I think we can all agree that when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. So, here are the facts:

a. time has always existed, but it’s not quite what it seems to be

b. time is not just time, it is really a chaotic combination of infinite dimensions

c. number of these dimensions is so infinite, and they are sooo randomly mixed the whole goulash can be better described as nothing, rather than something, and it shall be called “dimension X”

d. from time to time some of the dimensions escape the chaos of the dimension X and this can manifest in various ways, some of which produce universes

e. some people in escaped dimensions think dimension X is a god, dimension X doesn’t care

It’s undeniable!


Seriously though, "dimension X" satisfies criteria from the opening post to classify as god, plus is far more plausible and is even not self-contradicting.

Philosophy - not physics - is the study of what's real. — Bartricks

x=x thread? :lol:

I do not understand you or why you are weeping with laughter. Bakers, in their capacity as bakers, do not inquire into the fundamental nature of reality, even though their job requires them to make bits of it into dough. Likewise for physicists. Physics isn't philosophy.

Ah, I was not engaging in Avicenna scholarship so much as arguing that existing in a self-explanatory way does not seem to be equivalent to existing of necessity.

I'm personally sceptical that anything exists of necessity, but I nevertheless think some things require no explanation.

So, take the claim - whether made by Avicenna or not - that anything that has come into being needs a cause of its coming into being.

Well, if that's true - and it certainly seems true to me - then we can conclude that some things have not come into being (for otherwise we would have an actual infinity of things-that-have-come-into-being on our hands).

But it would be to go beyond the evidence to then claim that those things that have not come into being exist of necessity. For all the argument actually establishes is that they exist uncaused.

Or take the claim that anything that exists must be made of something. Well, nothing can have an infinity of ingredients, so some things - the basic constituents of reality - must be simple. That is, they must be made of themselves alone and have no more simple ingredients.

That establishes the existence of simple things, but it would once more be to go beyond the evidence to conclude that these simple things exist 'of necessity'.

We can, it seems to me, understand that a things existence requires no explanation, without having to think that it exists of necessity.

Re two things requiring explanation - I still do not see this point. If understanding the nature of object A suffices to explain its existence, and if understanding the nature of object B similarly suffices, why would there by a question about why A and B exist?

Yes, one could ask why there are not three or four or more - but one could ask that of A alone (why is there one, rather than none?).

So I still do not see how one can get from the self-explanatory nature of an object, to its being the only one of that kind possible.

So you have a choice to postulate magical fine-tuned universe, just like we observe, or to postulate unobservable magical being, that just so happens to be fine-tuned to hallucinate into existence this magical fine-tuned universe we actually observe. — Zelebg

I am not attributing magic properties to God. All I am claiming is he is timeless and that is not in itself magical. And without God, we are left with an unexplainable mystery of the universe being fine-tuned (billions to one to happen by chance).

Then the universe existed before time. Or whatever paradox you accepted for your deity, it can be applied directly to the universe. — Zelebg

Something causally effective, IE intelligent, must exist before time.

I don't think that conclusion gets you to an agency, much less God. I think what it gets you to is the existence of simple things. — Bartricks

But the first cause must be causally effective; able to cause an effect without itself being caused. So it must be intelligent and not just a 'simple thing'.

But after time has been created, then that which created it would be 'in' time. For how could it not be? And yet this creator or creators, would now be in time, yet would not have any cause external to themselves. Thus by your own lights not everything in time has an external cause of its existence, for the creator of time is in time and does not have an external cause of its existence. — Bartricks

Good point, but the thing that creates time may stay outside of time. It might be diminishing of its powers to enter time.

I should add, I do not deny your conclusion - I think we do have overwhelmingly good reason to think that the universe has a single first cause and that the first cause is 'God' at least in some sense of that term. — Bartricks

God is either in time or out of time:

1. If he is eternal in time, then he has no start, no coming into being so cannot exist
2. If he is in time but there is an empty stretch of time before his coming into being then there is nothing to create him - creation ex nilhilo - which is impossible
3. That leaves just a timeless God as the only possibility.

a. time has always existed, but it’s not quite what it seems to be — Zelebg

Time cannot have always existed:

1. Assume time has always existed
2. Call the current state of the universe X
3. Then the universe has been in state X a greater than any number of times in the past
4. Absurd, so 1 is wrong - time has a start

If you have a sense of wonder, then explain it(?) Thus far, you haven't been able to explain it, have you(?)

In the context of the thread, why are you wondering about causation?

Sorry for all the questions... .

And without God, we are left with an unexplainable mystery of the universe being fine-tuned

No, with god you are just making extra step and renaming mystery to "why is god fine-tuned".

Why is god fine-tuned?

Something causally effective, IE intelligent, must exist before time.

You are not addressing the point. Universe is causally effective and it does not have to be intelligent to achieve that. Ok?


It’s really simple, keep everything you said about god, then just instead of saying god created the universe, say god is universe. Everyone can agree with that, and then if you want to personificate it, that’s like thinking about Earth as Gaia, is ok.

Why is god fine-tuned? — Zelebg

God's environment cannot be fine-tuned for life because there is no-one to do the fine tuning. So God must not need a fine-tuned environment. We are not God. We need a fine-tuned environment to exist and the universe is fine tuned.

You are not addressing the point. Universe is causally effective and it does not have to be intelligent to achieve that. Ok? — Zelebg

No dumb mechanical system can be causally effective - there is nothing to initiate motion and even if by some impossibility there was motion, it would lead to equilibrium after a time. The fact that the universe is not and has never been in equilibrium means it is not a dumb mechanical system. There must be something self-driven (=inteligent) and permanent in the universe that has always kept it out of equilibrium. You wish to attribute this intelligence to the universe itself but as far as we can tell, the universe is a dumb mechanical system - so there must be some other source of this intelligence.

Time cannot have always existed:

1. Assume time has always existed
2. Call the current state of the universe X
3. Then the universe has been in state X a greater than any number of times in the past
4. Absurd, so 1 is wrong - time has a start

You are misinterpreting. I did not say the universe always existed, I said time always existed and universes get created from time to time.

God's environment cannot be fine-tuned for life because there is no-one to do the fine tuning.

Because there is no-one to do the fine tuning? Hmm. Take that logic and apply it directly to the universe.

So God must not need a fine-tuned environment.

I did not ask about any environment, but god itself.

Why is god fine-tuned to produce fine-tuned universe?

No dumb mechanical system can be causally effective - there is nothing to initiate motion and even if by some impossibility there was motion, it would lead to equilibrium after a time.

So you lack understanding of basic physics. I don’t have patience for that kind of ignorance. May mighty Khorons have mercy on your soul.

So you lack understanding of basic physics. — Zelebg

You are the one who is ignorant. All dumb mechanical systems tend to equilibrium:

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

You are misinterpreting. I did not say the universe always existed, I said time always existed and universes get created from time to time. — Zelebg

If universes get created from 'time to time' naturally and time is infinite then that leads to infinite density. Back to the drawing board with that idea then.

I do not understand you or why you are weeping with laughter — Bartricks

I got carried away by your comment that physics doesn't investigate reality, which is the domain of philosophy. I cited the "x=x" thread because, to a novice philosopher, the law of identity (Leibniz's "It is what it is") seems beyond refutation and axiomatic. How can it contribute to a further understanding of reality?

I don't agree with your comment. Physics most definitely investigates reality. The fact that scientists may avoid discussions of causality simply means that by doing so they can achieve a better understanding of physical reality.

But I reacted excessively. Sorry.

But the first cause must be causally effective; able to cause an effect without itself being caused. So it must be intelligent and not just a 'simple thing'. — Devans99

How does it follow that it 'must' be an intelligence? It must be a simple thing that has the power of substance causation (substance causation being causation by a substance, rather than an event involving it). But you've made a leap by concluding that it therefore must be intelligent.

And why must it be unitary? A plethora of simple substance causes seems perhaps more reasonable than the posit of a single simple substance cause.

Good point, but the thing that creates time may stay outside of time. It might be diminishing of its powers to enter time. — Devans99

I do not understand how something existent can be outside of time if time exists. But anyway, unless you rule out the possibility of the simple substance causes of time being subsequently inside time then your claim that anything inside time requires an external cause is false.

God is either in time or out of time:

1. If he is eternal in time, then he has no start, no coming into being so cannot exist
2. If he is in time but there is an empty stretch of time before his coming into being then there is nothing to create him - creation ex nilhilo - which is impossible
3. That leaves just a timeless God as the only possibility. — Devans99

I don't see why you think premise 1 is true. If God is a simple thing then he is uncreated, which is not the same as not existing. The simple things that are required for anything to exist are of precisely this kind - that is, they have no beginning, yet nevertheless exist.

2 is also false if God is the creator of time, for then there is no empty stretch of time before he created it.

God exists with aseity. That is, if God exists he has not been created. His nature explains his existence.

God does create time, I think. But he is not outside of it, for what he creates now applies to him, just as the writer of an autobiography is the author of a work that has him/herself as its main subject.

Saying physics investigates reality is like saying detectives investigate reality.

What we're interested in is the fundamental nature of reality - what does it consist of? Is it material or immaterial? And so on. These are not questions physicists ask. Many physicists make philosophical assumptions - as do police detectives - and then, in light of these philosophical assumptions, make pronouncements about the nature of reality (to the frustration of philosophers). But they're still not doing philosophy.

How does it follow that it 'must' be an intelligence? It must be a simple thing that has the power of substance causation (substance causation being causation by a substance, rather than an event involving it). But you've made a leap by concluding that it therefore must be intelligent. — Bartricks

How can something cause without itself being effected? It must be self-driven. The first cause cannot be an automation because they need creating. So the first cause must be intelligent.

And why must it be unitary? A plethora of simple substance causes seems perhaps more reasonable than the posit of a single simple substance cause. — Bartricks

What set the plethora of simple substances is motion? There must be a first cause for that too.

I don't see why you think premise 1 is true. If God is a simple thing then he is uncreated, which is not the same as not existing. The simple things that are required for anything to exist are of precisely this kind - that is, they have no beginning, yet nevertheless exist. — Bartricks

How can something exist in time without a temporal start? Would you exist if you were not born? If something has no temporal start, it has no temporal start+1, no temporal start+2, no temporal start+2... hence it does not exist in time.

God does create time, I think. But he is not outside of it, for what he creates now applies to him, just as the writer of an autobiography is the author of a work that has him/herself as its main subject. — Bartricks

If God is in time, God is dead. That is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I don't believe God would have created time if he knew it would destroy him.

How can something cause without itself being effected? It must be self-driven. The first cause cannot be an automation because they need creating. So the first cause must be intelligent. — Devans99

'Substance causation' is causation by a substance - by a thing - rather than by an event, by a happening.

Now, some think the idea of substance causation is incoherent. But I - and you too - cannot think that, for it is precisely this possibility that stops an infinite regress of event causes.

Not everything that happens can be caused by a happening, for then one has an infinite regress of happenings. So some things that happen - including, of course, the first happenings - must be caused not by prior happenings, but by substances.

So we know from that argument that substance causation exists. That is, we now know that it is not only events that cause things - substances can as well.

But that leaves entirely open whether the substances that have this power are agents or non-agents.

You're just leaping to the conclusion that they are agents without providing a bridging argument.

What set the plethora of simple substances is motion? There must be a first cause for that too. — Devans99

No, because we're positing a plethora of 'simple' substances. Simple substances exist by their nature and are not caused to exist.

You must already accept the existence of such things, for 'God' is one. What I am saying is that you are not justified in insisting that there is just 'one' such substance. Other things being equal it seems as reasonable - if not more reasonable - to posit a plethora.

Not everything that happens can be caused by a happening, for then one has an infinite regress of happenings. So some things that happen - including, of course, the first happenings - must be caused not by prior happenings, but by substances. — Bartricks

Once we are beyond time, we are beyond the familiar comfort of cause and effect. And therefore beyond the possibility of an infinite causal regress. It must be the case that something created time, but there is no meaning in ordering the event of the creation of time - it took place beyond time.

Substances are causally inert. They only do something if another substance interacts. That cannot precede back forever in an infinite regress. There must be something causally active at the base of the regress.

You must already accept the existence of such things, for 'God' is one. What I am saying is that you are not justified in insisting that there is just 'one' such substance. Other things being equal it seems as reasonable - if not more reasonable - to posit a plethora. — Bartricks

As soon as we posit a plethora and causation that leads back to a first cause.

Once we are beyond time, we are beyond the familiar comfort of cause and effect. And therefore beyond the possibility of an infinite causal regress. — Devans99

That's false and it contradicts your own position. You think God created time - yes? Well, how did he do that if causation itself requires time (which it doesn't)?

That's false and it contradicts your own position. You think God created time - yes? Well, how did he do that if causation itself requires time (which it doesn't)? — Bartricks

I am not entirely sure but causation (cause precedes effect) cannot hold as we know it beyond time.

God would be able to express himself in spacetime without being part of spacetime. So maybe his first expression made spacetime. But that does not mean he is part of spacetime.

If you ask 'how does he tie his own shoelaces?' then I admit I have no answer beyond saying that the human comprehension is limited and we may not ever be able to answer such questions.

I do not see how you're not contradicting yourself.

You think God created time, yes? (I agree - he did).

But you also think causation requires time - yes?

That's contradictory. That means God would be unable to create time until or unless time exists.

Causation does not require time. Time is caused to exist. So clearly causation does not require time, otherwise how could it be caused to exist?

But you also think causation requires time - yes? — Bartricks

Our sort of familiar causation (cause precedes effect) needs time.

That's contradictory. That means God would be unable to create time until or unless time exists. — Bartricks

We do not understand what timeless causation could mean so it is hard to answer. God's first act could have created time. But 'first' has no meaning for a timeless entity.

But your position contains a contradiction - you're saying causation requires time and in the same breath saying that it doesn't.

Does it or doesn't it? If any and all causation requires time, then God can't have caused time to exist, but instead time must be among those simple existences that have not been created.

If, on the other hand, God did create time, then causation does not require time.

But your position contains a contradiction - you're saying causation requires time and in the same breath saying that it doesn't. — Bartricks

It seems that some sort of atemporal causation is required to cause time but this is not the same as our familiar temporal form of causation.

We do not understand what timeless causation could mean so it is hard to answer. God's first act could have created time. But 'first' has no meaning for a timeless entity. — Devans99

We know timeless causation exists, however, for how else was time created? So, timeless causation exists.

We know that substance causation exists, for not every event can have been caused by a prior event.

And by describing God as timeless you are begging the question. God is the creator of time, and he is - now - in time.

And by describing God as timeless you are begging the question. God is the creator of time, and he is - now - in time. — Bartricks

If God is a creature of time, he is dead.