe? It is the 2nd, and that is what a god would seek to create.

In addition, God is constrained by logic to being benevolent. That means given the choice between creating a non-life supporting universe and a life supporting universe, he would always take the 2nd path.

I admit I am unsure about the existence of God. I think he probably exists is maybe as strong as I should state my belief. Multiple logical arguments point to the requirement for a god, but also dictates he must be very alien - timeless and uncaused - which makes me doubt the logic of his existence. I am, I think, basically a materialist but the requirement for God to exist versus the nature of God makes me even question my own materialist outlook. It is a fascinating problem.

1) Does the supernatural exist? (P=.5)
2) Can an unembodied mind exist? (P=,.5*.5)
3) Can material come into existence without prior material? (P=.5*.5*.5)
4) is it possible for a mind to plan something as complex as a universe? (P=.5*.5*.5*.5)
5) Was there an intent to create life? (P=.5*.5*.5*.5*.5)
— Relativist

[1] Is 100% IMO, spacetime is a creation, so 'super-spacetime' must exist
— Devans99
You're allegedly proving the existence of a creator, so you can't assume it. — Relativist

OK let's leave this one a 50%.

[2] Who says God is an unembodied mind? He may have a body. I do not know.
You can follow both possibilities, and consider the probabilities. If he's material, and performing acts - he's expending energy; if the material and energy of the universe "must" have been created, then this material, energy-expending "god" must have been created. — Relativist

I think this question overlaps with question [1] so it is not right to consider it separately in the probability analysis. I also think you are assuming that God must follow your common experience of what applies within spacetime. God is from beyond spacetime so I not believe that temporal constraints such as energy expenditure would apply. We as humans are only familiar with a tiny fraction of what might exist and trying to say that everything in existence must follow the tiny fraction (of what we know) is a fallacy.

[3] Material could timelessly pre-exist the creation of spacetime. God could have used that in creation of the Big Bang
This implies he didn't create the universe, he just played a role in shaping it - but this raises other questions: can energy come into existence, violating conservation of energy? — Relativist

I don't think this is relevant to the probability analysis of: 'is the universe a creation?. The material may or may not have pre-existed the universe timelessly. By 'creation' I mean creating spacetime; whether it was done with pre-existing material is not relevant to the probability analysis.

[4] I think this is 100% yes. God might have done a few prototypes first
There is zero basis for your claim that it is possible. — Relativist

We run simulations of the universe on our computers, so it is not even beyond our very limited abilities; why then should it be beyond God's? I think this is therefore 100% yes.

[5] Is 100% IMO. What other motivation could he have?
Artistic pleasure; the joy of problem solving; scientific experiments to see what might result. — Relativist

Whether there was intent to create life is not relevant to the existence of a creator so this point does not belong in the probability analysis.

So I still get the initial probability of a the universe being a creation as 50%. To which all the positive evidence that the universe is a creation must then be added:

1. Nothing can exist 'forever' in time - It would have no initial state so no subsequent states
2. So everything in time is a creation
3. So there must be a creator
And
1. Time has a start
2. So time must be a creation
3. So there must be a creator
And
Universe is not in equilibrium / Causality based arguments / Fine tuning / Big Bang

That is quite a lot of evidence in favour of the universe being a creation.

I just showed you a model of infinite causal regress. It's the plain old integers. What law of nature says it can't exist? On the contrary, it probably does exist. What caused the big bang? Random quantum fluctuations in the vacuum state of the pre-universe. What caused that? What caused the laws of physics? What caused that cause? You never get to the bottom. — fishfry

You are missing an important point; cause determines effect, so when using the negative integers to discuss causality, it must be the case that -2 exists before -1, -3, exists before -2 etc... So therefore something causal with the structure of the negative integers cannot exist as an infinite causal regress:

{ ... -> -5 -> -4 -> -3 -> -2 -> 1- }

It's not valid to write ... -> -5 as '...' is undefined then -5 is also undefined.

There are no examples of anything with the structure of the natural numbers in nature and actual infinity leads to absurdities (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7379/infinite-bananas/p1) so we can be sure actual infinity does not exist (no evidence for it and its logically impossible).

Quantum fluctuations are a red herring. If something cam from nothing naturally and time was infinite then matter density would be infinite - which it is not. Something does not come from nothing. That would be in violation of the conservation of energy and would be best classed as magic.

The universe is a creation because:

1. Anything existing in time forever is impossible. It would have no initial state so no subsequent states
2. So everything in time is a creation
3. So there is a creator or creator(s)
Or
1. time has a start
2. so time must be a creation
3. so there must be a creator(s)

It seems to me that "There can't be an infinite regress therefore God" is a terrible argument. How do you know there can't be an infinite regress? The integers are a model of infinite regress. — fishfry

No the integers are not an accurate model of an infinite causal regress because they do not reflect the cause-effect dependancy of infinite causal regress. A better model is pool:

1. The cue hits the white ball
2. The white ball hits the black
3. The back goes in the pocket

Notice how if we remove the first element [1] in the finite regress, then the other elements ([2] and [3]) all disappear. So a causal regress depends on its first element for existence. An infinite causal regress has no first element (by definition) so they simply can't exist.

That leads to the conclusion that all causal regresses in nature must be finite; implying an uncaused cause at the base (something timeless).

A being "outside the universe" would not exist, as the universe is all that is, a transcendent being would similarly be outside the universe, a transcendent and immanent being is inconsistent (but wait, it just has transcendent and immanent descriptions without having parts blah blah...). — fdrake

OK maybe it is clearer to say that the creator created spacetime but the creator is part of a wider universe of unknown characteristics. He would thus be transcendent but not immanent.

1) Does the supernatural exist? (P=.5)
2) Can an unembodied mind exist? (P=,.5*.5)
3) Can material come into existence without prior material? (P=.5*.5*.5)
4) is it possible for a mind to plan something as complex as a universe? (P=.5*.5*.5*.5)
5) Was there an intent to create life? (P=.5*.5*.5*.5*.5) — Relativist

[1] Is 100% IMO, spacetime is a creation, so 'super-spacetime' must exist
[2] Who says God is an unembodied mind? He may have a body. I do not know.
[3] Material could timelessly pre-exist the creation of spacetime. God could have used that in creation of the Big Bang
[4] I think this is 100% yes. God might have done a few prototypes first
[5] Is 100% IMO. What other motivation could he have?

What is your definition of fine tuning? Is the definition necessarily associated with life; for example we can only say a universe X is fine-tuned if there's life in it? If yes then the universe that the uncaused first fine-tuner exists/existed in must be fine-tuned. If no then why do you say that our universe is fine-tuned? After all your claim that our universe is fine-tuned seems to turn on there being life in it. — TheMadFool

You cannot fine tune the uncaused cause's environment - it is timeless - there is no 'before' in which to do any fine tuning. Infinite regresses are impossible, so the fine tuning argument ultimately leads to something that must exist in a non fine tuned environment - something remarkable.

The integers mark the years according to the Western calendar. We're currently at 2020. Ok, we're here. No question about it. And there was a year before that and a year before that, going back forever. — fishfry

Do you believe that a greater than any finite number of days has passed?

So I think, philosophically, the lesson is to stay with that sense of not knowing rather than trying to rush to judgement. — Wayfarer

It is a favourite hobby of mine to try to prove the existence of God. Because it is difficult/impossible, it makes a great pastime.

Sure. Paradigm shifts illustrate that even our most "certain" beliefs are subject to revision. So you may be "certain" that the universe wasn't created because of...well, science, I presume. — Pantagruel

Good point. Look at our culture through the ages:

- 2000 years ago maybe 10% (?) of what we knew was actually correct
- 100 years ago maybe 50% (?) of what we knew was actually correct
- Now maybe 60% (?) of what we know is actually correct

So we need to keep an open mind as to our believes.

But with the elephant, YOU are introducing evidence. Which is it - do we consider "evidence" when determining whether or not there's a "boolean sample space", or not? — Relativist

I think you have to be careful with the question selection, but certain questions can be said to be normally distributed (between yes and no):

1. I toss a coin 100 times. How many heads?
2. Is space discrete?
3. Is the universe a creation?

IE they have no loaded evidence built into the question. Then you can allow for the evidence in follow-on calculations.

As I say, with question [3] above, before assessing the evidence, I think 50% / 50% is correct.

Having thought about it some more, I think you have to define 'creation'. My definition is: something that does not exist in time, and comes into existence (in time) due to some external force.

Existing forever in time is impossible. There would be no initial state, so it no subsequent states. So nothing can exist forever in time. So therefore everything in time must be a creation (everything requires an external force to create it).

"Is this universe a created universe?"

Because there are an almost infinite number of different types of sort Y. So the answer space is clearly not evenly distributed between Yes and No. — fdrake

There is created
Or uncreated (existed forever)

Existing forever is impossible. It has no initial state, so it has no subsequent states.

So the universe must be a creation.