You are missing the point, I'm saying that there might be something outside of spacetime that isn't a sentient creator. A starting point or a point that always was that is dead as a stone and just as irrational as calling a real stone, creator or God. The essential thing is that you assume causality to work before Big Bang, but we have nothing that proves or disproves if there even was causality before. — Christoffer

No, you are missing the point; any natural starting point for the Big Bang (with infinite time) implies infinite Big Bangs. So the Big Bang was not natural.

How on earth could a non-sentient creator create something like spacetime? It clearly requires intelligence. Plus all the signs of fine-tuning for life in the universe (which I don't want to really go through again) are not accounted for without intelligence (likewise I don't want to have to refute the WAP and SAP again).

I do not assume causality to work before Big Bang. If causality does not apply before the Big Bang, that falls under the 'Can get something from nothing' axiom. IE it would happen infinite time with infinite time if it were a natural event. So my argument is free from 'cause and effect' as an axiom.

Now imagine beyond that level of complexity with unknown properties of something that we might not even define as matter, but still not sentient. — Christoffer

I think my argument is still sufficiently general to cover this; can you be more specific?

No, you don't, please read Russel's analogy and understand it before posting — Christoffer

'Nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely'

I understand the analogy and agree with it; the Christian God is very unlikely because we have evidence that (for example) omnipotence is very unlikely. I am not arguing for a Christian God.

How is that even a logical calculation? You're just making these calculations up. Stop the pseudoscience nonsense. — Christoffer

Your math sucks. I have a 1st class in math.

Probability needs data and you have none. — Christoffer

Yes but my point is; in the absence of evidence/data you assume a normal distribution. Your statistics sucks as well.

And you are not even making sense. There's no logic to your calculations, there's no rational understanding of how to verify or falsify your argument and you are writing fallacy after fallacy.

Do you truly understand burden of proof? Do you truly understand begging the question? Do you truly understand false cause? I can go on. — Christoffer

I'm using logic and maths. You are using waffle.

None of them conclude there to be a creator. They could just as well point to an interdimensional stone that hit another interdimensional stone and the blast resulted in our four-dimensional spacetime through Big Bang — Christoffer

Then where did the stone come from? What created it? My argument (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5077/time-has-a-start/p1) concludes that the cause of any such stone must be non-natural. Its a very simple argument: if creation was natural and time was infinite then there would be infinite creations; there is only one creation. That rules out stones. That means a creator.

You're just making these numbers up. You estimate without any real logic applied. — Christoffer

Even if you use real low numbers; there is still a high chance that there is a creator.

How can you even calculate this probability? Based on what? Is there a 50% probability that there is a teapot flying in space, just because it's unable to be confirmed? — Christoffer

No because we have evidence that teapots do not fly and you are allowing for that in your probability estimate the full calculation is:

1. What is the probability of an object flying?
2. Start at 50% for an unknown boolean proposition for which we have admitted no evidence
3. First piece of evidence: object is a teapot
4. Revised probability calculation: 50% x 0% = 0%

So whenever you start with no evidence, you start at a 50% estimate. The question 'is there a creator' we start at 50% because we have not taken any evidence for/against and it's a boolean sample space that underlies the question.

Especially when some of the points don't even point to any probability of a creator/God, like Big Bang. How is that a 50% probability of the existence of a creator/God? — Christoffer

Was the big bang natural or non-natural event? Without taking any further evidence, you would start at 50% yes, 50% no. Then we look at the very unnatural way that space is expanding; this is no ordinary explosion; there is something unnnatural about it. Then we further consider then universe had very close to zero entropy at the Big Bang... highly unnatural. So actually the chances the Big Bang were unnatural, IE a creator, are probably much higher than 50%

You're just spamming posts with the same calculation without really listening to the counter-arguments. — Christoffer

I'm listening to your counterarguments its just they are not convincing...

No evidence of any of these concludes that there is a God. That's an assumption made before the conclusion.Begging the question, Burden of proof, false cause, Texas sharpshooter, ambiguity, anecdotal, post-rationalize special pleading, composition/division - are all fallacies that needs to be avoided throughout all arguments. You can't ignore them. While confirmation bias, dunning-kruger, belief bias, the backfire effect, fundamental attribution error, anchoring are all biases to avoid. — Christoffer

They conclude that there is a creator and that is my basic definition of God. If you can point out any specific example of a fallacy in my argument, I'd be happy to discuss it.

You cannot combine probabilities like that and how do you even calculate these probabilities — Christoffer

I have estimated the probability that each piece of evidence on its own points to a creator of the universe:

1) Non-causal cosmological argument 50%
2) Causal cosmological argument (Prime mover etc...) 25%
3) Fine tuning of the universe 75%
4) The Big Bang 50%
5) Why is there something rather than nothing? 25%

These are just estimates; obviously feel free to plug in your own numbers. The method however is sound:

You start at 50% probability for the question 'is there a creator/god? - IE because no evidence for/against has been considered yet. The first step of the calculation then is:

1) (start at 50% percent) + (probability of Non-causal cosmological argument 50%) x (50% remaining)
1) 50% + 50% x 50% = 75%

So the logic is, you start at 50% sure there is a God, then in the 50% 'remaining' where you think there is no God. Then you allow for the first piece of evidence, giving 50% + 50% x 50% = 75% sure there is a God. This is repeated for each separate piece of evidence to give approximately 99% sure there is a God.

Please keep in mind I am by no means at all anti-God or an atheist or even agnostic. I simply reject the particular efforts of foolish people who try with foolish premises and foolish arguments to prove what cannot be proved, and if it were proved, would be without significance i.e. the material existence of God. — tim wood

A goal of philosophy is understanding the nature of the universe and that includes understanding if there is a God and the nature of God.

If God exists, there is plenty we can deduce about him:

- https://www.iep.utm.edu/aquinas/#SH6c
- https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/255620

"Unicorns and fairies are factitious ideas "

So are gods. — Bloginton Blakley

There is quite a lot of evidence for God:

1) Non-causal cosmological argument, see:
- https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5077/time-has-a-start/p1
- https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5059/an-argument-for-gods-existence/p1
2) Causal cosmological argument (Prime mover etc...)
3) Fine tuning of the universe
4) The Big Bang
5) Why is there something rather than nothing?

There is no evidence against God that I'm aware of. Starting at 50% for an unknown boolean proposition 'Is there a God?', I've assigned a probability that each of the above means the existence of God and then combined the probabilities:

1) 50% + 50% x 50% = 75%
2) 75% + 25% x 25% = 87.5%
3) 87.5% + 12.5% x 75%= 96.9%
4) 96.9% + 3.1% x 50% = 98.5%
5) 98.5% + 1.5% x 25% = 98.9% probability of God

You are aware that the ideas of an omnipotent God and a perfect or a perfectly good God are inconsistent with each other, yes? — tim wood

If it's impossible to change the universe after it is brought into being then God could be omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent and the problem of evil goes away.

So for example, if you believe in an eternalist universe, God changing things in the present would destroy an already extant future... so it maybe impossible for him to change anything... and the definition of omnipotent does not extend to achieving the impossible.

I found this:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/aquinas/#SSH6ciii

"Thomas contends that God does not exist in time (see, for example, ST Ia. q. 10). To see why he thinks so, consider what he thinks time is: a measurement of change with respect to before and after. (Thomas thinks time is neither a wholly mind-independent reality—hence it is a measurement—nor is it a purely subjective reality—it exists only if there are substances that change.) Therefore, if something does not change, it is not measured by time, that is, it does not exist in time. However, as has been seen, God is unchanging. Therefore, God does not exist in time."

Sorry yes, I mean an uncaused 'event' rather than 'effect'.

Is an uncaused effect logically possible? It would be a random effect and we (the human race) have never worked out how to do random... maybe random is just not possible for the universe either? Also, there is big hole in logic and physics if cause and effect are removed... what would replace cause and effect as a mechanism for 'stuff happening'?

Yes I'm with Einstein - there is no replacement for cause and effect - how else could the universe 'get things done'. QM is probably just a partial enlightenment... there are 'hidden variables' that determine completely the location of the particle. This is not a very fashionable view though.

I guess we can't be too harsh on Aquinas. He knew nothing about quantum mechanics 800 years ago... its all a bit mad really and quantum fluctuations sound like magic today even though science insists they occur.

Fair point. Another issue with his argument:

Therefore, everything in the universe is caused to change by something external to the universe. — Walter Pound

Science is somewhat down on causality of late what with quantum mechanics and all so the cause and effect axiom is questionable too.

He could possibly mean that things inside time are subject to change but things outside time (IE God) are not. In the eternalist view, past present future are all real and eternal... change is maybe just an illusion experienced by creatures of time.

This part of the argument confuses me. How could a changeless thing, cause changes to occur and remain changeless? — Walter Pound

If we take the eternalist view (which I believe Aquinas held), God is a static unchanging object outside of time. He has interacted with the universe in various ways but those do not cause change in God because he is outside of time; those changes have always been 'part of God' (in a timeless sense).

By his works shall we know him. Some of my deductions do use the fact that God, if he exists, created the universe, but I'd argue that is derived from the definition of the term God so its fair play.

Because sex cannot be derived from being/existence, then sex cannot be an attribute — tim wood

God exists. Does he have a sex? Does he have a mother/father? No. Deductions from the nature of God's existence.

And 'round we go. That's a fine definition. However, it corresponds to nothing real, nothing that actually exists — tim wood

Thats the point; it's nothing. What is your definition?

This lack of substance seems a feature of your arguments, and I, unfortunately, a predilection for calling out what I think is non-sense — tim wood

You are waffling rather than addressing my arguments. You have made 5 posts on this subject so far and none of them contain anything of substance.

...
5. Easily bored. Created universe to amuse himself.
6. Not a micro manager. Does not get involved in day to day running of universe.
7. Likes to do things on a grand scale (size of universe).

The only rule here is that whatever you wish to attribute to God must be derived from his existence only. — tim wood

God is sexless, timeless, benevolent and powerful:

1. Sexless: Not the product of bisexual reproduction so sexless.

2. Timeless: An eternal in time (presentist) God exists in a universe where time has no start. Such a God has no start in time; no coming into being; so cannot logically exist. Or if the God had a start point in time, there would be an empty stretch of time before him and nothing to cause his existence, which is also impossible. So God must be timeless.

3. Benevolent: Even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. Even if you grant God omniscience, a future greater god is possible. If God ever meets a greater god, the outcome is as follows: Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished. Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded. The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be a good god.

4. Powerful: He created the universe so he must be.

Well there are problems with the prime mover argument:

- In the quantum era, cause and effect are under question. The prime mover argument relies heavily on cause and effect.
- The prime mover argument is inconsistent in that it uses cause and effect to trace back all motion to a single unmoved mover but then says that the unmoved mover is beyond cause and effect.

I don't think Eternal Inflation is incompatible with belief in God. It's just the sort of mechanism that a God would employ to create a universe. Plus if inflation is natural and time is infinite then there should be infinite occurrences of inflation and infinite matter density in the universe. So inflation is not natural (God did it) or time is finite (God did it).

Inflation does explain some of the observed features of our universe:

'Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Observational_status

The plain Big Bang theory does not explain these features.

So I ask you again: "nothing" figures in your argument. What do you mean by "nothing"? — tim wood

OK how about a region of space absent of any matter/energy?

If there can be something that's timeless, how would we get to any restriction on just what can be timeless? Why couldn't any arbitrary thing be timeless at some point if it's possible for there to be timeless things? — Terrapin Station

It's a fair point, there maybe a whole universe of timeless things for all we know. But I think it ultimately causally traces back to a single creator.



It's the Big Bang theory with inflation that is regarded as the standard model of cosmology nowadays. And the multiple universes extension to that, Eternal Inflation is gaining credibility. That theory does address what happened before the Big Bang.

Whatever exists--whatever its nature, if we go back to the earliest thing, either it always existed or it began non-causally. — Terrapin Station

But if you have a start of time and timelessness then cause and effect does not apply to timeless entities. So you can have an uncaused cause as God outside time and have him then cause the start of time and the universe.

Right, it has no start, and there's no meaningful way to peg a particular point as a temporal middle. It could have an end, of course. There could be something for which there's no way to peg a particular point as a temporal middle. — Terrapin Station

But it has no start (call that time t), so time t+1 is not defined, nor is t+2 (because t+1) is missing. All the way to the end, it's undefined.

Or imagine a clock that has always existed. It can’t read infinity as it’s impossible to count to infinity and it can’t read any lessor number as that would be incompatible with ‘always existed’. So such a clock cannot ‘always exist’. We could fit such a clock to anything in the universe to prove that ‘always exist’ is impossible.

If it's possible to be timeless and finite, then that's possible period. It can't be limited to just some things and not others. — Terrapin Station

Fair point but my personal definition of God is the creator of the universe, so if other timeless things exist, they are not directly relevant to the issue.

Could you please explain what parts of my argument you object to and why.

Again, those are the only two options logically ('the universe acausally began or something always existed'). Ruling them out means you just don't bother thinking about or talking about this issue. — Terrapin Station

But there is a third option, the universe began causally. If the other two options are impossible, it must be the third option that is true?

That's actually just a set of assertions, worded different ways, that it's not possible for something to always exist. It's not an argument for it. — Terrapin Station

If something always existed, it has no start. If it has no start, it has no middle or end. So it does not exist.

Also, that would mean that it's not possible for god to have always existed. — Terrapin Station

But God is timeless and finite - he has a start and end. He can always exist in a finite state by virtue of being outside time.

No one could explain either how anything can begin acausally--any explanation would imply a cause, or how anything could always exist (since that's completely counterintuitive). — Terrapin Station

Well if no-one can explain them and they are counterintuitive, then we can just rule them out? They are both impossible after all. Universes don't just pop into existence with no reason and 'always existing' is not possible.

If I always existed, yes. I'd necessarily exist without being born. That's what the words "always existed" conventionally refer to. — Terrapin Station

But you can't exist without being born. Would the universe exist if we took away the moment of the Big Bang? Everything has to have a 'coming into being' to exist (else its logically incomplete). "Always existed" is an oxymoron.

Also as I pointed out in the OP, "Always existed" involves an infinite regress into the past which is logically contradictory.

In all these arguments of yours it appears you're desperate to make reality agree with your ideas as they're expressed in your language. You're allowed to do that, it's called belief. But reality does not work that way and that's why there is something called science. What you're creating when you mix the two is simply non-sense. Granted there are some interesting twists in language, but they're just in language, not in the world. — tim wood

I notice you stick to generalities and avoid engaging on any of the specifics of my argument. If there is nonsense in my argument you could at least point out where.

There can't be anything to cause the universe, because that necessarily implies that something exists prior to the universe — Terrapin Station

God could exist timelessly. He could cause the start of time and the universe.

So again, either the universe acausally began or something always existed — Terrapin Station

Can you explain how exactly the universe can begin truly acausally? (not even quantum fluctuations).

"Always existed" logically means that it never came into being. — Terrapin Station

There is nothing logical about the above statement. Would you exist if you were not born? You can't exist without coming into being.

That is an excellent definition. I'm pretty sure, though, there is no such thing nor ever was as your "nothing" as you define it — tim wood

The exact definition of nothing used does not impact my argument.

"Quantum fluctuations" can't be both quantum fluctuations and nothing. Quantum fluctuations are something. If they exist, then they're part of the universe, and explaining the origins of the universe would have to involve explaining where quantum fluctuations come from. — Terrapin Station

I agree but my argument is directed towards current cosmological thinking where the origin of the universe is almost invariably attributed to quantum fluctuations.

If we treat quantum fluctuations (and any other similar natural processes) as part of space which is part of the universe then there really is nothing to cause the universe - except the start of time - so that must be the cause of the universe.

So either whatever exists suddenly appeared, non-causally, or something has always existed — Terrapin Station

If it appeared non-causally, IE some natural stochastic process, we'd expect infinite occurrences of the universe appearing (with infinite time). We'd also have infinite matter density. So that's impossible.

Something can't 'always' exist; to exist something has to come into being first and if it 'always' existed, it has no temporal starting point to come into being.

And for this topic, "nothing" really needs to be defined. So, out of the gate another gee-whiz argument — tim wood

Nothing is spacetime absent of any matter/energy (except quantum fluctuations).

So they're natural and then change to unnatural? — Terrapin Station

If only A can decay to B or C and it decays to B, then it would be unnatural for C to occur. An unnatural agency like God could cause C to occur though.

I was never under the impression that you were only talking about the Big Bang, by the way. I thought you were talking about any arbitrary event. I thought the Big Bang was just an example. — Terrapin Station

My arguments apply to Big Bangs or any other universe creation event.

At any rate, there could very well be a zero probability that a Big Bang would occur after the one which did occur. It could need particular conditions that will never obtain again, despite infinite time. — Terrapin Station

That would mean universes could not be cause by quantum fluctuations meaning cause and effect is back in the picture meaning the prime mover argument applies.

But they have finite time periods in which there's a zero probability of them occuring. — Terrapin Station

OK but then they are unnatural events for the time periods for which there is zero probability of occurring.

We are talking Big Bangs which are theorised to come from Quantum Fluctuations which could happen at any time; IE there is always a non-zero probability of a Big Bang if it's a natural event.

Sorry I meant 50% probability.

C and B both start with a 50% (correction) probability so they are both natural.


Anyhow, thats a classical universe; I'm thinking of a quantum universe where quantum fluctuations can produce particles out of nothing given long enough periods.

Which brings us back to the unanswered question of "Why would you be associating 'zero probability in some finite time periods' with god? That couldn't be more arbitrary." — Terrapin Station

A zero probability event is by definition unnatural; caused by some unnatural agency.

A non-zero probability event is by definition natural, for example, random quantum fluctuations over infinite time (the mechanism by which the Big Bang is touted). Clearly there would have to be infinite Big Bangs if they where natural events.

Lack of evidence is pretty conclusive evidence that the Big Bang is not a natural occurrence. It only happened 14 billion years ago so if Big Bangs are natural; we should expect lots of them in our region of spacetime.

Or if you think about it in terms of Eternal inflation theory... there should be infinite instances of 'eternal' inflation happening with infinite time - all going on right now due to the fact they are eternal.

Evidence? That's news! What evidence? — tim wood

Astronomy gives evidence in support of one unnatural, Big Bang. If there had been multiple Big Bangs, I think Astronomer's would have noticed something.

OK photons experience no time but all lengths are contracted to zero so I guess you can argue they experience no movement.

I still maintain that photons exist outside of time, so timeless existence is possible.

I know the feeling.

You're only using "natural"/"non-natural" to refer to probability right? — Terrapin Station

And to the cause of the Big Bang. Natural would be quantum fluctuations or such. Non-natural would be God.

If I say that the probability of the Big Bang occurring today is zero and you say it's not, then we need a way to determine which one of us is correct. — Terrapin Station

What I say implies infinite natural Big Bangs (with infinite time). We can tell from astronomy that there is only one Big Bang so empirical evidence is in my favour when concluding that the Big Bang is singular and non-natural.

I think the natural/non-natural definition I gave in terms of probability are helpful definitions; not sure how else you could mathematically define them?

We're not just assigning probabilities randomly, are we? — Terrapin Station

No, but all we need to be able to deduce that infinite Big Bangs occurred is to assign a non-zero probability of a Big Bang occurring in a tiny fraction of the universe's infinite history; that is sufficient to ensure infinite Big Bangs.

The actual probability numbers do not matter; all that matter is if the probability is zero (Big Bang must be a non-natural event) or non-zero (Big Bang must be naturally occurring and infinite in occurrence).