The OP reaches a deductive conclusion, but that conclusion is based on the assumption that causality is universal within space time. The assumption of causality seems to be in line with everything we know (at macro level definitely, at micro level too arguably). It is an empirically supported assumption. It is a logically justifiable assumption. But it is still an assumption so we cannot claim certainty - hence I opted for the words 'almost certainly'. — Devans99
1. Why can't there be an infinite chain of causes extending into the past? — TheMadFool
2. If there can't be an infinite chain of causes extending into the past then it's false that everything has a cause and if that's false then why can't the universe be without a cause? — TheMadFool
You are getting very confused:
1. The OP proves (assuming causality) that a timeless first cause is required. The OP has nothing to do with fine tuning and is IN NO WAY CIRCULAR.
2. I made the completely separate argument that the fine tuning argument implies it is very likely that there is intelligence behind the universe. This also is IN NO WAY CIRCULAR. — Devans99
Oh, now you've claimed it twice, it must be true! The caps lock helped too.
P.S. It was definitely circular. — Kenosha Kid
They must have different circles in your parts... — Devans99
Possibly, we don't see many in my neck of the woods. They sure have lots of em in yours though. — Kenosha Kid
Since you are not assuming the existence of an intelligent creator to dismiss scientific models of first causes that don't require an intelligent creator, can I infer that you accept the point that an intelligent creator is not necessary for a first cause after all? Or do you have a justification for why the first cause must be intelligent that doesn't assume an intelligent creator? — Kenosha Kid
Devans99
2.6k
Some guess there is a GOD.
Some guess there are GODS.
Some guess there are no gods.
— Frank Apisa
Can you assign your estimated probabilities to each option? — Devans99
ABSOLUTELY NOT. — Frank Apisa
Timelessness is a mighty puzzle - it maybe unsolvable. — Devans99
ps I don't mean it! Just a joke. — Devans99
The first cause has to cause the second cause. So it must somehow be animate - and I cannot see how something can be animate and not intelligent. — Devans99
Or, still as mostly above, but we traverse through everything, on our world line path already carved out, since we had a particular start. — PoeticUniverse
How can you prove God doesn't exist when you can't even explain the nature of your own existence? — 3017amen
A permanent (timeless or cyclic) thing can be a first cause. The mechanism of the effect can be probabilistic. I'm not saying it is per se, just that it's a bit more economic with assumptions than God. — Kenosha Kid
God also gets us into more bother than he solves. We know he is causal himself: he decides to create a universe. Why this one, why then? What lead up to that? And what led up to that? — Kenosha Kid
The Timeless cannot be any one state in particular because there is no input point to what never began, so, it is everything, and we go on to note that it doesn't remain as anything particular even for an instant, but continually transmutes, according to what we call the laws of nature, in a topological type way—remaining as itself at heart.
Or, still as mostly above, but we traverse through everything, on our world line path already carved out, since we had a particular start. — PoeticUniverse
silence is because it's incredibly boring. God is a word, and an essentially meaningless one -- can mean anything you want it to. — Xtrix
That does not work - the first cause determines the 2nd cause, the 2nd the 3rd - there can be nothing without a first cause. Your picture is a supertask - they are impossible - there is no clearly defined first cause so none of the supertask can exist. — Devans99
Because only in a universe with patterns would there be some patterns capable of thinking about it.
Logically, if humans can ask the question then the universe must allow humans. So, from a purely logical perspective, the answer to the question: "why does the universe allow for life?" is: "because there is life in it". — Echarmion
I think that everything in time has a cause.
We cannot prove this - it is merely an empirical observation - but no-one has ever found any phenomena (at macro level anyway) that is uncaused - so the axiom of causality is about as strong an axiom as there is. Maybe the law of the excluded middle is stronger, but there is not much else. — Devans99
The only evidence we have about anything prior to the BigBang is what we learn from studying the aftermath : the "creation". In my personal worldview, I took the Quantum Theory "evidence" that everything in the world consists of various forms of Generic Information (causal power), which I call "EnFormAction". Shannon Information = destructive Entropy; Boltzman Information = creative Energy; Traditional Information = Mental substance; EnFormAction = cause of all of those forms.I have never made my mind up on panentheism. A simplistic way of looking at it: In the beginning there was:
1. God. He made the universe from part of his own substance.
2. God and some stuff. He made the universe from stuff.
I have no evidence either way so it seems like 50%/50% for/against panentheism — Devans99
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.