So if the assumption that cause and effect holds universally is correct, we have the result that there must be a first cause and that the first cause itself must be uncaused. Causality appears to be a feature of time - everything in time appears to have a cause - so for something to be uncaused, it seems it would have to be external to time. — Devans99
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
Well, then, I suppose we should "almost certainly" believe in something uncaused. Whatever that's supposed to mean — Ciceronianus the White
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
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
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
So not exactly the God of christianity! It could be flying spaghetti monster (within the above limitations). — Devans99
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
So if the assumption that cause and effect holds universally is correct, we have the result that there must be a first cause and that the first cause itself must be uncaused. Causality appears to be a feature of time - everything in time appears to have a cause - so for something to be uncaused, it seems it would have to be external to time. — Devans99
the end like some kind of theological Tourette's syndrome. — Kenosha Kid
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
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
I tend to think of the creator of the universe as God. I can appreciate that you have a different perspective. — Devans99
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
I think we are splitting hairs here: the first cause must be capable of independent, intelligent, action and be capable of starting time. — Devans99
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! — Devans99
One problem is the speed of light - parts of the universe are moving apart at faster than the speed of light - so this regions are causally disconnected from each other. — Devans99
A creationist may not be able to abide the lack of an intelligent first cause. That does not necessitate an intelligent creator. — Kenosha Kid
Yes, something can be infinite and expanding. The hypothesised inflaton field is such a thing and, unlike God, we can not only hypothesise it, but we can describe exactly how it creates universes if it exists. One-nil to inflatons — Kenosha Kid
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. — Devans99
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. — Devans99
If you say something will expand without end, you are describing the topology of future as some object without end - that is impossible - all objects require a non-zero length to exist and length=end-size so the length for something without end is UNDEFINED - IE not something that could actually exist. — Devans99
There is still no reason why a first cause needs or even wants a intelligent causer — Kenosha Kid
Which is again a creationist's anthropocentric view: I am here, therefore it must all be for me. Meanwhile the universe seems quite ambivalent about us. I would actually agree that if the purpose of the universe was to create life, an intelligent creator would be likely. But since there's no evidence or reason for it other than to console the egos of some hairless apes, we need not consider it. — Kenosha Kid
You needn't even go that far. The universe could quite happily be infinite and expanding now. It is not the boundary of the universe that is expanding: every point is moving away from every adjacent point. If it was just that the universe was getting bigger, that would not explain the fact that every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy right now. — Kenosha Kid
So if the assumption that cause and effect holds universally is correct, we have the result that there must be a first cause and that the first cause itself must be uncaused. Causality appears to be a feature of time - everything in time appears to have a cause - so for something to be uncaused, it seems it would have to be external to time. — Devans99
So it follows that there must be something beyond our universe that 'caused' it to come into existence. But what that is is entirely unknown. To ascribe it to some story of an anthropomorphic god is really quite childish and naïve. — A Seagull
Which is again a creationist's anthropocentric view: I am here, therefore it must all be for me. Meanwhile the universe seems quite ambivalent about us. I would actually agree that if the purpose of the universe was to create life, an intelligent creator would be likely. But since there's no evidence or reason for it other than to console the egos of some hairless apes, we need not consider it. — Kenosha Kid
The first cause must be able to cause something, so it is self-driven, which suggests intelligence. — Devans99
Everything in the universe seems fine tuned for life. Just think about the atom - its an incredibly delicate balancing act - in most universes, matter would simply bounce of itself endlessly or clump together - our universe, we have the balancing act of atoms, and molecules - the absolutely necessary ingredients for life. — Devans99
Nothing can go on forever, it would be without end. Then the length of the future would be end-start=UNDEFINED. Spacetime must have an end or it cannot logically exist. Probably a Big Crunch will happen. — Devans99
The inflation field can cause something and is self-driven — Kenosha Kid
Your body is fine-tuned as a walking bacterium habitat. Do you suppose you were created to house bacteria? The universe is as it is. Lots of things happen in it that have nothing to do with life: supernova, pulsars, neutrino oscillations, the quantum Hall effect, the Casimir effect, the orbit of Mercury, ad infinitum. Life is one of the things that can and did happen. There's no reason, beyond anthropocentrism, to suspect that the universe is specifically for life any more than it is specifically for pulsars. It's sheer arrogance, and a failure to even start to comprehend the scale of the universe, to think it's all about you and yours. — Kenosha Kid
The accelerated expansion of the universe has rather ruled out a big crunch, which required gravity to overcome what was supposed at the time to be a linear or diminishing expansion. And there's no reason why it can't go on forever. The shape of the universe suggests that eternity is on the cards, a heat death most probably, but even if it does end, the inflaton field that might have created it can carry on and on and on.... In fact, quantum mechanics suggests it will do precisely that unless someone measured it or something — Kenosha Kid
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.